The Connecticut Airport Authority is under increasing criticism for keeping all of its plans for a proposal to build the state’s third Indian casino at the Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks under wraps.
Last week a writer for the Hartford Courant wrote that the authority had had four secret meetings on the proposal since October.
“Behind closed doors, a plan that would have a profound impact on Windsor Locks and surrounding communities was proposed, or revised, or finalized. Or all three. They won’t say, so we don’t know,” wrote the Courant.
The authority board, appointed by state officials and lawmakers, oversees the state’s airports.
In answer to the criticism the authority has said that the public can find out details of the meetings once a deal has been adopted.
That, says critics, will be too late and won’t address resident’s concerns about issues such as the effects on emergency services, road maintenance and other mitigations.
Recently the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, hired by MGM Resorts to analyze the Connecticut casino industry—and not a friend of the state’s efforts to add a third casino—raised the possibility of such a casino failing and becoming in the Center’s term, “a zombie.”
The Courant concluded, “These are legitimate, serious and substantive alarms that can’t be ignored. Yet, all we hear from the airport authority is silence.”
With two weeks remaining in the state’s General Assembly session, political observers think it unlikely that it will adopt a proposal to authorize a third casino that would be operated by the state’s two gaming tribes.
The legislative Public Safety Committee, which oversees gambling in the state, considers this issue very complicated. Rep. Stephen D. Dargan last week told the Connecticut Post, “It’s a work in progress. Every time that we look at the expansion of gaming it’s a complicated issue with a lot of money involved. You know there’s a big interest when everybody in the building that represents somebody is representing one side or another.”
At this point the tribes haven’t selected a site, which is why the Airport Authority is still meeting in secret about it. Beside Windsor Locks, three other locations are also being considered.
The tribes hope to get a casino up and running before MGM Resorts is able to open its $800 million MGM Springfield, which is projected for late in 2018.
Until the tribes select a site Speaker of the House Brendan Sharkey said the legislature is unlikely to act. “Until they pick that location there’s not much we can do legislatively to move that ball forward,” he said last week. “As every day goes by it’s less likely for us to act.”
This week one possible stumbling block to that action happened when the Department of the Interior told the two tribes that they could legally operate a casino together.
A year ago state Attorney General George Jepson warned that the joint casino operation would require the approval of the federal government.
Last week the tribes were waving around a letter from the Interior Department’s Bureau of Indian Affairs stating that the third casino plan would not conflict with existing federal law or with the exclusivity provisions of the state’s compacts with the two tribes.
The letter was from Lawrence S. Roberts, acting assistant secretary for Indian Affairs for the Department of the Interior. He wrote that the existing compacts, “would not be affected by a new state-authorized casino.”
Mohegan Chairman Kevin Brown hailed the news, “Working together with state leaders, we’re fighting to build a third gaming facility and mitigate these losses.” He added, “This confirmation from the BIA is an important step in the process, and we want to thank everyone for their work.”
MGM Executive Vice President Alan Feldman criticized the tribes, saying they “asked a very carefully, narrowly tailored question in order to receive a very carefully worded answer,” adding “They didn’t ask the BIA to review ‘with great scrutiny,’ which is exactly what they’ll have to do if and when they want final approval from the federal government.”
Last summer the legislature passed Special Act 15-7, which authorized the Mohegan and Pequot tribes to jointly identify a site for the third casino. This week the co-tribal entity MMCT Venture announced that new revenue-sharing amendments to the compacts wouldn’t be submitted to the legislature until next year. By then, it hopes to have chosen the location for the third casino.
Meanwhile MGM continues with its federal lawsuit to try to overturn Special Act 15-7, which it argues violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The state has not be secretive that is whole purpose in promoting a third casino is to prevent the MGM Grand from draining away so much revenue from Foxwoods and the Mohegan Sun and to try to preserve thousands of jobs.
Dargan declared recently, “Are we looking to protect a revenue stream? Yes, of course we are. It would be wrong not to.”
State Senator Tim Largson, who represents East Hartford added, “This will help save jobs in Connecticut and insulate against deteriorating revenue to the state. I think we’ll know within 60 days where the casino will be located.”
Springfield is less than 6 miles from the Connecticut state line. Its business plan calls for at least a third of its customers coming from the greater Hartford area. It relies on being closer to that urban area than Foxwoods and the Mohegan Sun area.
MGM’s legal team is head by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
Despite the lawsuit, MGM’s Alan Feldman pooh-poohs the idea that the slots parlor proposed as a third casino will harm Springfield’s casino. He admits there will be an impact but added that he was “very confident that the $950 million investment in entertainment, restaurants, shopping, and gaming at MGM Springfield will compete with anyone — certainly with a small slot parlor in Hartford.”
Meanwhile, noting that Connecticut may possibly have become a bit too reliant on casino revenue, a Springfield city council member, council president Michael A. Fenton, wants to make sure that his city won’t make the same mistake.
Fenton, the only casino skeptic on his council, told the Boston Globe, “Connecticut clearly fell into the trap of expecting casino dollars to keep paying for basic services. That’s something, on the city level, we are going to avoid. We are not going to make the same mistake.” He added, “We’re going to find a way to restrict spending that casino money.”
