Casinos a key issue in Conn. governor’s race

Susan Haigh

Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2002 | 9:44 a.m.

HARTFORD, Conn. -- There was hardly a peep about the potential proliferation of tribal casinos in Connecticut's 1998 gubernatorial campaign.

Many thought the state's gambling industry would always be limited to Foxwoods Resort Casino and Mohegan Sun. It was something only southeastern Connecticut had to worry about.

Four years later, the two candidates for governor are talking a lot about casinos and the myriad related issues, including traffic congestion and sprawl. Both candidates understand that more voters, from more parts of Connecticut, are now nervous that another tribe could receive federal acknowledgment and subsequently the right to open a casino.

The pressure will likely increase between now and Election Day. Groups of casino proponents plan a march at the Capitol on Oct. 15. And two months ago the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs granted recognition to the historic Eastern Pequot Tribe in North Stonington. The state is now appealing that decision.

Republican Gov. John G. Rowland has long taken a hands-off approach to tribal recognition and tribal gambling issues, pointing out that as governor he could have to negotiate a gambling compact with any tribe that obtained federal recognition. But he is supporting an appeal of the Eastern Pequot decision, saying he believes there were flaws in the recognition process, and he is endorsing a proposed moratorium on federal recognitions backed by the state's two Democratic senators.

Last week Rowland went a step further and launched a television campaign ad, pledging he will "fight as your governor against the development of new casinos."

That has prompted his Democratic rival, Bill Curry, to accuse Rowland of flip-flopping on the issue. Curry, a longtime opponent of casino development, claims Rowland has a history of supporting gambling, from a failed 1995 proposal to build a casino in Bridgeport to accepting thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from casino interests.

"The race got close. It's one of the driving issues. He simply got up and decided to think otherwise," Curry said.

Curry and his running mate, Senate Majority Leader George Jepsen, D-Stamford, have spent considerable time over the past seven weeks talking about casino issues in Fairfield County. Curry said voters there, Republicans and Democrats alike, are upset that Rowland has not done more to help them.

Rowland accuses Curry of trying to distort his record.

"What some of my opponents are suggesting is that (I) want to put the casino in other parts of Fairfield County, like Ridgefield and Danbury and Redding," Rowland told reporters recently. "If you would report the truth and report true statements, you cannot show anywhere -- and you ought to write this story -- that I've never supported a casino anywhere except for eight years ago in Bridgeport, Connecticut."

Jeff Benedict, a one-time Democratic congressional candidate in the 2nd District and author of the book "Without Reservation," which challenges the legitimacy of the Mashantucket Pequots, said he's watched a number of political leaders, including Rowland, change or evolve their positions on casinos this summer.

"In fairness," Benedict said, "I think there were a lot of people in politics who underestimated the power of this issue."

Benedict traveled throughout the state during his congressional bid, raising money for his campaign. He said he spent a lot of time in Fairfield County because potential donors were very interested in hearing what he had to say about casinos and tribal recognition. Voters in that region are very worried that a casino along the Interstate 95 or Interstate 84 corridors will only exacerbate traffic woes and harm the quality of life, he said.

Benedict said he has heard similar fears elsewhere in Connecticut, especially in Bridgeport and Kent, where the Golden Hill Paugussetts and the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, respectively, are awaiting decisions on federal recognition.

Those residents, Benedict said, are looking to Hartford for answers.

Jonathan Pelto, a Democratic strategist and campaign manager for the 1998 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Barbara B. Kennelly, said he believes Rowland may have satisfied many of those voters with his TV ad.

"He's working off a poll. It's a brilliant strategic move," said Pelto, adding how Rowland ties casinos with traffic and open space in his ad. Pelto said polls show that most people don't really have a problem with casinos per se, they just don't like what comes with them.

"I think the governor is outmaneuvering Curry on this casino issue and it has nothing to do with gaming," Pelto said. "It's not about gaming. It's about traffic and all those things."

Rep. Jefferson B. Davis, D-Pomfret, whose constituents in Windham County are worried about the Nipmuc Tribe in nearby Massachusetts possibly opening a casino, called Rowland's latest position "a hollow statement." Davis said he hopes that voters will be skeptical of the governor's words.

"I'm not surprised that he's trying to picture himself as a casino opponent because clearly some polling numbers are telling him that's what he needs to do," Davis said.

Yet state Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich, who opposes casino development, said he and his Fairfield County constituents are pleased Rowland has taken a more public stance against casinos. He believes it nullifies the issue for Curry.

"No one is going to vote for Bill Curry, Republican or Democrat, because the governor hasn't taken this position soon enough," Nickerson said.