I’m willing to bet the third Connecticut casino won’t hurt MGM SpringfieldDate: 3/2/2017 I’m not a gambler, at least in the traditional sense, but I don’t judge those who enjoy going to casinos and spending some dough in the effort of making some dough back, either.
It’s not just my idea of fun. I’m sure my ideas of fun may not seem so fun to others.
In covering the development of casinos for our area, though, I’ve read a lot about them, and I feel safe in saying if MGM Springfield actually offers everything the management has pitched, I can’t really see the third casino in Connecticut being a huge threat to the economic well-being to “our” casino.
The combination of an entertainment complex in downtown Springfield as well as a schedule of events at the MassMutual Center I think will beat what would be offered at the proposed third Connecticut casino. Perhaps I’m allowing my regional patriotism to trump cold logic, but so be it.
A movie theater within walking distance of my home is of great interest to me – a fact that makes MGM Springfield very appealing to me.
From the description offered in the Connecticut press, it sounds like the third casino would be considerably more modest than either Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun in its entertaining offerings. Its sounds much more like “slots in a box” than a destination point.
Complicating matters will be how quickly officials in Connecticut want to see this thing built. I imagine in the perfect world of gaming, they would want this third casino up and running as soon as possible to affect the impact of the opening of MGM Springfield in September of 2018.
The larger question is that with additional casinos in our state – possibly three within driving distance in Connecticut and additional casinos in Rhode Island and New York – just how thin with the pie of disposable income be sliced. Two auxiliary questions that concern me more is how the state lottery will be affected and whether or not there will be true benefit to existing downtown Springfield businesses from the casino.
We will just have to see.
Be specific
Lately I’ve been taking more conservative friends on my Facebook feed a little to task about their use of the phrase “the media” or “the press” in criticisms of the relationship between the administration and reporters.
One friend recently posted something critical and I countered with a question of when had I participated in such behavior. Oh, he responded, the comment was aimed at my competitors.
@!$%!
While my colleagues and I here at Reminder Publications cover events in a very defined part of the country and do not report from the nation’s capitol, we are still part of “the press.”
There is plenty of criticism anyone can make about any element of any profession because we are all human and prone to a wide variety of failings. The biggest problem with my profession is we have strayed away from local ownership in too many cases, putting too many news outlets in the hands of two few corporations.
A secondary problem is with the changes in advertising revenues, resources for reporting have been cut and good stories have often been replaced with stories that are less expensive to produce.
In our region we have some really outstanding and committed reporters and editors. We also have some incompetent ones as well. That, my friends, is the human condition.
So if you have a criticism, please be specific. Sharing some meme on Facebook that lumps everyone of any group together is just lazy.
Got an opinion? I’d love to read it! Send me an email; at news@thereminder.com. As always this column is the product of my own fevered imagination and does not reflect the viewpoint of the publishers or advertisers.
|
