MGM Springfield announced last week that it would hold a groundbreaking combined with a demolition of the old Zanetti School on March 24. Another 18 buildings will be demolished soon after.
MGM and the Springfield Historical Commission continue to disagree on the disposition of four properties that MGM wants to demolish to make way for its casino and that the commission wants to preserve.
The commission flat opposes MGM’s proposal to recreate the façade of the old YWCA, which currently houses an alcohol recovery center.
However, the panel is divided on MGM’s refusal to save the rear portion of the old State Armory, on its plan to recreate an old highly decorative lobby, its plan to save the façade of the Union House hotel, and part of the facade of a building on Bliss Street.
Of these, the YWCA is the biggest point of disagreement. MGM wants to demolish the entire building but recreate two porticos from it on a smaller scale elsewhere.
Commission Chairman Ralph Slate complained, “I’m not seeing any redesigns. I’m seeing the same stuff. And I’m hearing a cul-de-sac is more important than that building.” He added, “I’m not even seeing an attempt to mitigate the loss of this building. It’s got a little bit of treatment, but that’s it.”
He later said, “It seems like you just want to take the building down and now you’re presenting reasons for it. I haven’t seen much change on this in over two years now.”
MGM representatives argue that it is trying to maintain the feel of the casino design and stay within a timeline that calls for its opening in 2017. MGM’s agreement with the city calls for it to be penalized if it doesn’t open within 33 months. It also doesn’t want to do anything that might negatively impact retail sales in the casino or hurt the proposed revitalization of the downtown area.
In one case the developer argued that it would be spending a lot of time, money and effort to remove a lobby facade to a location where few people would see it.
One building, the First Spiritualist Church, built in 1887, will be picked up en masse and relocated within the property on Union Street, and will then be repurposed as a restaurant. It will be separated from the State Armory by an outdoor ice skating rink.
The gaming commission could force MGM to placate the historical commission in its demands, or it could support the developer. It has the final say.
Final License
The city of New Bedford and developer KG Urban Enterprises have clashing visions of what a $500 million casino should look like and encompass along the historic whaling city’s waterfront.
Last week New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell and Andrew Stern, managing director of KG Urban, revealed their conflicting visions as the March 16 deadline approached for when a casino proposal must be submitted to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.
Foxwoods Resort Casino has signed a letter of intent to manage such a casino for KG Urban and to brand it with the Foxwoods brand. But the city’s cooperation is an absolute necessity. Foxwoods has twice before tried to enter the Bay State casino market. Previously it showed interest in Fall River. Then it unsuccessfully competed for the Boston metro license with a proposal for Milford that voters killed in 2013.
Stern’s proposal is for a casino along the waterfront. The city’s planners, working from a design by Boston-based planning firm Sasaki Associates, want to preserve the waterfront and keep the casino from discouraging access to existing businesses.
Sasaki called KG’s proposal generally incompatible with the water-dependent uses surrounding the site,” and gave it far more negative points than positive ones.
Stern, through an intermediary, former NBA commissioner David Stern (his father) has been discussing bringing his technical and design staff to discussions with city planners to lobby for KG Urban’s vision. As the deadline approached Stern visited to try to woo the city.
Stern told reporters, “It was discussed today that that might be a productive next step. We can all maybe cross our fingers that those conversations could result in a real exchange of ideas … and there can finally be a level of engagement.”
Later in the week he added, “Things seem to have begun to move in a positive direction, and we hope that will continue. Right now everyone seems to be making an effort.”
KG’s proposal would transform a former power plant into a casino resort with a hotel, conference center and parking garage.
The proposal is not a new one. KG Urban has already over $12 million over eight years on optioning the site and design costs. This caused Stern to tell South Coast Today in a phone interview, “We are not moving our waterfront casino off the waterfront, and we are not having Jon Mitchell and Sasaki master plan the site. You don’t want a wall of buildings right up against the city — that’s not good urban planning.”
The mayor countered, “My job is to protect the interests of the city. Period. There are many failed casino projects around the United States, and we don’t want one here in New Bedford.”
The mayor calls Sasaki, “one of the top planning firms in America.”
Clyde Barrow, an expert in New England gaming who was former director of the Center for Policy Analysis at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, said that the mayor might have a point when it comes to how much earning potential a New Bedford casino would have.
Another bone of contention is that Mitchell wants KG Urban to give back some of the land to the city for maritime industrial uses, in effect moving the casino away from the water. The developer refuses to consider this.
A host community agreement between the city and developer is not required by March 16, when an initial proposal must be submitted. That could come in the second phase, which must be submitted to the commission by May 25.
State law requires that a host community referendum be held at 60 days after a host community agreement is signed between the city and developer. That means that an agreement must be signed by March 26 to meet the May 25 deadline.
Stern indicated last week that the two sides continue to talk.
City Councilor Joe Lopes sounded optimistic that a deal would eventually be worked out and that residents would approve it. He told South Coast Today, “I think if there’s a way to get everything done, as I believe we could do… I believe that the group from KG Urban, Foxwoods Casino and the city would work tirelessly to make sure that residents… got all the information that they need to make an educated decision.”
New Bedford residents have voted twice before in non-binding casino referendums. In 2001 10,918 votes were cast supporting casino gaming with 6,181 against. In 1993 the vote was 13,270 in favor with 3,323 against.
If such an election happens in 2015, experts predict the main issue will be jobs and how many a casino could generate. KG Urban has projected that the casino could attract as many as 12,000 jobs, although the casino would not directly employ the majority of those. That figure includes temporary construction jobs, and collateral jobs, such as businesses that benefit from a casino.
Barrow told South Coast Today that opponents of such a casino are likely to point out that a casino may not be compatible with the waterfront. That is the conclusion Sasaki Associates came to.
Meanwhile Brockton, one of New Bedford’s rivals for the southeastern license, has secured a jump on the competition by signing a host community agreement with Rush Street Gaming, whose subsidiary Mass Gaming & Entertainment proposes a $650 million casino resort project on the Brocktown Fairgrounds. George Carney, owner of the fairgrounds, has partnered with Mass Gaming.
Under the agreement Mass Gaming would pay the city at least $10 million annually if the casino opens. Mass Gaming also plans to hire 1,500 to work at the casino.
The city council last week voted 11-0 to set the host community election for May 12. Brockton City Council President Dennis Eaniri declared, “It looks like we’re going to allow a special election and allow the voters of the city of Brockton to tell us whether they’re in favor or not of a casino.” He added, “It looks to the majority of the council…that this is a great, great project for the city of Brockton.”
Eaniri predicted that voters would support the casino.
Wynn Everett
Some observers the development of a gaming industry in Massachusetts were puzzled last week about the implications of a hit to the bottom line of Wynn Resorts International.
Last year, when Wynn sold its Everett casino to the gaming commission, its revenues from Macau had grown for several years in a row. Now, suddenly, due to a crackdown on corruption by the China government, Macau gaming revenues have plummeted by 50 percent, falling from 4.76 billion last year to an estimated $2.45 billion this year.
Despite this body blow to its balance sheets, Wynn Senior Vice President of Market Michael Weaver declared last week, “The recent market activity in Macau will have no impact on our plans for Everett.”
None of these developments have alarmed the gaming commission, which said last week that it’s decision to award the license to Wynn did not rely entirely on the prosperity of its Asian operations. “The commission selected the strongest possible gaming companies and required extraordinary non-gaming amenities that will ensure that Massachusetts casinos are the most attractive, highly-competitive and true destination-resort facilities,” said the commission in a statement last week.
Last week in a conference call Wynn addressed the China situation: “People with money are destabilized at the moment in China. I think, and you were seeing that all across mainland China, that people are being cautious,” Wynn said in the conference call. “There’s an uncertainty in China these days about things that are a little foreign to us here. What is expected of them? What’s the relationship of Chinese businessmen to Chinese government officials? Is corruption as widespread as people say it is?”
Although the crackdown apparently derives from a movement to prevent Chinese officials from gambling in Macao, Wynn said he has been assured that the government has not uncovered much if any such activity during its investigations.
Wynn added that his resort near Boston would be more than a casino.
“Tourism, the broadest definition of tourism, a positive exciting experience that you can’t get at home, and surely we recognize that a slot machine or a Baccarat is an experience you can get anywhere,” he said, adding that Wynn’s non-casino revenues exceed its gaming revenues.
Tough Enforcement Promised
Recently elected Attorney General Maura Healey, who had supported efforts to ban casinos in the state, promised strong enforcement of the gaming laws, declaring, “We’re going to be watching you.”
She will have a good view of the $800 MGM Springfield, which will be located on 14.5 acres a block away from her headquarters. Healey suggested that the gaming commission should open a Springfield office as well since the MGM will be the first casino resort to open in the Bay State.
She said, “Consistent with my calls that the Gaming Commission beef up its resources and presence in Springfield, I too am going to beef up resources in Springfield and have in place criminal investigators and prosecutors and consumer attorneys and others.”
A spokesman for the commission said that the commission already plans to open an office in the third largest city in the state.
Healey told the State House News Service, “I bring a real healthy skepticism to this industry. I have expressed my concerns about potential negative impacts on consumers, on workers; what we might see in terms of organized crime, money laundering, human trafficking and the like.”
Revenue Estimates
Massachusetts Gaming Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby last week said he saw no reason to recalculate revenue estimates in light of the announcement last week that Connecticut may add three small Indian casinos.
The Plainridge Casino, the state’s single slots parlor, is due to open in June. The state projects revenues for it of between $86 million and $130 million.
Crosby told a press conference, “We are part of the new competition. We might cause a problem for them.” He added, “We think the numbers are legitimate for us and not a reason for worry, and we certainly are not predisposed to let anybody change their capital commitments.”
