After the New Hampshire Senate passed a bill earlier this week that would make it legal to build up to two casinos, one could say the war for valuable casino customers will intensify in New England.
Located in the northeastern United States, the New England region consists of six states: Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine and Rhode Island, and is home to more than 14.7 million people. 슬롯머신
Among many others, the past few years have been marked by efforts by most of the states mentioned above to expand or legalize commercial casino gambling within their borders. Massachusetts took the lead in 2014 after residents “agreed” to build up to three full-scale casinos and slot holes.
Slot Purseil is already in operation in Plainville, Massachusetts, and two casino complexes are under development in Springfield and Everett. Casino developers and operators Wynn Resorts and MGM Resorts International are introducing an integrated resort model throughout the state and New England region. And their project, one costing more than $2 billion and the other nearly $1 billion, has raised fears among neighboring countries that they will lose casino customers once the casino opens.
MGM Springfield, a $950 million springfield complex, is scheduled to open in September 2018. And after several construction delays, Winn Boston Harbor is finally on its launch schedule for 2019. The announcement of the two projects sparked an arms race in the region, which, apparently, will heat up as their opening approaches.
Shortly after news broke that Massachusetts was planning two Las Vegas-style resorts, neighboring Connecticut, which runs two tribal casinos, expressed concern that MGM Springfield in particular would steal customers and cause significant damage to its gambling houses.
Connecticut’s two federally recognized tribes, Mohigan and Mashantucket Pequot, have become major drivers of state constitutional revision efforts to allow a third casino out of the reserve.
The proposed amendment was eventually approved. And the two tribes, who will jointly run a third casino, recently unveiled the first rendering of when and if the site will be built in a small town called East Windsor. The property will aim to compete directly with MGM Springfield, which will be located not far from the proposed site of the Connecticut casino.
The proposed location still needs approval from lawmakers. And Connecticut legislators have been questioning whether the state can maintain and benefit from a third casino, or will it have the opposite effect.
MGM Resorts strongly criticized the bidding process for Connecticut’s third casino, arguing that it was unfairly denied the opportunity to apply for licenses and potentially develop properties. So a fight between major casino operators, two tribes of the state, and members of the state’s legislature could result in casinos not being built at all or being built and launched after MGM Springfield.
The original idea of Mohigan and the Mashantucket Pequot tribe was to be able to complete the property before the rival.
Rhode Island has also entered the battle of New England for casino customers. The State has two operating casinos, Lincoln’s Twin Rivers and Newport’s Grand Casino. The latter gambling option was proposed to be transferred to the new T-Burton casino. However, after facing strong opposition from local environmental activists and other complaints groups, the project is in danger of not being completed. Although the venue was promised to bring in millions of dollars in tax revenues and other benefits, opponents argued that T-Burton and its surrounding areas would lose more than profits. A hearing on the casino proposal will be held early next week.
As mentioned above, New Hampshire is also looking for a piece of New England gambling pie. The state Senate last week passed SB 242, which calls for the construction of $80 million of Category 1 casinos and $40 million of Category 2 properties. That effort will now go to the House. A similar proposal had previously reached the State House of Representatives, but was rejected.
Supporters expect the House of Representatives to take a softer stance on the move as casino expansion increases in neighboring states and casinos are likely to generate much-needed revenue for the state.