Answering criticism that it lacks standing to challenge a Connecticut law that authorizes two Indian tribes to begin preparations to build a satellite casino, MGM Resorts International, which is suing the overturn the law, claimed last week that it had a genuine interest in competing to build such a casino.
The Connecticut attorney general in defending the law from a federal lawsuit contends that MGM’s gaming license prevents it from competing with the Springfield casino within a radius of 50 miles. The satellite casino is intended to be located near the border between the two states.
In papers filed with the court MGM countered last week that there are several potential sites for such a casino beyond the 50-mile radius. One such location is Bridgeport, says MGM. Bridgeport officials have pursued a casino at various times since the early 1990s.
Meanwhile the Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot tribes—acting under the law that MGM is challenging—released a request for proposals for the satellite casino—the casino that would be targeting revenues that MGM’s Springfield casino will be poised to drain away from the Bay State. They hope to build the casino somewhere north of Hartford.
The tribes’ agent, Barbara Pearce of Pearce Real Estate, which is handling the RFP, said, “The two tribes want what any buyer would want: the easiest possible site to develop in the shortest amount of time with the fewest costs.”
Landowners and municipalities may submit applications before the November 6 deadline. A decision will be made by December 15.
According to Pequot Chairman Rodney Butler they are looking at a 12-15 month timeframe for construction.
Mohegan Chairman Kevin Brown added, “Massachusetts opened their doors to gaming because they recognized the very same thing we are talking about here today for Connecticut. Casinos equals jobs. Casinos equals revenue. And it equals revenues that aren’t lost across borders to another state,”
The RFP was released in the name of the tribes’ joint enterprise, MM4CT. It will act according to rules created by the gaming act adopted in June. The tribes claim that the casino will help preserve 9,300 jobs that they believe are threatened by a combination of the Springfield casino and the Wynn Everett.
Meanwhile 200 residents in Enfield, one of the communities that has shown an interest in a casino, attended a “community conversation” in which most of those attending said they didn’t like the idea.
Only two out of 40 people who spoke said they favored a casino in Enfield. Claire Thomas declared, “It’s not good for our children and schools, family values would be eroded, traffic is already horrendous.”
Another anti-casino resident, Annemarie Olsen, said, “Crime will infiltrate throughout the town, there’ll be more break-ins at houses, every resident and homeowner will be affected. I’ve lived in Enfield all my life, I lived here when Enfield was Thompsonville, I don’t want to consider moving my family away because I do not want to live with a casino monster in Enfield.”
The meeting was putting together by the town council and the management of Enfield Square Mall, which wants to convert an old cinema building into a 152,000 square foot casino. The project would also include a 300-room hotel, restaurants, entertainment and parking structure for 1,200 automobiles. The mall company wants to do something to reverse the slow decline the mall has experienced.
Some residents, like Ken Edgar, said they sympathized with the company. He said he wanted to hear more before saying “no.” “I want to see lower taxes. What else will bring us some development, jobs?” he said. “I really haven’t seen anything else to help out.”
Gerald Macsata, an opponent, was skeptical that any such casino would prevent players from going to the MGM Springfield. “Why stop here when Springfield is right up the road?” he asked.
Enfield Mayor Scott Kaupin is against the casino idea, but felt he ought to let the proponents make their case. “I have to base it off all the contact I’ve received, which has been overwhelmingly against,” he said.
