State at odds over gaming expansion

The Mohegan Sun Casino, November 2009. The Mohegan Sun Casino, November 2009. Photo: File Photo / File Photo Photo: File Photo / File Photo Image 1 of / 17 Caption Close State at odds over gaming expansion 1 / 17 Back to Gallery

Two years after Connecticut lawmakers voted to keep jobs — and gambling cash — in the state by approving a third Native American tribal casino, this one for the Hartford area, the proposal is languishing in federal court and local governments.

At the same time, the $900 million MGM Resort in Springfield, Mass., is well under construction, on track to lure away business from the Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos in eastern Connecticut, where revenue has been steadily falling over the last 10 years.

So if less money is being wagered, why does Connecticut need another casino? That’s what some lawmakers and activists are asking, as the state ponders its next move. Others want to do whatever it takes to accommodate a casino expansion to protect jobs and staunch the hemorrhage of Connecticut gambling dollars heading to Springfield.

Bridgeport representatives, recalling the 1995 Senate vote that rejected a casino proposal for their city, still want southwestern Connecticut to be considered as part of an imminent gambling expansion.

State Reps. Ezequiel Santiago and Chris Rosario, Bridgeport Democrats, have introduced legislation that would allow new gambling locations throughout the state, along with competitive licensing processes and a tax of 25 percent on gross revenue from slot machines and table games.

“The Shoreline Star (pari-mutuel wagering facility) is zoned, has parking for ample growth and it can be linked to the development under way nearby,” Santiago said. “It would be beneficial for the Shoreline to team up with the tribes with slot machines, but we are not even given that opportunity.

The Indian casinos “have a monopoly on the gaming industry,” Santiago said. “Shoreline is a pari-mutuel that suffered because the tribes got the gaming in the first place. Shoreline Star pays taxes. They hire people, but they’re not getting a seat at the table.”

State Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, said, “I would not be opposed to slots down at the Shoreline Star, as long as there is local support and a local revenue stream, with a municipal benefit for being a host site.”

More Information Declining slots The state’s share of casino slot machine revenue over the past decade.

‘It’s about jobs’

State Rep. Joe Verrengia, D-West Hartford, a new co-chairman of the Public Safety and Security Committee, which has oversight on gambling, said he is planning an informational meeting to get the views of a variety of interests out into the open.

“First and foremost, I think that we need to have an open and transparent process,” Verrengia said in an interview. He also wants to know what effect a third casino, off the tribal reservations, might have on the deal — called a compact — that then-Gov. Lowell P. Weicker signed with the Native Americans a quarter century ago, conceding their exclusivity in exchange for 25 percent of all slot machine wagers.

“I think that’s a key piece of this, before anyone can make an educated decision on whether or not they explore the expansion of gaming,” Verrengia said, stressing that the Kent-based Schaghticoke Tribe, which is still pursuing federal recognition, could demand consideration if the so-called satellite casino gets sited in northern Connecticut.

“There’s definitely the possibility of a domino effect, and if we submitted a bill that opened it to everyone, there could be the fallout,” Verrengia said. “I think we hear over and over again from the tribal leaders, ‘it’s about jobs.’ Yeah, it is. There is a job piece. There is also an economic-development piece to this.

“And whether you’re talking about East Hartford, East Windsor or a tobacco field, I think there is more in the decision-making process than just looking at gaming or just looking at particular jobs. Let’s look at how it may impact the area’s economic activity.”

Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen met Friday with Verrengia and other members of the committee to offer an overview, “and my office has been in communication with legislative leadership, the administration and the stakeholders about this issue,” he said afterward.

“We stand ready to provide legal guidance as appropriate and when requested,” Jepsen said.

The attorney general has been battling MGM in court since 2015, when the multinational corporation, with resorts as far-flung as Macau and mainland China, claimed its rights were violated by the law passed to allow a new casino.

“The District Court agreed that the state has not — at least to this point, in light of the limited nature of the special act — infringed on MGM’s rights and granted our motion to dismiss MGM’s lawsuit, and MGM has appealed that decision,” Jepsen said. “The appeal has been argued, and we currently await the Second Circuit’s decision.”

Opposition

State Sen. Tony Hwang, R-Fairfield, is part of a new group, including religious organizations and people with gambling addictions, against any gaming expansion.

During a recent news conference with other opponents, he said while the tribes have been promoting the potential jobs and economic benefits of another casino, the industry is well past its prime.

“We may be looking at an industry that is at a saturation point,” Hwang said. “The real concern is, are we looking at a proper economic benefit? Are we opening up a Pandora’s box of our constitutional equal protection, in which we are, in essence, allowing a monopoly who control gambling in our states, in exchange for our tribal compact?

“We’ve not yet done a very good job in the Connecticut General Assembly to understand the full impact and really create the resources to allocate against the plight and devastation of gambling addiction,” he said.

Michele Mudrick, legislative advocate for the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ, one of the 12 groups that in the Coalition Against Casino Expansion, said they want voters throughout the state to be given a chance to decide the issue.

Bob Steele, of Vernon, a former Republican congressman, said gambling addictions are wrecking the lives of many people, including a church treasurer who gambled away an endowment funded by years of bake sales and craft fairs.

“The house always wins,” he said. “The Legislature should require a statewide referendum on any expansion.”

However, there is no such statewide approval process in Connecticut law.

State Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-Greenwich, a co-chairman of the Finance, Revenue & Bonding Committee, said does not favor an expansion.

“I think they’re going to have a really tough time finding a place to put it where everybody is amenable to it,” Frantz said in a recent interview. “I think there are a lot of people who oppose gambling. I don’t think we’re doing much for our state or citizens if we put up another casino.

“All I know is, we had much higher expectations of the existing casinos than was feasible,” Frantz said. “We became very quickly addicted to the revenue stream of the existing two casinos, and now they’re underperforming and the state is hurting.”

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy admits additional revenue is not the best reason to consider a new gambling location.

“I think what the Indian tribal nations within Connecticut are saying is that ‘our market is under assault and we need help in defending that market.’ Ultimately, that is a question for the Legislature,” Malloy said.