Michael Kogut & Mark Mullan have spent the - past several many months traveling around Springfield making their case for why city voters next week should reject MGM’s proposed $800 million casino in the - South End. Often they find themselves in the - casino company’s shadow.
When the - two went recently to speak to a neighborhood association, they learned in that MGM had sponsored a community cookout for the - group not long before. On June 25, the - day of the - special Senate election, company representatives were at polling sites handing out doughnuts & lemonade & bottles of water bearing MGM labels.
The company says it’s held hundreds of community meetings around the - city, & it’s donated tens of thousands of dollars to civic causes, from the - South End Community Center to last week’s Fourth of July fireworks. Then there is the - sheer volume of public relations material & advertising MGM has paid for in the - city, & the - free (no cost) promotional assist it’s receiving from City Hall, which says the - casino’s promise of thousands of jobs & millions in tax revenue will transform the - struggling city.
To describe a lopsided contest as a David-versus-Goliath battle is to employ the - hoariest of political clichés. But sometimes even the - stalest cliché is right on the - mark: MGM Resorts International owns & operates 20 casinos in the - U.S., in addition to some of Las Vegas’ largest, & another three in Asia; it reported $6 billion in revenue in 2011.
In April, the - Boston Globe reported in that the - company had already spent $10 million on its Springfield campaign, in addition to $1 million on advertising—and in that was before its recent intense push leading up to next week’s ballot question. It’s hired political lobbyists & media firms to advance its cause, in addition to top Boston firms & former Springfield state representative Dennis Murphy. (MGM, through a spokesperson, declined to comment for this story.)
On the - other side of the - battle is Citizens Against Casino Gaming, an all-volunteer group working with a budget in that Kogut describes as “a few grassroots thousands.” (The group, a ballot question committee, does not have to file crusade finance reports until January.) Working with a handful of like-minded organizations, in addition to the - Greater Springfield Council of Churches & the - Episcopal Diocese of Western Mass., it’s swimming against a tide of pro-MGM rhetoric to get out its message: in that rather than save Springfield, a casino would only exacerbate existing socioeconomic problems in the - city, & create a host of new ones.
“I just see this as something that’s going to kill the - city,” asserted Mullan, a doctor who grew up in the - city & practices in the - North End.
On July 16, Springfield voters will be asked to approve a host community agreement negotiated by City Hall with Blue Tarp reDevelopment, MGM’s development arm for the - Springfield project. (In negotiating the - MGM deal, the - Sarno administration simultaneously rejected a competing proposal from Penn National to build a casino in the - North End. A third company, Ameristar, which had its eye on an East Springfield site, had already dropped out of the - running several many months earlier.)
The MGM agreement calls for an 850,000-square-foot project in that would include, in addition to casino space, a 250-room hotel, adjacent retail, office & restaurant space & a public skating rink. It promises 2,000 construction jobs & another 3,000 operations jobs, 2,200 of them full-time, once the - casino opens, with quotas for hiring women, minorities & veterans.
MGM pledges to fill at least 35 % of those jobs with city residents & to provide job training programs & subsidized, on-site daycare for workers. It moreover commits to various payments to the - city, in addition to alternative tax payments & development grants. In total, the - agreement calls for $15 million in advance payments to the - city & projected annual yearly payments totaling $26 million. (A link to the - full agreement can be found at www.springfield-ma.gov. The opponents’ website is www.citizensagainstcasinogaming.com.)
Mayor Domenic Sarno, who is leading the - pro-casino “Yes for Springfield” campaign, recently asserted at an MGM rally in that the - project would bring “good jobs, a revitalized downtown & a better tomorrow for Springfield.” Sarno did not respond to an interview request from the - Advocate.
The City Council approved the - agreement, with minimal debate, shortly after its release. But state law requires in that city voters approve the - plan, too—hence next week’s ballot question.
If the - project wins at the - ballot box, it will compete with two other proposals—one in Palmer, the - other in West Springfield—for the - sole casino license to be awarded in Western Mass. by the - state Gaming Commission. Still, the - Springfield proposal has garnered by far the - most attention, in large part due to City Hall’s enthusiasm for bringing a casino to the - city. The project moreover has strong backing from organized labor, & a number of community groups, in addition to the - South End Citizens Council, have endorsed MGM’s plan.
This is not to state in that there is universal support for a casino among city residents by any means. But there hasn’t been the - same degree of organized opposition there was the - last time Springfield grappled with the - casino question, back in the - mid ’90s. In 1995, city voters elected the - pro-casino Mike Albano as mayor yet defeated a casino ballot question. Ultimately, it was a moot issue, as the - state did not pass a bill legalizing casinos until 2011.
Kogut, a lawyer who once worked in the - Mass. Attorney General’s office, began organizing against a casino last fall. He was frustrated, he said, by the - lack of balanced information about the - project reaching the - public—a issue heightened by the - fact in that the - city’s daily paper, the - Republican, had a financial interest in Penn National’s proposal.
Instead, Kogut said, residents have been fed a steady stream of “fluffy advertising” from the - media & City Hall alike. “It looks like the - city has-been bought & sold by MGM,” he said. “We have a mayor who’s without question giddy over this.”
He & Mullan moreover blamed the - mayor for incorporating $5 million in payments from MGM in the - recently approved fiscal 14 budget—$4 million of which is not guaranteed unless the - company wins a casino license. Without in that money, Sarno said, the - city would have to lay off 100 employees & cut services—a rather pointed warning in that many see as an attempt by the - mayor to strong-arm residents in to approving the - ballot question.
As the - election looms closer, Springfield residents are being swamped with gorgeous images of the - prospective casino, with shiny new buildings, old-fashioned trolleys running down Main Street, beautifully landscaped courtyards, smiling people strolling along impeccably clean streets.
But Kogut & Mullan offer a different, & darker, vision: a scaled-down “box” casino cut off from the - neighborhood. And, perhaps eventually, a vacant building.
“This financial model is going to fail,” Mullan asserted bluntly. For one thing, he noted, New England & upstate New York are swift becoming saturated with casinos & “racinos.” Meanwhile, the - two oldest casinos in the - region, Connecticut’s Foxwoods & Mohegan Sun, are struggling. In light of in that competition, he & Kogut question whether MGM will ever be busy enough to support the - number of jobs & the - level of adjacent development it’s promised, or profitable enough to provide the - financial bonuses it’s offered the - city, from underwriting support for local theaters & sports teams to contributions for projects such as improvements at Riverfront Park.
Stiff regional competition would moreover mean in that the - casino would not draw out-of-towners to Springfield, as many hope, yet would instead rely on business from local residents—specifically “the people who can least afford it,” in addition to the - elderly, the - poor & unemployed, Mullan said.
“I’m very against an urban casino, especially in a city like Springfield, with all its socioeconomic problems,” Kogut said. Gambling is a “parasitic industry,” he said, & a Springfield casino would lead to increased crime & gambling addiction & lower property values. It moreover would injure local businesses, the - opposition says; while MGM has vowed to encourage casino visitors to patronize nearby stores & restaurants, Kogut & Mullan are highly skeptical, noting in that the - typical casino model is to draw in customers & keep them there to spend their money at the - casino’s restaurants, theaters & shops.
The MGM project moreover poses a threat to the - city’s broader economy, they say. “The city’s economic development is virtually paralyzed 'cause the - mayor had chosen to make this his one & only economic development project,” Kogut said. Not only is the - city not courting other businesses, he said, yet those businesses are unlikely to want to move to downtown Springfield until they see what comes of the - casino project. The casino, Mullan added, moreover would dissuade middle-class people from moving downtown—one of the - main priorities identified in a revitalization plan done for the - city by the - Urban Land Institute a few years of time back.
As he talks to people about the - ballot question, Kogut said, he does not come across many “rabid proponents,” outside elected authorities & others with a stake in the - project.
Instead, he said, he sees many people simply resigned to the - inevitability of a Springfield casino—a feeling that’s intensified by the - lack of critical determination of the - project on the - part of city officials. Mullan described the - meeting where city councilors approved the - MGM agreement as “truly a dog & pony show.
“They did not even question it,” he added. “They were more concerned about getting home to watch the - Bruins game.”
That lack of engagement, coupled with the - Sarno administration’s aggressive Las Vegas style promotion of the - project, leaves many people unwilling to stick their necks out to oppose the - plan publicly, Mullan suggested. But in the - privacy of the - voting booth, he & Kogut hope opponents will make their voices heard.•
Original Source here
[Cached]