How Communities Have Responded To Potential New Downstate NY Casinos

The three downstate casino licenses currently accessible hold the potential to significantly boost New York’s economy, as well as benefit the nearby regions surrounding these forthcoming casinos.

However, it does not imply that the communities that each applicant aspires to establish are embracing a new gaming facility wholeheartedly.

After the selection of the three successful New York casinos, they are obligated to pay licensing fees amounting to $500 million. Additionally, a minimum capital investment of $500 million is mandatory, providing numerous employment prospects in the construction sector when the projects commence.

However, almost all casino proposals are met with opposition from community leaders and members. The way in which company and community officials address this resistance will greatly influence which three applicants are granted casino licenses.

Community input is crucial in the casino application process

The Gaming Facility Location Board (GFLB) highly regards the perspectives of every community regarding the potential inclusion of casinos in their areas. To initiate the evaluation process, applicants are mandated to obtain endorsement from a Community Advisory Committee before their proposals are reviewed by the GFLB. These committees will be established once the GFLB responds to a second round of inquiries, while we are still awaiting the initial set of responses.

According to the RFA, the inclusion of Community Advisory Committee members appointed by elected officials guarantees that only projects supported by the community are presented to the Board for evaluation.

If local leaders and residents continue to criticize the casino proposal, it could have more than just a negative impact on its reputation. The chances of the applicants obtaining a casino license may decrease if the Community Advisory Committee takes into consideration the public opposition and concludes that a gaming facility is not suitable for the area.

Communities have exhibited various responses towards groups aiming to construct a casino in their vicinity.

Caesars Palace Times Square attempts to clear the air

Caesars Entertainment and SL Green, both industry titans in their own right, have set their sights on a challenging endeavor – opening a casino in Times Square. Their collective goal is to join forces and establish a Manhattan casino, pending approval from the New York State Gaming Commission.

However, there is now a rebellion brewing against Caesars Palace Times Square, spearheaded by the Broadway League. The organization has established the No Times Square Casino Community Coalition to lead the opposition.

According to the coalition’s website, it identifies as a “growing alliance of Times Square residents, businesses, community organizations, and stakeholders who are devoted to securing its future and alarmed by the detrimental consequences a casino would bring.”

Roc Nation made an effort in mid-May to promote optimism surrounding the casino proposal through the release of a social media statement.

Roc Nation expressed their desire to directly address the people of New York City, as they are aware of certain parties spreading misinformation and causing confusion.

Roc Nation highlighted the potential advantages that could arise if Caesars Palace Times Square becomes a tangible project. The entertainment agency, founded by Jay-Z, emphasized their commitment to preserving the community’s connection to Manhattan’s culture, should the endeavor materialize.

Las Vegas Sands’ rocky application process

Las Vegas Sands, a casino and resort company headquartered in Nevada, has expressed interest in constructing a casino at the Nassau Coliseum location. However, the company has faced resistance from the public, both through media scrutiny and legal challenges.

In April, a 99-year lease agreement was reached between Nassau County officials and Sands, granting the gaming operator rights to the property of the Old Barn. Regardless of whether Sands obtains a casino license from the NYSGC or not, the company is bound to pay $54 million as stipulated in the agreement.

Hofstra University, a neighboring institution, has long been vocal against the Sands project. In March, the university issued a statement expressing their belief that Sands is not suitable for Nassau County. They emphasized that the proposed gambling facility is in close proximity to various educational institutions, ranging from preschools to graduate schools, as well as diverse suburban communities. Hofstra argued that these entities should not be subjected to the potential negative consequences, such as heightened traffic congestion, crime rates, economic damage to local businesses, and other adverse effects that a casino development might entail.

Hofstra University filed a civil complaint against Nassau County officials after the announcement of the lease agreement between them and Sands for Nassau Coliseum. The university alleged that the Nassau County Planning Commission had violated New York’s Open Meeting Law during its approval of the 99-year lease.

The Say No to the Casino Civic Association, formed by Nassau residents, has successfully voiced their opinions. With the aim of gathering 5,000 signatures, the group has already received 3,179 on change.org.

Queens residents protest Steve Cohen’s casino proposal

Billionaire investor Steve Cohen, owner of the New York Mets, is teaming up with Seminole Gaming to venture into the establishment of Hard Rock Casino Queens. Their vision is to build this facility in the vicinity of Citi Field, precisely in Flushing Meadows/Corona Park.

In the month of March, residents of Queens organized a rally to express their dissatisfaction with Cohen’s proposal. The community firmly believes that the area needs a source of economic growth, but they are opposed to the idea of a casino being the solution.

During the rally, Sarah Ahn, representing the Flushing Work Center, expressed her worries about the potential rise of gambling addictions in the community due to the presence of a nearby casino. Rebecca Pryor, the executive director of the Guardians of Flushing Bay, also addressed the crowd.

Pryor emphasized the importance of inclusive and well-designed neighborhood projects that are transparently planned and driven by the community. These projects should focus on managing rainfall, minimizing air pollution, preserving our public parkland, and most importantly, uplifting and safeguarding our environmental justice communities instead of exploiting them.

The New York Post reported that Senator Jessica Ramos has decided not to propose any legislation to loosen land-use regulations for the development of a casino and entertainment facility near the Mets stadium. Ramos also stated that she is not the only one against the idea of a casino in Queens, as a majority of her constituents share her perspective.

The Coney takes a unique approach to community outreach

Thor Equities, The Chickasaw Nation, Legends Hospitality, and Saratoga Casino Holdings are supporting the Coney Island casino’s bid for a gaming license in the downstate area.

The advisory and consultative body, Community Board 13, consists of unpaid individuals chosen by Queens president Donovan Richards. Its main focus is on matters concerning land use and zoning. Recently, CB13 conducted a vote and unanimously passed a resolution to express their opposition towards The Coney, a proposed casino development. The board cited common concerns such as increased crime rates and traffic congestion as reasons for their stance.

Nevertheless, CB13’s position on the Coney Island casino lacks legal authority and will not impede the proposal. However, it may influence the perspective of individuals serving on The Coney’s Community Advisory Committee.

The Coney does have plenty of support, though

However, The Coney does possess a dedicated group of advocates as well. Robert Cornegy, a former NYC council member, has now become a consultant for the project and has employed a hands-on approach to engage with the local community. Quite literally, he has taken to the streets to connect with people on a personal level.

Cornegy engaged in door-to-door outreach, reaching out to over 16,300 residents in Coney Island, resulting in gathering 3,363 signatures endorsing the casino. According to Cornegy, this approach provided him with valuable opportunities to engage in genuine and significant discussions with the local community, as he expressed to playin-ny.

Cornegy expressed, “Engaging in door-to-door interactions with residents may seem old-fashioned, but we firmly believe it is a dependable method to gather valuable input. It allows us to have personal conversations with individuals and not merely collect signatures, but also understand the sentiment behind them.”

In contrast to other downstate casino applicants who have organized meetings to gather input from locals, Cornegy holds the belief that such events only attract the most engaged community members. Consequently, he argues that hosting meetings does not yield input that accurately represents the entire community.

According to Cornegy, he stated to playin-ny that our belief is that the most effective approach to capture a comprehensive view is by extensively exploring the entire community rather than solely relying on inviting people in. He believes this is a matter of style. Our approach aims to incorporate the widest range of community input, rather than simply seeking approval and collecting signatures.