Last week the town East Windsor lifted the veil somewhat on two sites that the town is offering as potential sites for what would be Connecticut’s third Indian casino. That brings the total number of proposals in East Windsor to three.
Both sites are a short distance from Interstate 91. One is a site of a new defunct cinema while the other was once a Wal-Mart. Both will be offered to the tribal entity put in charge of identifying a site for the casino: MMCT, a joint venture of the Mohegan and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribes.
The original proposed site is on 33 acres. The developer would be Centerplan Cos. This is the site that is the preferred option by the town’s board of selectmen. However, many residents ask that the other sites be presented as possible options, especially the Showcase Cinemas site.
The casino is envisioned as competition to the $950 million MGM Springfield that is expected to open about a dozen miles away in the autumn of 2018. MMCT is aiming to open the third, satellite casino, long before that date.
Last year Mohegan Tribal Council Chairman Kevin Brown said, “This process began to preserve thousands of jobs and millions in revenue which will leave Connecticut, the loss of which MGM has repeatedly acknowledged is necessary to make their project in Springfield a success.”
He added, “As members of communities with deep ties to this state, we’re simply not going to let that happen without a fight. With this phase complete, we can now begin to engage interested parties and save Connecticut jobs.”
MMCT said that it welcomed another possible site from the town. Other towns that have said they want to host a casino are Hartford, East Hartford and Windsor Locks.
East Windsor officials are working on information that would lead to holding a local referendum on the sites. They say they need to know how big the casino would be, how many employees it will have and how it might affect local traffic.
In Hartford, meanwhile, the Hartford Courant reported that Bradley International Airport’s Executive Director Kevin Dillon has proposed an “interim” casino that it says it could open in six months at the existing Sheraton Hartford Hotel. It would then build a permanent casino at Terminal B of the airport or at the new transportation center.
Dillon told the Courant, “We do believe it could be up and running relatively quickly.” If Dillon’s timeline were to be followed, the satellite casino could beat the opening of the MGM Springfield by two years.
Andrew Doba, a spokesman for MMCT, last week issued a statement that the company is still choosing a site and hasn’t set a deadline. “[W]e are aggressively working through our internal process to assure that we meet our goal — building a facility that preserves Connecticut jobs and revenue.”
Taxes too. Since the two tribal casinos opened two decades ago they have paid about $7 billion into a special reserve fund for the state.
Last August MGM Resort filed a legal challenge in federal court to the Connecticut law that allows the tribes to identify a site. It claims that the law violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause because, it claims, it has been prevented from participating in the process for choosing a site and an operator.
In a separate but related development the Secretary of State’s office admitted to making a mistake when it gave the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation authorization to claim that it too could build a tribal casino in the state.
Last week Tribal Chairman Richard Velky issued a press release that declared, “We are pleased the State of Connecticut has granted us this authority, and in accordance with Section 1(b) of Special Act No. 15-7 we intend in due course to issue a request for proposals to municipalities regarding the establishment of a possible casino gaming facility in a municipality. We view this as a significant economic development opportunity.”
The act passed by the General Assembly last year applied only to the Mohegan and Pequot tribes, which operate two casinos in the state. It does not include any other tribes.
The morning after Velky issued his statement the Secretary of State’s office issued a clarification.
Secretary of State Denise Merrill said, “The special act created a unique situation that raised the bar for review. In this case it looks like the application was received in error.”
