Natchez city leaders will illustrate exactly why it’s not wise for the City to handle negotiations with developers themselves.

To give credit where credit is due, city leaders should be applauded for seeking outside counsel in negotiating with would-be casino developers. Clearly, when the developers proposed a one-sided lease amendment, the city aldermen wisely realized they were in over their heads and needed help.

We hope and pray that the city’s outside counsel can make sense of the lease-option agreement originally signed in 2007.

The document was, in our view, flawed from the beginning, providing no clear timeline by which the casino’s operations were to have been under way. Nearly five years later, we can see the flaw in that logic.

What happens if the group never manages to get a working casino operating? Can they sit on the site for the remainder of the lease?

Similarly, what happens if they get the casino operating, then decide its not making enough money to remain a viable business? Does the site still remain in their control?

These are important matters — among many more like it — and they need to be weighed carefully.

Beyond its original flawed language, it remains unclear to many residents if the lease option was ever properly consummated into a full-blown lease or not.

The fever of a municipal election year can make elected officials make decisions that may be regretted later. The City is wise to move carefully and cautiously.

We might be wise if significant decisions were delayed until after the upcoming elections entirely.