The pending decision regarding whether or not to host an Indian Reservation and a gambling casino within the narrow confines of New London, Ct. is the most important decision  the citizens of this city will make since New London decided in the mid-sixties to accept a “Model Cities” designation, with its accompanying Federal funds - and strings attached.  That decision altered permanently the nature of this city (compare with Norwich, CT), arguably mostly - but not entirely - for the better.

Once again, the nature and future of New London is at stake.  And the decision must be made now, with the information and facts currently available - including the few verifiable facts offered by proponents of this project.  It must be made before this train leaves the station and becomes a run-away.

The proponents  cannot be faulted for making the effort, in view of the success, beyond anyone’s dreams, of the Mashantucket Pequot  and the Mohegan tribes, both just twenty minutes from us here in New London.  Those results followed  directly from legal and political action, “hutzpa”, vast foreign investments, and poor legal representation and self - representation by the original land - owners in the Ledyard area. The same methods will be used here, with the same effects, unless we understand the issues now and act on them now.  The following is an effort to highlight some of those facts and issues.

• As pointed out by Morgan McGinley in a recent article in The Day,  New London should not go in that direction - “not if it has a soul”.  Once again, whether we accept or reject the practice of gambling as a proper activity for society to endorse,  a casino here would change the nature of this city - and not for the better.  Look at our neighbors in Ledyard, Stonington and Preston.  And look at Atlantic City, as depicted in another article in The Day recently.  I have personal although indirect experience with  this latter example, since a relative of mine  lived and worked for many years there during the downward spiral of that formerly living community.  Furthermore, is New London, the home of three colleges within its borders and  another nearby across the river, a proper venue for a gambling casino?
• State Pier:  This is a true part of the maritime history and future of New London.  And it would be lost, after over 40 million dollars of public investment by the State.  The pier is not operating at full capacity, and Logistec, the company which runs the operation, wants and needs more land to expand.  The facility  receives over 80 ships per year, the majority carrying lumber from Canada for further distribution nation-wide.  The State Pier can also be used for other shipping purposes, if the State agrees, including hosting cruise ships.  The State is about to close on the purchase of the Central Vermont pier there.  The impact of the pier operation on the labor market is small - but then, the entire area is going begging for workers.  So,  this is not a valid issue.
• What kind of facility is being proposed?  The proponents are seeking  60 or more acres on which to operate.  There are only 22 acres available south of State Pier and another 14 acres north of the Pier,  in addition to 10 acres of “water lot”.  To obtain 60 acres would require the approval of all the interested parties listed below, a very unlikely prospect requiring a great deal of time to explore.  I assume that we are not talking about the many “Quonset Hut” operations springing up all over the country on  old or newly designated Indian reservations.  Furthermore, the State Pier is built on pilings designed to support the pier operation, not a mega-gambling building  and supporting structures.  If the pier had to be re-done, issues of flood plain  and dredging regulations  would immediately arise, involving State and Federal environmental agencies...more time and more uncertainty.  There are also specific New London zoning restrictions regarding the maximum  height of structures.  And what about access to the site for the tens of thousands of patrons (suckers?).  The only existing  way into the site is a small road under a  railroad bridge,  similar to the situation approaching Fort Trumble.  An overpass or sky-way would probably have to be built from I-95 to accommodate the traffic, with a great  negative impact on the housing in the area,  with involvement of Amtrak regarding its closely defended air rights over its tracks,  and with a further loss of livable land in New London.
• Delay, long delay would beset this project, as has been the case on several other occasions here when would-be  operators  came in, bootstrapping  meager holdings into vast ideas that did not or should not fly.  Most of the land comprising the State Pier operation is owned by Canadian Pacific Railroad.  Other obligatory players include Amtrak, the State of Connecticut, this city, the Federal Housing Authority, and also the current owner of the former Tracor building.  And while this was going on, with no guarantee of successful outcome, New London  would once again be becalmed for years just as a fair wind and following sea had arrived.
• Neighborhood disruption would occur, as noted above, and with the further isolation of the Crystal Avenue and Riverside neighborhoods.
• An Indian Reservation  within the confines of this land-poor city would not only mean further loss of land;  it would also mean loss of any certainty that we would not lose more land as the reservation expanded and sought further annexation.  Sound familiar?  This is in no way meant as a slight to  our Native American neighbors across and up the river.    They are doing a great job, employing nearly 20,000 people.  Indeed, if it had not been for Foxwoods in the early 1990’s, Southeastern Connecticut would have been in a Depression during most of that decade, given the severe down-sizing  at EB.  This is also not an attack on  our fellow New Londoners who  have a golden opportunity by virtue of their heritage and  the suffering of their kin in the past.  They should “go for it”.  But  here is reality: those who have been awarded sovereignty over  Indian reservations have, under present Federal legislation, a potential blank check to keep withdrawing more land; and they have certainly shown every intention to do so.  Any suggestion that reservation land be made permanent and non-expandable by annexation has been met - by Ledyard, etc., and by myself privately, with resistance and even anger.  And remember - the Eastern Pequots have no reservation rights yet.  They are “boot-strapping”.  Further delay.
• Other Effects on New London.  “Pilot funds” are not currently adequate for the city.  Any further return to the city would be off-set by greatly increased expenses for police and fire protection, water and sewer services (see Montville), and by adverse net impact on our Downtown.  Furthermore, New London owns a four acre parcel in the area, zoned for manufacturing use, that would be lost.  The State might well reduce current aid to the city as it receives some funds from the casino operation.  And, basically,  the financial offer made  to New London by the casino proponents is “chicken-feed”.
• The impact on jobs for the region has already been addressed.  There are jobs in the region, for those that want them.
• How many casinos, mega- or otherwise, can this region absorb before we arrive at a “zero sum” game.
• Finally, the Process.  New Londoners who may have been lulled into a  wait-and-see mode by  the idea that we would definitely have the last word in a city-wide referendum  should  wake up  to the recent caution expressed by City Attorney Tom Londregan:  the City Charter  probably does not allow for an advisory referendum until after the City Council takes specific action.  That is a much harder situation in which to prevail.  Furthermore, even at the State level, it is unclear as to whether the final State decisions will be administrative or legislative.  If not legislative, the citizens have little voice; and imprudent or even fraudulent outcomes are more difficult to detect  and prevent.  This issue is currently being litigated in New York State, where compacts made between the Governor and Indian tribes without direct involvement of the Legislature have recently been voided by the court.  More uncertainty...more delay, more risk.

Bottom line:  this is a bad idea for the City of New London, and it should be quashed now.  The future of New London lies elsewhere - and a bright future it is.  Please contact all the City Councilors, and your State legislators, in addition to U.S Representative Robert Simmons and our Senators with your decision in this matter.  Every voice counts...if it comes soon enough!

GS