MGM Resorts International continues to lobby for its proposed $675 million casino resort in Bridgeport, Connecticut’s largest city.
Opponents of gaming expansion stress the dangers of social ills and the burden on the existing municipal infrastructure.
Some members of the Bridgeport city council want to empower an ad hoc committee to examine the pros and cons of the MGM proposal.
Councilmember Kyle Langan, noting that the state hasn’t yet opened up the possibility of bidding on a commercial casino, much less the one that MGM is promoting, said, “No one is saying it’s a foregone conclusion the casino’s coming,” he said. “We don’t want our citizens to get excited about a job or angry about a casino coming, because it isn’t happening yet. The goal is to get ahead of whatever happens.”
Langan and four others on the council support a vote to create a committee composed of federal, state and city officials, residents and stakeholders. “The goal is to say, ‘If this does come, what would be the impact, socially economically, on our city?’” said Langan.
MGM’s proposal is part of a strategic battle it is waging against the state’s two gaming tribes, the Mohegans, owners of the Mohegan Sun and the Pequots, owners of Foxwoods.
MGM is building the MGM Springfield, 14 miles across the border in Massachusetts. The tribes have formed a joint authority, MMCT Venture, to build a casino in East Windsor, near the state line, to try to capture as many residents as possible who might drive to Springfield.
They have held a demolition celebration at East Windsor for a casino that probably won’t open for two years at least. Meanwhile MGM is fishing in their waters by proposing the Bridgeport casino that would lure the New York City market. It is heavily lobby the legislature to change the law that last year authorized the tribes to build a commercial casino in East Windsor, and to instead open a third casino to ALL bidders.
Many officials in Bridgeport support MGM’s proposal, which could bring many benefits to the city in the form of a host community agreement where the casino developer would pay an annual amount.
Langan’s proposal is unclear whether the committee would merely study the ramifications of a casino or actually make a recommendation to the council pro or con. Mayor Joe Ganim, who supports the casino, is opposed to giving the committee that kind of leeway.
The Rev. Cass Shaw, head of the Council of Churches of Greater Bridgeport, and a gaming opponent, is skeptical of such a committee. “If they seat a committee with people who are in favor of bringing MGM here, then it will be clear they’re simply trying to figure out the most effective way to pave the way,” he told the Connecticut Post. “If they seat it with all sides of the debate about whether this is good for Bridgeport, then we’re really talking about a committee that could help the city make an informed decision.”
Last year MGM paid for a phone poll of 500 residents in which 74 percent supported a casino, while 18 percent were against.
Meanwhile the legislature is considering legislation that would make it possible for MGM to make its pitch. Lawmakers are also mulling bills that would allow the state lottery to sell some online tickets while others want the state to assemble regulations for sports betting just in case the Supreme Court lifts the current ban on it. It is one of 20 states taking this precaution.
The General Assembly’s Public Safety and Security Committee was scheduled to begin hearings on all of these gambling-related bills last week but they had to be rescheduled due to a forecast of snow, the second time white weather had delayed them.
