The Big Apple is significantly raising the stakes in the competition for a sought-after gambling permit. With the Empire State intending to grant three downstate licenses, the rivalry is intense, and the metropolis is going all out.
To emerge as a leading contender, the city is contemplating a daring move: altering zoning ordinances to permit casinos in areas previously prohibited. Imagine former manufacturing zones and even some retail areas. They’re also eliminating size limitations, clearing the path for upscale dining establishments, lodgings, and entertainment venues alongside the gaming areas.
Municipal authorities are confident this will simplify the bidding procedure and make New York irresistible to casino developers. Presently, zoning regulations are a complete deal-breaker for casinos. Daniel Garodnik, director of urban planning, stresses the necessity to create a level playing field for NYC competitors.
It’s widely known that New York’s prime location and vast populace of 8.8 million are a major attraction for bidders. However, some are also considering locations just beyond the city limits, such as the former Nassau Coliseum site on Long Island. Existing gaming establishments at Aqueduct Racetrack and Empire City Casino are also perceived as formidable competitors.
Naturally, any zoning modifications face a lengthy process, requiring consent from community boards, borough executives, and the City Council before ultimately reaching the mayor’s office. However, if authorized, the victorious casino project would benefit from an expedited approval process, conserving both time and finances.
Prior to a gaming establishment application reaching the New York State Gaming Authority, it requires the endorsement of a supermajority of a neighborhood community advisory group. This empowers inhabitants with considerable influence and has the potential to determine the fate of ventures encountering local opposition, such as the one put forth for Coney Island.
Nevertheless, certain detractors, including Layla Law-Gisiko from Community Board 5 in Manhattan, express apprehension that the present proposition lacks clarity. They contend that it could conflict with established zoning regulations and lacks the detailed particulars found in previous iterations. Law-Gisiko aspires to witness substantial modifications that alleviate these apprehensions before the proposition proceeds.
