A new proposal for turning an old cinema in East Hartford into a casino operated by two gaming tribes is now making the rounds in the Connecticut legislature.
The proposal, put forward by Tony Ravosa, a political insider with connections to former Governor John G. Rowland, would cost $138 million in renovations of the existing property, which is along Interstate 84. The Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes, who currently operate Foxwoods and the Mohegan Sun, would jointly operate the new casino.
The proposal has surfaced as lawmakers continue to discuss SB-1090, An Act Concerning Gaming, which would make it possible for the tribes to operate as many as three casinos off their reservations at three locations yet to be named. Under the bill the Department of Consumer Protection would issue the licenses to the tribes and the state and host community would collect a percentage of the revenues,
The principals haven’t signed Ravosa’s plan yet, but in an interview with the Hartford Courant, he said he has put together a team of casino veterans, such as Michael J. D’Amato, who has worked on a dozen casino projects. They estimate they can replace the cinema building in under a year.
The casino would have from 1,000 to 2,000 slots, a SmashBurger restaurant, a sports bar, German beer hall, two bars and a dance club.
Ravosa is a former resident and city councilmember of Springfield, which is 25 miles from East Hartford. He was a member of a consortium that unsuccessfully sought to build a Hard Rock casino in Holyoke, Massachusetts. He is working with consultant PKF Consulting USA, which says a casino in that location would be more convenient to players in the area than the Springfield MGM.
Ravosa quipped “nothing wrong with a little friendly cross-border competition” and added, “There is enough business out there for various projects to achieve success.”
The competition in Springfield appears to agree. A spokesman for MGM issues the following statement last week, “We are confident that as a mixed-use urban revitalization project our innovative downtown design, tested marketing plan and strong brand will make MGM Springfield a unique destination resort casino in the Northeast. With our groundbreaking behind us we have officially kicked off our construction phase, and look forward to a late 2017 opening.”
Ravosa is confident that his proposal will fly. “I am extremely confident that no other site can carry a candle to East Hartford, as of sites being discussed. None of the sites suggested touches this thing with a 10-foot pole,” he said.
Senator Timothy Larson, who co-chairs the legislative committee in charge of gaming, supports a casino in any of the three communities that have so far said they are willing to host a casino. They are East Hartford, Windsor Locks and East Windsor.
“Let the best town win,” he told the Hartford Courant. “I’ve got to be optimistic. I’ve got to be cautious. And I’ve got to be like Switzerland. … I see my role as putting together a bill that’s generic – that allows towns to compete.’’ When interviewed he had not heard details of Ravosa’s proposal.
He said he was glad to see so many towns interested. “If we have a bill and no place to go, what good is it?’’
East Hartford Mayor Marcia Leclerc is bullish on the proposal. “We’re excited that East Hartford has a potential to sit with them and have a discussion,” she said last week. “We’re excited about the opportunity to grow our grand list, provide jobs for our community … and basically to strengthen the Silver Lane corridor.” She added, “People want rehabilitation in those areas that are blighted and have been closed up and dormant for a long time.”
Town council Chairman Richard Kehoe said he needs more information. “This could potentially never happen and not even get to the stage where the town would actually seriously consider it,” he said. “We certainly wouldn’t reject it out of hand because it has a casino component to it. The development is intriguing with the potential for a positive benefit to the town, but the devil is in the details, and we will need to see a more definitive application.”
The Courant interviewed residents in East Hartford who look forward to additional tax revenues and economic development but are leery of additional traffic and the possibility that the town may lack the needed infrastructure to host such a large casino.
One resident commented, “I don’t think it would be largely successful, but to keep revenue within the state will add value. I’m looking at the bigger picture for the community.”
Another resident added, “There’s real blight down there. On Silver Lane, anything is a step up,” while a third concluded, “I think it’d be fun. I think it’d be good. There’s not really a lot to do besides go to the movies.”
Tax relief is a major draw for some. East Hartford has one of the highest tax rates in the state.
The debate on whether there should be more casinos is not closed. Longtime legislative veteran Rep. Arthur O’Neill, says no. “We really should not have any more casinos in the state of Connecticut,” he said last week “I’ve yet to be persuaded that this I-91 corridor thing is going to do anything” to prevent players from crossing the state line to gamble in Springfield, Massachusetts at the $800 million casino that MGM is building. Stopping the hemorrhage of Connecticut residents to the Bay State to spend money is the reason behind the proposal.
But the spending habits of Connecticut residents isn’t the only problem. Bay State residents last year spend an estimated $475 million in Connecticut casinos, with Foxwoods the most dependent on that revenue stream. Casinos in Rhode Island and New York are also drawing revenue across state lines.
O’Neill is skeptical of residents driving “sixty miles to go to an abandoned movie theatre and pull the slot machines.”
Rep. Themis Klarides is concerned about legal questions recently raised about the proposal’s constitutionality by Attorney General George Jepsen, who also worries that the bill could violate the tribal state gaming compacts with the Mohegans and Pequots.
Rep. Pam Staneski is polling her constituents to see what they say, perhaps mindful of recent polls that show a majority of the state’s residents opposed to more casinos in the Constitution State.
She commented, “Many legislators have discussed the potential for major job loss in the state if an additional casino is not built. But I want to hear from my constituents on whether Connecticut should permit additional gaming. One of the possible locations for a new gaming facility being discussed is in the city of Bridgeport. Please let me know your thoughts.”
Norwich Mayor Deberey Hinchley supports more casinos for the state. Last week she wrote, “Southeastern Connecticut has prospered with Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods. Now, as they face competition from outside of our state that could significantly harm business, it is vital to our collective future that we stand together in support of legislation that would protect jobs and businesses.”
Moody’s analysts Keith Foley, Peter Trombetta, Aaron Ampaw and Janice Hofferber are dubious that the three-casino plan will do enough to help the two tribes stem the expected flow of money out of the state. The tribal casinos have seen a 37 percent decline in gaming revenue in the last seven years.
In a note to investors last week they wrote, “Connecticut casinos are facing their biggest challenge yet.” They noted that the tribes already face “significant competition” from facilities in other neighboring states.
They wrote that the Pequot tribe is, “already operating under a forbearance agreement with its credit facility lenders that expires this June.” The Mohegan tribe, while stronger financially, faces the possibility of being hit especially hard by the MGM Springfield, they wrote. The MGM’s effects “could be severe,” they wrote.
While concluding that the bill before the legislature “falls short,” of providing a solution for the tribes, the analysts said it is positive that the tribes and lawmakers are willing to try to solve the problem together.
