At first three satellite casinos were proposed to help Connecticut’s two gaming tribes fend off competition from nearby Massachusetts. However the bipartisan bill the Senate passed last week and forwarded to the House calls for only one, which most presume will be north of Hartford, the state capitol.
In fact, since the bill only authorizes the tribes to talk to a community about siting a future casino, rather than actually authorizing such a facility, many see it as largely symbolic, pushing the actual vote on a casino or casinos back until 2016.
“This has really become a two-step process and we need to make sure we do that process to save the 9,000 jobs that we’re so concerned about,” commented State Senator Bob Duff, the second-ranking member in the Senate previous to the vote.
The Senate vote was 20-16 in favor of the single casino. Now it’s the House’s turn to debate the bill.
Undoubtedly many lawmakers were worried about warnings from Attorney General George Jepsen’s office that the law might be unconstitutional and might violate the state tribal gaming compacts between Connecticut and the Mohegan and Pequot tribes.
In fact, the bill’s supporters had asked for the AG to give his stamp of approval on the new version. However, the AG’s special counsel, Robert Clark, did anything but put their worries to rest. Instead, he suggested it is possible that the Department of the Interior could rule that the tribes don’t need to pay a share of their slot revenues to the state any longer.
The Attorney General’s office also declined a request by the Mohegan and Pequot tribes to assist them in asking for a statement from the Department of the Interior that the proposed bill would not violate existing compacts.
When the tribes then offered to sign a promise that they would not ask the state for a new compact, Clark wrote, “While an agreement by the tribes and informal guidance by Department of the Interior may help mitigate some of the risk we outlined in our April 15, 2015, letter to legislative leaders, they would not eliminate those risks.”
Later a spokesman for Jepsen commented, “The draft amendment, as we understand it, does not legalize casino gaming in the state of Connecticut,’’ adding, “Legislation that does not authorize casino gaming would have no impact on the current agreements between the tribes and the state and would not increase or otherwise affect the likelihood of the state being obligated under federal law to negotiate a gaming compact with tribes that may gain federal recognition in the future.’’
Jepsen originally put lawmakers on notice that the law might be flawed when he sent a memo to the Assembly last month that said, “Given the unique nature and history of the state’s gaming relationships with the tribes, there is very little in the way of legal precedent or guidance that allows for a confident analysis of these complex and uncertain legal questions.” At the end of that letter he added that he was “unable to predict with any certainty how a court would resolve such issues.”
The bill requires that the tribes nail down a development agreement with an agreeable community before bringing that choice back to the assembly for approval. The bill does not require the community to approve of the casino with an election. That detail is left to the host community’s discretion.
Senate Republican Leader Len Fasano, one of the no votes, noted that the tribes don’t need the legislature’s approval to talk to a city about locating a casino there.
“What this bill does is say: we as a legislature are asking you as a tribe and you as municipalities, if you’re interested, to get together and work hard with the Department of Consumer Protection . . . to put forth a project that we don’t know if we can pass,” Fasano said. “That we don’t know if we can legally do.” He called the AG’s warnings a “red flag,” that lawmakers should heed.
Another opponent, Senator Tony Hwang, declared, “We potentially open a can of worms, a Pandora’s box of due process and equal access among other potential Indian tribes and the Steve Wynns and the gambling establishment as a whole,” adding, “The fact is we have not done a thorough analysis of the societal cost of gambling.”
The freshman senator has become the most vocal opponent of casino expansion in the Nutmeg state.
The state’s Indian gaming industry is looking down the wrong end of a gun barrel that is pointed at it from Springfield, Massachusetts, where MGM is set to start building a $800 million casino that, when it opens in 2017, could prove disastrous for Foxwoods and the Mohegan Sun. It wouldn’t be good for the state either, which collects 25 percent of tribal gaming revenues, or about $280 million annually.
Built two decades ago, the Pequots and Mohegans reached the summit of their profitability in 2007, just before the onset of the Great Recession. In that year the tribes paid the state $430 million. By most conservative estimates competition could cause that number to plummet to $189 million by 2018.
Jobs are the main concern of workers who lobbies the lawmakers before the vote. One pit boss said that he would be forced to leave the state to find work if the new casino is not built.
The tribes hired New England gaming expert Clyde Barrow to prepare a market analysis to show if even only one $300 million casino was built that it would generate $300 million a year in revenue and create 2,000 jobs. Failing to do so, wrote Barrow would probably mean the loss of over 9,000 jobs by 2019 to both the Bay State and the Empire State, which is also building new casinos.
Governor Dannel P. Malloy is staying neutral on the issue, although he has echoed Jepsen’s warnings about the “substantial” legal issues the bill stirs up. However, he was clear in stating, “This is not my legislation. This is not my fight.”
Although the bill does not actually do anything, the tribes chose to see it as a positive step. Patty McQueen, representing both tribes, said before the Senate vote, “The legislation before the General Assembly enables the Tribes and the state to continue those conversations while also beginning the effort to protect jobs and revenue.”
Many locations have been discussed as potential locations for a casino, mainly along Interstates 95, 91 and 84. More and more, however, the focus is on the area between Springfield, Mass. and Hartford.
Officials in East Hartford and East Windsor have said they would be interested in hosting a casino and both have land available that could be used for that purpose, including a now defunct cinema complex in East Windsor, a closed Walmart, also in East Windsor, and a closed casino in East Hartford.
Ted Taylor, president of Sportech Venues who has operated an eatery, sports bar and off-track betting facility in Windsor Locks called Bobby V’s for about a year, would like to add slots machines to compete with the Springfield MGM to protect his own business, which includes a total of 15 such parimutuel wagering venues throughout the state.
Taylor told the Republican, We’re still discussing the various different options that may be appropriate.”
Steven N. Wawruck Jr., who is a Windsor Locks selectman declared, “To me, it’s a win-win situation here in Windsor Locks. Gambling is in place; let’s just expand it to the slots.” He also wants to protect Bobby V’s, which he believes would be hurt financially if a casino in another town. He told the Republican, “If it goes in East Hartford or East Windsor, it’s going to drain Bobby V’s. I’m basically trying to protect the investment, the jobs there. … That’s my prime interest.”
Recently the Board of Selectmen authorized local officials to explore bringing a casino to the city, including scheduling a referendum. They are working with people who would also like to promote the idea of turning the Bradley Airport corridor into alternative airport hub the airports in Boston and New York.
In East Hartford a group is trying to interest the tribes in turning the defunct Showcase Cinema into a casino.
