A developer who touted an East Hartford site for a third Connecticut casino — one of three eliminated from consideration last week — was critical Tuesday of the tribal partnership that narrowed the field.

“At this late date in the process, MMCT still refuses to identify specific properties or sites in the named finalist communities,” Tony Ravosa, managing member of Silver Lane Partners, said in a statement, referring to MMCT Venture, the Mashantucket Pequot-Mohegan partnership that hopes to build a Hartford-area casino to compete against MGM Springfield, the $950 million facility rising north of the Connecticut border.

Ravosa held a news conference Tuesday morning at the Radisson Hartford Hotel in Hartford.

He had declined comment Friday, following the tribes’ announcement that they had trimmed the field of municipalities under consideration to two: East Windsor and Windsor Locks. They rejected East Hartford, Hartford and South Windsor.

A factor in East Hartford’s downfall was likely its proximity to the tribes’ respective southeastern Connecticut casinos, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun.

“From the very outset of our formal efforts commencing in September 2014 to build support for the Showcase Cinemas site (on Interstate 84) as the prime location to develop the third Connecticut casino, we were told by Mohegan officials of their concern that East Hartford was considered ‘too close’ to their primary gaming facility in Uncasville,” Ravosa said. “With East Hartford, they also expressed concern about the possibility of greater erosion (or shrinkage) to their existing business at Mohegan Sun, believing that a site located farther up Interstate 91 would be less impactful.”

Ravosa said he had long anticipated that the tribes would eliminate East Hartford from consideration. He said he had not spoken with MMCT officials in six to eight months.

Nevertheless, he continued to maintain that the East Hartford site is the best of those proposed, citing a study that found it provided the best opportunity to “to maximize revenue return to the tribes and state.”

Connecticut receives 25 percent of the slot-machine winnings Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun generate.

“With all due respect to Mr. Ravosa, he believes East Hartford is the best site because he has the option on the land, and it would have been good for him personally if East Hartford was selected,” Andrew Doba, an MMCT spokesman, said Tuesday in a statement. “But he's not the one who wants to invest hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money. And he doesn't have all the facts when it comes to picking the ideal location.”

On Monday, an MGM Resorts International executive called on MMCT to release the “detailed economic analysis” that figured in its paring of the field of prospective casino sites.

“MMCT has indicated that the economic analysis was pivotal in their decision making, and officials at the state and local levels, as well as the public, have a right to see the study first-hand,” Alan Feldman, the executive, said in a statement.

MGM’s own analysis of the Connecticut gaming market concluded that a casino in the southwestern part of the state would create more jobs and raise more revenue that one in north-central Connecticut.

The gaming license the Massachusetts Gaming Commission awarded MGM Resorts for its Springfield project prohibits it from developing another casino within a 50-mile radius of Springfield.

b.hallenbeck@theday.com