Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen is asking that a federal court dismiss the 2015 lawsuit by MGM Resorts that challenges the law adopted by the legislature last summer that allow the state’s gaming tribes to choose a location for a third casino that both would operate.
In the December 30 filing the state maintains that MGM’s lawsuit, which was filed in August, is frivolous because the law does not harm MGM. MGM argues that because the law is clearly aimed at awarding a new casino license to the existing gaming tribes that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. Its customer base will suffer as a result of the law, it says, and it is being discriminated against because it is not allowed to bid for the third casino license.
The law is clearly aimed at MGM Resorts, it argues, by attempting to prevent its planned $950 million MGM Springfield from draining state residents away to play a few miles across the state line. This casino is poised to lose 9,800 jobs that are now provided by the Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods.
The law allowed for the creation of an entity, MMCT Venture, which will operate the joint casino, if it is authorized, and which is operating the process for picking a casino site.
The state says that MGM is simply trying to stop a competing casino from opening, or at least to delay it. According to a filing by the state, “The gaming act could not be clearer; it does not authorize anyone to operate a commercial casino in Connecticut. Nor does it remotely guarantee that anyone will ever be able to operate a commercial casino in Connecticut. That should be fatal to MGM’s attempt to establish standing. Ultimately, Connecticut law did not, and does not, prevent MGM from taking steps toward developing a Connecticut commercial casino.”
Jepson also argues that just because the law allows the two tribes to seek site proposals doesn’t mean that the tribes have been given the go ahead to build.
“The possible future commercial casino at issue has not been authorized and may never be authorized, and, even if it were, MGM cannot credibly allege that it would compete for [all potential sites] because MGM admits that it could not bid on a casino in most of Connecticut because of the 50-mile radius restriction.” When MGM obtained its license to operate a casino in Springfield it promised not to build a competitive casino within a 50-mile radius.
MGM counters that, “What people seem to be missing here is that bill passed last year opens the door to commercial gaming. As such, the state should also have put in place a fair, open, transparent and competitive process. That’s what other states do when they create a path to state-endorsed commercial casinos. But Connecticut didn’t do that.”
MMCT Venture says it is expected to choose a site for the satellite casino sometime this year.
It is aiming at building a $300 million jointly run casino to compete against the MGM Springfield, an idea that MGM has dismissed as a “box of slots.”
One such proposed site is a 33-acre parcel in East Windsor, whose exact location was revealed last week by East Windsor First Selectman Bob Maynard. The developer is CenterPlan Cos.
The parcel currently hosts a U-Haul rental and a farm equipment sales store. This is a different location from the property with a former Wal-Mart and defunct cinema building, which has been the subject of discussion up to this point.
Other communities that have submitted applications are Hartford, East Hartford and Windsor Locks.
Maynard said that the town is waiting to hear from MMCT before moving forward, but added that any proposal will be decided by a referendum.
