After more than a year, and two rounds of proposals, Connecticut’s two gaming tribes, the Pequots and the Mohegans, have eliminated three cities from their list of possible sites for the third, satellite casino—narrowing the choices down to East Windsor and Windsor Locks. Already one of the rejected suitors has promised a fight, and says he will appeal to the legislature.
The cities eliminated from consideration are South Windsor, Hartford and East Hartford. All the sites being considered are in the I-91 Corridor that links Hartford, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts, the most traveled road in the state.
The joint tribal authority, MMCT Venture first extended the deadline in September because more municipalities were interested in applying to host a casino. The tribes have estimated that the satellite casino would cost between $200 million – $300 million.
Now that the process has narrowed the sites down to two, MMCT last week said more time was needed for an “exhaustive review” of the remaining sites. Pequot tribal Chairman Rodney Butler commented, “After a detailed economic analysis, we’ve determined that East Windsor and Windsor Locks align best with our development models and preserved more jobs and revenue for the state.” He added, “Ultimately, wherever we build this facility, we are committed to be excellent neighbors, dedicated to helping the Capitol Region succeed.”
But the General Assembly began its 2017 session last week, highlighting the fact that time is not on the tribes’ side.
The tribes emphasized the importance of their joint project with a visit by Chairman Rodney Butler of the Mashantucket Pequots and Chairman Kevin Brown of the Mohegans to Governor Dannel P. Malloy on the second day of the new session. They combined this with the announcement that they are now ready to lobby lawmakers to authorize the casino once they finalize their choice. Malloy remains officially neutral on the project.
His office’s only response to the visit was to issue this statement: “We value and respect our relationship with the tribal nations and the role that casinos play as employers in our state. Regarding the potential for a third casino, the General Assembly proposed and adopted legislation creating a process for the potential siting for this type of development. That process is playing out in an appropriate manner, one step at a time, and our administration is closely watching as it progresses.”
Brown told the Connecticut Mirror: “We’re here to tell him we have a plan for moving forward.” He added, “We’ve made some decisions.”
MMCT Venture was formed when the two erstwhile competitors came to the realization that they needed to work together to blunt competition from the $950 million MGM Springfield rising just 14 miles from the Massachusetts state line.
The tribes claim that such a casino will save the state the loss $68 million in annual gaming revenues and more than 9,000 jobs.
The legislature in 2015 authorized the two tribes to identify a possible site for a third casino and the first applications were submitted in November 2015. The tribes evaluated each site using criteria that included the economic impact that each site would receive. The legislature’s approval must still be given for the third casino to be built.
However, the state does have a strong incentive to do so. Tribal gaming contributes $250 million annually to the budget. Some critics warn that the third casino, being a commercial casino rather than one based on a reservation, might endanger those funds. They also worry about the legal issues involved in the state government showing favoritism to the tribes, in effect giving them an illegal monopoly.
Attorney General George Jepsen’s 2015 warning of the potential risks of giving the tribes a monopoly prompted the legislature to take a go slow approach.
Jepsen’s six-page memo warned that such an action could jeopardize the existing tribal gaming compacts, which give exclusive rights for slot machines to the tribes in exchange for 25 percent of the gross revenues. He also warned of the risks if another tribe in the state were to obtain federal recognition. He also warned of the possible violation to the U.S. Constitution of giving exclusive rights to the tribes. This is, of course, the very objection that MGM has raised in its lawsuits.
At that time the legislature chose to punt the issue through the largely symbolic act that merely grants the tribes the right to search for a site. Nevertheless, it sparked a lawsuit from MGM. That left until this year the thornier issues raised by Jepsen’s memo.
The site under consideration in East Windsor is a now unused cinema that overlooks the Interstate. The tribes have an option on the land. But, according to MMCT spokesman Andrew Doba, they are also considering locations in Windsor Locks, including the Bradley International Airport.
He added that the tribes are working with local authorities to create community forums to talk to local residents about what a casino would mean to them.
MGM International has fought tenaciously against this process at every turn, including several challenges in federal court. In August 2015 MGM filed a lawsuit that alleged that the law passed by the legislature violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and unfairly prevented MGM from participating in the casino siting process.
Last week MGM spokesman Bernard Kavaler said, “The fact that we are where we are speaks volumes about the process or lack of process. This really gets to the process: it’s a sham. It’s being run by the tribes for the tribes, not the taxpayers. Instead of having a very public process that is competitive, fair, reliable and transparent, everyone seems to be waiting for an announcement from the tribes for what they want to do next.”
“This is not the right way for a state to enter into its first commercial casino,” said MGM spokesman Alan Feldman. “The right way is what we’ve been suggesting all along: The state should scrap the current law and adopt a new one that guarantees a fair, open, transparent, and most important, a competitive process. One that allows all qualified bidders to compete. That’s the only way the state is going to maximize the number of jobs that can be created, and the amount of gaming revenue that can be generated.”
Feldman said that a study commissioned by MGM shows “southwest Connecticut is the location that would result in the creation of many more jobs and the raising of significantly more revenue than would a casino in north central Connecticut.”
MGM is also calling for more transparency in the process and demanding that the tribes release the economic analysis that prompted them to choose East Windsor and Windsor Locks as their preferred sites. “MMCT has indicated that the economic analysis was pivotal in their decision-making, and officials at the state and local levels, have a right to see the study firsthand,” Feldman declared. “Communities should not be negotiating in the dark, and the public should not be kept in the dark.”
Originally MMCT had wanted to open the third casino before the MGM Springfield, but since that is expected by the end of 2018, beating it seems increasingly unlikely.
Significant challenges remain. Not the least of which is convincing legislators to back the bill, and to overcome the continuous barrage of legal challenges from MGM. MGM also plans a major push to lobby lawmakers to oppose the tribes’ plan.
At the Democratic convention, last year Butler, who was a delegate, hosted a breakfast where Senator Jon Tester of Montana, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Indian Affairs subcommittee, spoke.
MGM has its own big guns, including former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who heads up MGM’s legal team.
Meanwhile, Anthony W. Ravosa Jr., who has proposed a casino for East Hartford, is suddenly the odd man out. But Ravosa, of Silver Lane Partners, says he doesn’t intend to give up. He too is calling for more transparency in the process, and criticized the current process as “secretive.”
“You see who the two finalists are, but there’s nothing specific as to the actual locations.” Ravosa said during his press conference. “It’s absolutely ridiculous.”
In a news conference that followed the tribes’ announcement, Ravosa declared, “The state has a rightful place at the table as a major stakeholder in this decision and there should be no capitulation at this time.” He added, “The General Assembly should not simply abdicate to MMCT’s wishes based purely on their say so.”
Ravosa accuses the tribes of putting the interests of their two existing casinos, Foxwoods and the Mohegan Sun, above the state’s interest by choosing sites that would not impact their existing income.
He alleges that during a December 16 private meeting he attended with MMCT officials Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority Senior Vice President Gary Luderitz, said, “What may be in the best interest of the state may not necessarily be in the best interest of the tribes.”
“I’ve dealt with this long-standing philosophical approach that they’ve got to get up I-91 because somehow, some way, being 10 or 12 or 13 miles farther north is going to be less impactful to their existing operations,” he said. “Why is anyone going to drive up 91, stop at an MMCT casino as opposed to driving on to a close to billion-dollar enterprise that’s located in the heart of downtown Springfield?”
Doba retorted, “Mr. Ravosa can say whatever he likes. But the facts on this issue are simple – if MGM wins, Connecticut loses. Comments from a developer whose site was not selected don’t change that equation.”
Doba added, “With all due respect to Mr. Ravosa, he believes East Hartford is the best site because he has the option on the land, and it would have been good for him personally if East Hartford was selected.” He added, “But he’s not the one who wants to invest hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money. And he doesn’t have all the facts when it comes to picking the ideal location.”
Ravosa, who is a former city councilmen for Springfield, has an option on the Showcase Cinemas along I-84 in East Hartford. He started with a smaller casino plan, then expanded it—then expanded it again to include the Radisson hotel in downtown Hartford as a partner.
He said he will continue to argue for that site, pointing out that the traffic on I-84 will provide for greater exposure. That Interstate’s traffic, he said, exceeds that of I-91 north of East Windsor and the road that leads to the Bradley International Airport, with 131,000 vehicles a day for his site; 36,000 higher than on I-91 north, and 75,000 more than what goes through the road that serves the airport.
His site would also need less time to develop, he said, because no referendum would be required and many approvals are already in place.
He declared, “Ultimately, we’re going to take our case to the General Assembly, and to the public would be to return real revenue to the state happens to be in East Hartford.” He added, “It’s incumbent on the General Assembly to do its job to look at all the proposals that went in and make their own judgment call.” He said he was “absolutely committed to staying the course . . .”
Ravosa’s original $138 million proposal called for as many as 2,000 slots, dining, taverns, a dance club and 1,200 parking spaces. His expanded proposal included as many as 3,000 slots, full service restaurants, fast food, bars and a dance club.
