|
|
|
What Now for Bridgeport?
In the wake of casino's legislative defeat, Bridgeport Regional Business Council head
Paul Timpanelli looks at how to pick up the pieces
|
Business New Haven
12/4/1995
By: BNH
|
As president of Bridgeport's largest business group, the Bridgeport Regional Business Council's Paul S. Timpanelli was one of the earliest and most active proponents of a casino/entertainment complex as
the centerpiece of Park City revitalization. With the casino proposal having been shot down November 10 in the state legislature, Timpanelli and other Bridgeport public and private-sector leaders are left to explore alternatives for the state's largest city. BNH spoke to Timpanelli during Thanksgiving week.
Was this vote anti-Bridgeport, anti-Indian, or simply a what's-in-it-for-me vote?
I think a combination of all those things. This was such a complex issue, with so many interests, that you can't really pinpoint one reason why the vote went as it did. To some negative voters, it was an anti-Indian vote; I certainly do not think it was an anti-Bridgeport vote - that's probably the only one on your list that I don't agree with. It was an anti-Indian vote, it was an anti-gaming vote, it was a protecting-state-funds vote, and a self-interest vote, a being-sure-that-my-constituents-don't-have-to-sit-in-a-traffic-jam-for-another-42-seconds vote. It was all of those things.
So who's on Bridgeport's enemies list now?
Nobody [laughs].
Does the city now feel that it has a check that it can cash in with legislators?
Well, I think the city feels - as does the business community - that we have an opportunity here now to take advantage of the moment. I think there are legislators who didn't want to vote the way that they did [against the casino proposal], but felt that they had to for whatever reasons they had, and I think they'll [now] be more sympathetic and more sensitive to Bridgeport's needs. I think we can take advantage of that.
A lot of the anti-gambling rhetoric was from legislators who said Bridgeport ought to be pursuing a different economic-development path. Don't those people now have a special obligation to help the city chart a new course?
I don't know about a special obligation, but they certainly have an obligation. We've spoken extensively in the last week or so since the vote to Sens. [Republican William H. of Greenwich] Nickerson and [Republican James T. of Simsbury] Fleming and [Democrat George of Stamford] Jepson and others in the forefront of the opposition, and I think they're much more sensitive to Bridgeport now and its needs, and I think they're going to be much more willing to take a positive look at what those needs might be.
So how do you cash that check?
I don't know yet.
Might it take the form of a specific proposal, or a fund...
Our preference is not for specific proposals. Our preference is for what we call programmatic support. Bridgeport has an economic development plan. It's already underway: We've received $75 million or $80 million in the last year to support specific pieces of that plan. We'd like to put together an economic development fund to replace what we saw as casino revenue with other sources - maybe from the state, maybe from the Pequots, maybe from the private sector, or maybe a blending of all those - so that that plan can continue to be implemented.
And should the size of that fund be roughly equivalent to what the city would have received under the casino plan?
Our guess was $15 million to $20 million a year from the casino to support the fund. So if we can come near that, that would certainly be useful, and it would certainly be appreciated.
Of course, that can't replace the jobs component of the casino plan.
No. Nothing will.
Does the fact that the governor said he wouldn't introduce new casino legislation during his remaining time in office mean that a casino for Bridgeport is dead for the duration of the Rowland administration?
If he sticks to that position.
Well, representatives of Bridgeport and their allies overcame a lot of obstacles just to get the proposal
to a vote. So the question is, will you guys still be trying to get a casino
in there?
We're not pursuing the issue any longer. If the issue is pursued by others, I'm not saying we'd oppose it. But we're not aggressively pursuing it.
Was the Shoreline Star dog track opened strictly in anticipation of a casino development? Also, how's it doing, and can it stand on its own without a casino?
To answer your first question, yes, to some degree it was. Bob Zeff is the owner of the dog track and was a partner with Steve Winn in a Bridgeport development opportunity, and was also one of the loudest and most consistent voices in Hartford in support of expanding slot machines to the existing state pari-mutuels. So that project was built in anticipation of those things happening. Can it stand on its own? Well, at this point it is. We're hopeful it's going to be able to. They're going to be investing more dollars in marketing the facility, and my understanding is that in the last week or so attendance has picked up.
As a result of having gone through this process, is there a core group now in place to advance economic development in Bridgeport that includes people who weren't there before?
I think there is. One of the successes we've had as a result of this debate is to bring more people on board with our efforts; to raise the level of awareness in the state - particularly in the political community - and raise the level of sensitivity to Bridgeport's needs. I think that's a victory.
Does the Port of Bridgeport have a future as an industrial port, or is its sole future as either an entertainment hub or a mixed-use entertainment/retail/residential venue?
I think it will be all of those things. That's what we've said from day one. It was never our intention to reconstruct the port strictly as an entertainment venue. There is a commercial port that's here; the economic-development plan calls for the expansion of that port to double the number of berths. That was in line with our thinking relative to a casino, and that hasn't changed. We're still looking at creating some major entertainment attractions around the port, but still also looking to expand the commercial port. But our commercial port is going to be very small, because the physical size of Bridgeport's harbor is very small.
What keeps Bridgeport from exploiting its natural advantage as really the only site in Fairfield County for a major development?
Because it has natural disadvantages, and those disadvantages have so far outweighed the advantages. Those include infrastructure; the preponderance of under-utilized and unutilized former industrial sites; the fact that those sites which are available are not clean, and environmental laws today do not allow development until they've become clean; the crime problem that we've had here; and the lack of capital investment. Those factor outright its natural assets.
Tell us about this Trump racetrack proposal. How far along is it?
Not far at all, and there really isn't much more to say about it than what you've read. They were in here to see us a few weeks back. Trump owns a piece of property in Bridgeport that's relatively small...
Six acres?
Yes. And he looks at this opportunity as a good one; evidently the relationship he has with the Indianapolis [Motor Speedway] folks is a good one. They have looked for a site in the northeastern United States, and have zeroes in on Bridgeport as one of those options.
We don't pretend to know how racetracks work as engines of economic development, other than one has races there and spectators come. How do they generate dollars for surrounding communities?
I couldn't tell you anything about the economics of it myself.
Something like a racetrack doesn't require state approval, but would likely need some public funding at the state level for site improvement, is that correct?
That's the thinking at this point. It would not require state legislative approval.
Is it necessarily going to take a
single major project, a deus ex machina, to reverse Bridgeport's course?
I think it is. Bridgeport has an economic-development plan; we've made a lot of progress toward the implementation of that plan; there are a lot of projects that are already under way. But we've been looking at one major catalyst, one major engine, to expedite that plan. We do not now have that engine.
|
Go FirstGo PreviousGo
NextGo LastGo
to Index
|
|
