The Big Apple, led by Mayor Adams, is planning a major overhaul of its gambling landscape. The goal is to simplify the process of establishing casinos in more areas, entering a heated race for three highly sought-after casino permits throughout the downstate area.
The suggested modifications would permit casinos in zones currently designated for industrial use and numerous commercial districts, locations where they are presently prohibited. Furthermore, the city aims to eliminate any size limitations on these gambling establishments, enabling developers to incorporate features such as dining establishments and lodging.
Municipal authorities contend that these adjustments are essential to streamline the casino licensing procedure and enhance New York City’s attractiveness to developers. They perceive the existing zoning ordinances as a significant obstacle. The city’s head of planning, Dan Garodnick, emphasized the importance of establishing a fair and equal opportunity for those interested in investing in New York City.
Although New York City, with its 8.8 million residents, presents an enticing opportunity for casino operators, there is substantial competition. One proposition aims to convert the Nassau Coliseum in Long Island into a casino. Moreover, existing contenders cannot be disregarded: Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens and Empire City Casino are anticipated to be formidable competitors for the licenses, given their well-established gambling operations.
Naturally, these alterations must still undergo the city’s land-use evaluation procedure, including endorsements from neighborhood councils, borough executives, and the City Council. If granted local approval, the changes would then proceed to the City Planning Commission, the City Council, and ultimately the mayor for final authorization. If all goes according to plan, the selected casino projects could circumvent the customary protracted and costly land-use review process.
Prior to the issuance of a casino permit by the state Gaming Authority, prospective ventures require approval from a minimum of two-thirds of a local neighborhood advisory council. This guarantees that the perspectives of those directly affected are considered, potentially shaping projects encountering resistance, such as the one envisioned for Coney Island.
Nevertheless, not all parties are content with the structure of this procedure. Dissenters, including Layla Law-Gisiko from Manhattan’s Community Board Five, are expressing concerns regarding the ambiguous wording and potential clashes with established zoning ordinances. They contend that this iteration lacks the comprehensive protections found in previous propositions. Law-Gisiko aims to witness substantial modifications that address these apprehensions before any conclusive determinations are reached.
admin