Gambling regulators question MGM on redesigned Springfield casino

An aide to Sarno said Thursday that the mayor was referring to the overall cost of the project at the press conference, not saying the hotel change itself would lead to bigger investment.

MGM Springfield President Michael Mathis said the loss of the soaring glass tower shouldn’t impact the casino’s bottom line: “The Springfield skyline is littered with high-rises”.

The company says the six-story hotel will still offer 250 rooms and also include retail spaces on the ground level.

The Springfield casino, which has been billed as the largest economic development project in western Massachusetts in a half-century, has already been delayed a year because of the reconstruction of Interstate 91, which runs directly in front of the casino site.

Under the proposed redesign, which is subject to commission approval, the apartments would be located outside the project’s 14.5-acre footprint.

Timothy Paul, a part of the Council of Churches of Greater Springfield and community advocate said, “There is a major major wind shift towards the change of the feelings about this project”.

Zuniga questioned whether the lack of a recognizable tower would hamper MGM’s ability to attract “players” to the casino. Once such an agreement was reached to build a casino in a Connecticut town or city, the General Assembly still would have to enact a new law to permit it outside a reservation, he said. Mathis said the redesign would not cause further delays.

Nevada-based MGM, which owns casino resorts throughout the country, claims that the Connecticut law discriminates on the basis of race or ethnicity against a spectrum of potential casino developers by limiting development rights to two federally recognized tribes.

Mathis told reporters the design changes have nothing to do with the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes’ joint pursuit of a third Connecticut casino north of Hartford.

In a motion filed Wednesday, the state argued MGM has not suffered “injury” from Connecticut’s legislation and therefore does not have standing to sue Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and other officials.

” There is no objective reason for the city to permit them ( MGM) to substantially walk back on their commitments just because they now think it is too expensive”, said Fenton.

” From the information we’ve seen so far, it seems like something we can work with, but we need more in depth discussions with MGM, the gaming commission and our consultants”, said Kennedy.