MGM Springfield presented information on its proposed downsizing of its proposed casino resort in Springfield’s South End, which will, it says, still exceed 0 million in cost. In fact, said MGM Resorts International President Bill Hornbuckle, the projected cost is now 0 million.
Hornbuckle and other company associates made the presentation to city officials and took questions during a city forum.
“The reality is that this project will exceed $950 million. I wish it didn’t. I wish we could do it for less. But we can’t,” said the corporate president. “We made commitments to this community we are going to honor.”
The company wants to eliminate a 25-story hotel and replace it with a six-story hotel that would still have 250 rooms. It would also move a residential apartment complex from the casino footprint to another location.
Rising building costs have mandated the proposed changes, which amounts to a 11 percent downsizing Hornbuckle said, not the 14 percent that some reports had said. He emphasized that the hits were to parts of the project that the public will never see, such as employee dining and loading docks.
Springfield Chief Development Officer Kevin Kennedy last week predicted that state and city regulatory approvals for the casino will come before the end of the year. Necessary actions to get the casino moving again will be positive votes by the city council, the state gaming commission and the city Planning and Economic Development Departments, which must deem the developer’s application complete. The state Department of Environmental Protection must also give the stamp of approval to MGM’s revised environmental impact statement.
Recently Richard McGowan, an associate professor of Boston College’s Carroll School of Management, whose specialty is the gaming industry, asserted that MGM has altered how it looks at the Springfield facility. He told the New Boston Post: “The Springfield casino is now viewed by MGM as a regional casino and not a destination casino.”
The Bay State no longer appears to be as attractive to gaming developers as in days past according to some industry experts and MGM’s scaling back is representative of that changing attitude.
“Right now the market is well-served to saturated, but if the existing casinos make the defensive moves they are trying for, it will get over-saturated,” Alan Woinski, president of Gaming USA Corp. said last week. His company monitors gaming developments in the U.S. Woinski warned that the Massachusetts gaming market might be able to absorb three casinos, but a fourth one might be problematic.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is still considering awarding a commercial license for the southeastern zone, despite the fact that the logjam that was holding up the Mashpee Wampanoag from building its $500 million project in Taunton has been split asunder.
Adding another complication to the New England gaming scene is the joint effort by Connecticut’s two gaming tribes to build a satellite casino to try to keep the MGM Springfield from draining off large amount’s of their gaming profits.
“Even if the Southeastern Massachusetts casino and the tribal Mashpee property would both open, they may be able to co-exist, but changes in other states will cause problems for all existing and future casinos,” said the analyst.
Wynn Everett
The mayor of the City of Somerville is opposed to a footbridge across the Mystic River that would connect his city to the Wynn Everett—and has vowed to fight it.
Mayor Joseph Curtatone, a consistent opponent to Wynn’s casino told the Boston Globe last week that such a bridge, which would ease the way for casino employees who walk to work, “would benefit Steve Wynn and Steve Wynn only.” However, such a footbridge has been proposed for at least a decade, although Wynn Resorts dusted off the proposal a few months ago and paid for a feasibility study.
Meanwhile Steve Wynn’s defamation lawsuit against an unknown John Doe who he claims leaked a set of subpoenas that contained alleged defamatory information about Wynn to the Boston Globe is moving forward.
Judge Janet Sanders of the Suffolk Superior Court has authorized Wynn attorneys to question under other a key aide to Boston Mayor Marty Walsh as well as the outside counsel Walsh hired to pursue its lawsuit against the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to overturn the commission’s awarding of the Boston metro casino license to Wynn.
The ruling doesn’t name anyone, but the description fits Eugene O’Flaherty, the city’s corporate counsel and Thomas Frongillo, the city’s outside counsel.
The subpoenas from the city’s lawsuit were leaked to the press before being filed. Wynn’s suit claims that they were not subpoenas at all by “public relations statements” that defamed Wynn.
According to the filing: “It is causing the subpoenas to be published in the Boston Globe and other news organs that gives rise to this lawsuit,” adding, “That publication brought the defamatory falsehoods to the attention of the general public and caused the vast majority of plaintiffs’ reputational injury.”
The court documents falsely stated that former state troopers working for Wynn had improperly accessed a state criminal investigation of a known crime figure who was part owner in property that Wynn later purchased for the casino.
Wynn’s claim that his reputation was damaged by the publication is supported by a declaration from gaming expert Richard McGowan.
Meanwhile, delays in locating casinos, the downsizing of the MGM Springfield, as well as the multiple lawsuits that have resulted from awarding of casino licenses appear to have generated something of a casino fatigue a year after voters overwhelmingly rejected a referendum that would have repealed the gaming expansion law.
Western New England University conducted a poll showing that public support is at its lowest since 2009. Some of those responding said they were frustrated by all of the problems and setbacks.
Springfield resident Antonio Perry commented, “The tower is gone. I support the project as it was presented to the city, as it was presented to the mayor. I think that’s what should be brought forth.”
But another Springfield resident, Gene Phelps said, “Most of the people I know support it, I really haven’t heard much against it, not at all.”
