A fierce debate over casino expansion in Connecticut spilled over into the legislature Thursday during a hearing on two bills that would take the state in different directions in establishing a third casino. <\/p>\n
On the one side, supporters of a vision by the Mashantucket Pequots and Mohegans for a satellite casino in East Windsor. They stressed the tribes' deep roots in Connecticut and their longtime partnership with the state that has brought $7 billion in slot revenue to the state coffers from Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. <\/p>\n
But on the other side, there was an equally strong push for a new approach: cast a wider net for proposals and operators that might benefit Connecticut even more. Those proposals could be compared with what the Mashantucket Pequots and Mohegans the operators of Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are offering. <\/p>\n
Dozens packed a room at the Legislative Office Building for a hearing before the public safety and security committee, and each side came ready with a battery of experts. The consultants covered everything from where a third casino would generate the most revenue and jobs for the state to how the tribes' agreements with the state that provide a 25 percent cut of slot revenues would be affected by expansion. <\/p>\n
So many numbers were thrown around Thursday that at one point state Rep. Daniel S. Rovero, D-Killingly, suggested the committee hire its own consultant for advice. <\/p>\n
\"We have no expert in the gaming industry to assist us,\" Rovero said. \"None of us are experts in the gaming industry.\" <\/p>\n
The committee also heard from another Native American tribe in addition to East Windsor officials and residents, and opponents to casino gambling. <\/p>\n
The leaders of the tribes urged the committee to support its plan for East Windsor, a strategy to compete with the $950 million casino and entertainment complex now under construction in Springfield by MGM Resorts International Inc. <\/p>\n
Rodney Butler, chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, warned that delaying a response could cost the state $70 million in slot revenue and 9,000 jobs tied directly and indirectly to the state's gaming industry. <\/p>\n
\"We had no idea of the magnitude of the impact on the Connecticut gaming market,\" Butler said. <\/p>\n
MGM, which has pushed aggressively for opening up the field of proposals, has challenged in court the 2015 law that allowed the tribes to search for a casino location. MGM argues since the casino would be off tribal lands, the deal unfairly excludes other potential operators. <\/p>\n
\"The key question for this committee and the General Assembly to consider is how can the state structure a competitive process in a way that maximizes the number of jobs created and the tax revenue for the state,\" Uri Clinton, senior vice president and legal counsel at MGM Resorts, said in testimony. <\/p>\n
During Clinton's testimony, Sen. Timothy D. Larson, D-East Hartford and the committee's co-chair, ripped into MGM for circulating a \"glossy\" brochure in East Windsor that criticized how the town arrived at a casino development agreement. <\/p>\n
One side of the brochure, which Larson held up, reads: East Windsor Casino Agreement: Negotiated in Secret Behind Closed Doors, Decided Without a Town-Wide Referendum. <\/p>\n
Larson, a staunch supporter of the tribes' vision for casino expansion, said he was never approached by lobbyists or casino representatives in 2015. There was the belief that the expansion would never happen, said Larson, whose district includes East Windsor. <\/p>\n
\"And now, we're at the 5-yard line, and all of a sudden you are [harming] my residents' reputation and you don't even want to be in that community,\" Larson said to Clinton. \"And I just want you to know how offended I am by that.\" <\/p>\n
In an interview after the exchange, Clinton said he respected Larson's passion and commitment to his constituents. <\/p>\n
\"The city of East Windsor could actually do much better,\" Clinton said. \"In a closed, no-bid process that is not open for competition, the deal they got is what they could get. In a competitive process, all the bids would be richer, the economic benefit to the state would be greater and the contribution to the state's infrastructure would be greater.\" <\/p>\n
Clinton said MGM took the step of the brochure because it has been shut out from the process. <\/p>\n
Robert Maynard, East Windsor's first selectman, told committee members that the selection of his town to host the casino would bring much-needed tax revenue to the community and boost economic development efforts. <\/p>\n
He stood and held up a rendering of the casino. <\/p>\n
\"We have this vacant Showcase Cinema, vacant since 2008,\" Maynard said. \"It's kind of an eyesore now. This is something we really like. This is something we would really like to see.\" <\/p>\n
Large portions of Thursday's hearing focused on the tribes' agreements that bring the slot revenue payments to the state in exchange for the exclusive right to operate casinos in Connecticut. MGM's experts warned it could be in peril if the state pursues expansion, even if it is Mashantucket Pequots and Mohegans doing it. <\/p>\n
The tribes say they have proposed amendments to keep the agreements known as the compact intact with an expansion to East Windsor. They point to a letter from the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs last year that didn't find a problem if the tribes did the expanding. <\/p>\n
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has asked the state attorney general for a legal opinion on the issue. <\/p>\n
In addition to MGM, the Kent-based Schaghticoke tribal nation pushed for opening up the field of potential casino operators. The tribe has repeatedly expressed interest in establishing a casino in southwestern Connecticut. <\/p>\n
\"Southwestern Connecticut offers a growing opportunity that is five times the size of the market north of Hartford, a market that can only decline with high-end competition from Springfield,\" Richard Velky, the chief of the Schaghticoke tribal nation, said. \"And because a commercial casino off tribal land does not require federal recognition, Connecticut citizens should demand a better deal so why not us?\" <\/p>\n
Those testifying Thursday also underscored that the committee should not ignore the potential social costs of more casino gambling. <\/p>\n
\"These include increased debt, bankruptcies, embezzlement, divorce, domestic violence, drunk driving and addiction,\" the Rev. Denise Terry, an East Windsor resident and senior pastor of the East Granby Congregational Church, said. \"As a recovering impulsive gambler, I am particularly sensitive to this issue. I don't want to live less than 3 miles from a casino, and to pass it at least twice a day.\" <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
More here: <\/p>\n
Gambling Supporters Say Casino Expansion In Other States ... - Hartford Courant<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A fierce debate over casino expansion in Connecticut spilled over into the legislature Thursday during a hearing on two bills that would take the state in different directions in establishing a third casino. On the one side, supporters of a vision by the Mashantucket Pequots and Mohegans for a satellite casino in East Windsor Continue reading