ToCasino.net Online Casino

The state Senate voted 20-16 late Wednesday for a plan that could lead to a new casino along the I-91 corridor between Hartford and Enfield, a bill that now goes to the House and has already eaten up a lot of valuable time.

It's a noble effort designed to stanch the bleeding of gambling money and jobs once the $800 million MGM Springfield casino opens in late 2017. The Mashantucket Pequot and the Mohegan tribes would work together and agree on a location — presumably East Hartford, East Windsor or Windsor Locks — which would, they hope, open ahead of MGM.

It's a noble effort, but the casino bill is a waste of time. As written, it doesn't even expand gaming; that would have to happen in a separate vote, perhaps in a special session in the fall, or perhaps next year. The bill merely launches a process under which the tribes would pick a location.

Even if the effort worked perfectly and a casino opened in 2016 or early 2017, the venue would not save jobs in the numbers the tribes projected with a report two weeks ago; it would not help the central Connecticut economy in any real way; and it would not offer a long-term solution to economic growth.

But it can't work perfectly, in part because of the timing and in part because of a sticky legal issue that requires the state and the tribes to gain federal approval in order to expand gambling to a location not on either tribe's reservation.

The tribes thought they had a way around that legal concern. But their answer doesn't work, according to a memo written Tuesday by a lawyer working for Attorney General George Jepsen, who released documents late Tuesday outlining the tribes' legal reasoning.

That's a big issue that has rightly held up votes in the General Assembly, and Tuesday's memo deflates what the tribes thought was a breakthrough.

Let's go through these issues one at a time.

The tribes jointly issued an economic report, done by an outside expert, saying 9,300 jobs are at stake from competition at MGM and three other soon-to-open casinos in Massachusetts and New York. But the report didn't say a new casino would save those jobs, and in fact it would not.

The MGM casino alone will dwarf anything Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun can add in the Hartford area, and it will be, like the Tribes' flagship locations, a full resort when combined with Springfield's existing amenities.

So we can't expect very many people from outside of Connecticut to visit our smaller gambling location, contrary to statements by Bobby Soper, the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority president, who unfortunately, at a recent Hartford forum, raised the scare-mongering issue of "security of myself, security of my car" in Springfield.

Where the patrons come from is an important point. Any enterprise that brings in money from outside the state — like Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, or, for example, Pratt & Whitney — is far, far more valuable than one that moves money around within state.

Of course, a casino in, say, East Windsor at the abandoned Showcase Cinemas, or in East Hartford at the abandoned Showcase Cinemas, would help keep money here that might otherwise flee. But how much money? Some, to be sure, but any casino big enough to make a difference would also be big enough to drain lots of money from other Connecticut entertainment and food businesses — including the existing casinos themselves.

And let's not forget that even though gambling is good, clean entertainment for most of its customers, it also brings social ills, and for many customers, it relies on the deceptive dream of big winnings that never come.

The shells of the abandoned Showcase Cinemas alone should tell us something. They were built (or built up) in the 1990s at a time when it looked like a great economic play, but it wasn't well thought out and now we have eyesore hulks on the landscape. Do we want that again with a casino that has a shelf life of 10 years?

And as for East Hartford Mayor Marcia Leclerc's hope that a casino will spark development along Silver Lane, at best we're talking about a few restaurants, hardly the stuff that makes an $80 billion regional economy tick.

Finally, as to the economic argument, whatever happened to the "Knowledge Corridor?" Remember, that's the valley along I-91 from Amherst to New Haven, a place where institutions were supposed to cooperate across state lines. There's even a nonprofit group dedicated to it. Well, guess what: MGM plans to hire hundreds of Connecticut residents, an effort that can't be helped by an in-your-face casino plan south of the border.

As for the timing, the bill the Senate is debating would simply allow the tribes to seek proposals from towns, and work together toward an expansion. I'm not sure we need a bill to do that. I could join with my editor to create Bernie and Dan's Casino, and we could approach towns and later seek a state bill allowing it. That's basically what we have here: kicking the can down the road to a future debate.

That adds time to the process, but it's happening for a reason. Like the city of Hartford's tortured efforts to finance the Yard Goats stadium, it would avert the need for lengthy, messy, local referendum votes. So either way we're talking about a lot of time and the whole point of this scheme is speed.

There is no fast way to sanction and open a big casino. Period.

Which brings us to the legal issue, the latest development. Here's the short version: On April 15, Jepsen issued a memo saying an expansion of casino gaming in Connecticut could threaten the federally directed compacts and agreements between the state and the tribes in three ways.

Jepsen said that by allowing a gaming expansion, the state would trigger a provision under which the tribes would no longer have to pay the state 25 percent of slot machine revenues; it could invite lawsuits by third parties that hope to open casinos and see the expansion as a denial of their rights; and it could open the way for newly recognized tribes, such as the Golden Hill Paugussetts, to open casinos without bothering to negotiate with the state.

Late Tuesday, Jepsen's office released a letter the tribes were proposing to send to the U.S. Department of the Interior, seeking a written confirmation that would say the Connecticut expansion would not, contrary to Jepsen's warning, jeopardize the agreements.

At the heart is the notion of gaming expansion. Any expansion sanctioned by the state could negate the deal, under both the federally sanctioned compacts and the memorandums of understanding that followed. But the tribes are saying this is not an expansion because they are the ones who would add a casino, not competitors.

The tribes wrote, "… those provisions were intended to protect the Tribes from competition — not to prevent the Tribes from undertaking gaming operations themselves. … [T]he proposed legislation authorizing the joint venture … is entirely consistent with the overall intent" of the agreements.

Trouble is, Jepsen's office contends, that's not what the agreements say. Any expansion means any expansion, at least until the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, or a federal court, says otherwise. The tribes are seeking a fast ruling from the federal government, and even if they get one, which is unlikely, it won't be legally binding, Jepsen's office said.

"We believe this analysis improperly conflates the meanings and purposes served by the MOUs and the Compacts," said Robert W. Clark, special counsel in Jepsen's office, in a letter to the tribes Tuesday.

The tribes are in effect promising not to invoke any legal right they might have to deny the state its 25 percent share of slot revenues in the event of an expansion of gaming, if they are the ones doing the expansion.

But Clark wrote that in their proposed letter to the feds, the tribes are not clearly saying they will not make such a claim. "Nor is there an agreement by the Tribes not to make such a claim in the future," Clark wrote.

That is a detail in a detail in a detail. This legal issue alone could be enough to stop the casino expansion votes. But it's only a cherry on top of an overwhelming argument that a rushed casino is neither wise nor possible.

Copyright © 2015, Hartford Courant