Las Vegas Sands isn’t the only company to face difficulties in relation to its New York casino plans. Politicians representing the West Side of Manhattan have now also opposed Related Cos.’s plans to construct a Wynn-branded casino hotel in the High Line area.

The Property Would Add Gaming to the High Line

The planned property would cost approximately $12 billion to construct and is expected to receive the green light. Should Wynn secure one of the three downstate casino permits, the new property would have three towers, including one named after the operator company.

However, not everyone is on board as some believe that the new property would harm the community. Certain politicians, including Assemblyman Tony Simone, have voiced their opposition to the plan.

Simone is set to be a major challenge to the casino plans as he is set to be one of the six members of the board that will decide the fate of the three downstate casino licenses.  

In any case, Related hopes to reach a mutually agreeable compromise. Its leaders highlighted the fact that they have met with High Line representatives multiple times and have made many meaningful amendments, addressing a variety of concerns.

Why Do People Oppose the New Casino Hotel?

A nonprofit group called Protect the High Line seeks to challenge the plans for a Wynn-branded property, arguing that it would obstruct views and take up place that could be otherwise used for residential housing.

According to Protect the High Line, the charm of the area is in its park space and elevation which allows visitors to enjoy unobstructed views of the Manhattan skyline. This argument was echoed by Assemblywoman Deborah Glick who agreed that more towers would negatively impact the area.

The Manhattan Community Board 4, on the other hand, was concerned about the property’s potential negative effect on housing in the area.

As mentioned, the Wynn property is not the only one to face opposition. Locals have also raised various concerns with other casino plans in the city. Some have suggested that new casino properties could cause a spike in gambling problems, while others have cited traffic and housing-related issues as their primary concerns.

In other news, politicians recently criticized the lack of a new tribal gaming compact.

The post Politicians and Charities Oppose Wynn’s NY Casino Plans appeared first on Keno Wizard.

Efforts by the Coquille Indian Tribe to create a new casino along South Pacific Highway in Medford face opposition from four Tribal Nations based in Northern California and Oregon. The Karuk, Cow Creek, Elk Valley, and Tolowa Dee-ni’ Tribes have united against the Coquille Tribe’s project, drafting a letter to Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Deb Haaland.

A New Casino Could Disrupt the Existing Balance

At the heart of the issue is the Coquille Tribe’s plan to place 2.4 acres of land into trusts through the DOI for the casino project. While this process typically only applies to land near a tribe’s reservation, the proposed site is 150 miles beyond the Coquille Tribe’s reservation. In contrast, the Karuk Tribe’s service area is within 50 miles of the location.

In a letter to DOI Secretary Deb Haaland, four neighboring tribal nations urged her to visit them before issuing an exception to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for the Coquille Tribe. Speaking for local news outlet KMTR, chair of the Karuk Tribe, Buster Attebery, expressed concerns about the lack of consultation with local tribes regarding the project’s potential economic impacts.

The economic consequences could be huge. It would devastate our ability to provide healthcare, public safety, social services.

Buster Attebery, Karuk Tribe chair 

Attebery emphasized the importance of consulting tribes with ancestral ties to the region, highlighting their millennia of best practices. The four nations opposing the project fear such a high-profile venue could create unnecessary competition and impact their revenue streams. Many tribes rely on their gaming businesses to ensure an adequate standard of living for their members, so Coquille’s project could be considered a hostile action.

The Coquille Tribe’s Efforts Span Several Years

Responding to the rising controversy, Coquille tribal chair Brenda Meade defended the project, citing the Coquille Restoration Act of 1989, authorizing the tribe to take land into trust for economic development within a designated reservation restoration area, including Jackson County. Meade expressed disappointment in the opposition from other tribes, emphasizing the Coquille Tribe’s rights within the reservation restoration area defined by Congress.

It is heartbreaking to us that other tribes, including tribes in California, continue to attack our sovereignty and seek to limit our economic development rights.

Brenda Meade, Coquille tribal chair

The project for a Medford casino previously faced significant opposition from Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, who expressed concerns that the venue would negatively impact all of Oregon’s tribes and lead to a proliferation of gambling. Despite Kotek’s stance, the final decision rests with DOI, which previously rejected the Coquille Tribe’s effort.

As the dispute continues, the fate of the Coquille Tribe’s casino project hangs in the balance, with opposing Tribal Nations advocating for their sovereignty and economic interests in the region. While the new project technically meets the legal requirements, its implications and long-term impact have sparked ongoing debates that could reshape Oregon’s gaming landscape.

The post Tribal Nations Oppose Coquille Casino Project appeared first on Keno Wizard.

A project seeking to reduce the lanes of Atlantic Avenue in Atlantic City, New Jersey, is subject to a lawsuit filed by casino operators along with AtlantiCare. The legal claim was filed last year and recently gained traction with the city’s claims in support of the project labeled as “road diet.” The project proposes to reduce the lanes from four to two along Atlantic Avenue between New Hampshire and Boston Avenues.

Opponents of the road diet claimed that the city needs to secure approval from the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA), a non-profit organization that focuses on tourism in Atlantic City. Besides AtlantiCare, plaintiffs include Tropicana, Resorts, Bally’s, Hard Rock and Caesars. Considering that the CRDA oversees tourism in the city, the plaintiffs argued that they need to approve the proposed project as well.

Another major concern of the plaintiffs is that the road diet will result in traffic congestion. This, in turn, may obstruct emergency vehicles down Atlantic Avenue from reaching AtlantiCare’s emergency, putting lives in jeopardy.

Additionally, the lawsuit alleged that a comprehensive study about the impact on traffic of the project wasn’t conducted. Ultimately, the casinos along with AtlantiCare asked the court to enforce an injunction, temporarily stopping the road diet.

The City’s Defense Fights Back

The opposing side, the city, rejected the claims that the project needs the approval of the CRDA, as announced by the Press of Atlantic City. Last week, Richard Trenk, an attorney defending the city in the lawsuit, filed a brief, claiming that the plaintiffs misinterpreted the responsibilities of the CRDA outlining: “Thus, because no statute or regulation requires approval from CRDA, the City had no obligation to seek approval from CRDA.” What’s more, in its brief, the city’s defense argued that the project was accompanied by a traffic study that examined its impact on traffic.

Trenk also addressed the concerns related to the claim about delays of emergency vehicles caused by the reduction of the traffic lanes. He explained that experts in Atlantic City, in collaboration with the state and transportation agency examined the proposed project, confirming it wouldn’t impact the flow of emergency vehicles. “Thus, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate any genuine irreparable harm at stake,” explained the city’s brief.

The city’s defense asked the court to deny the requests listed within the lawsuit filed by AtlantiCare and the casino operators. The case is set to return to court on January 26, 2024, when each of the parties will present their arguments in front of Judge Michael Blee.

The post Officials in Atlantic City Oppose Road Project Lawsuit appeared first on Keno Wizard.

In a significant pushback against New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ ambitious plan to expedite casino approvals in New York City, Community Board 4‘s land use committee unanimously rejected the proposed amendment on December 13. 

Community boards, such as CB4 representing Hell’s Kitchen and Chelsea, play a crucial role in ULURP, offering advisory opinions on land use plans. Delores Rubin, an outspoken board member, expressed criticism toward the city officials, stating that they had been shaming city planning for relinquishing all responsibilities to the state. She underscored the significance of community input in the decision-making process, reported The City, a non-profit digital news organization.

Hell’s Kitchen resident David Korman echoed these sentiments, condemning the proposed amendment during a video conference, asserting that ULURP was designed to democratize the planning process. Korman argued that the amendment would exclude both the community and city planning professionals from the decision-making table.

The Planning Department justifies the removal of ULURP for casino proposals, citing the duplication of the state’s review process. Under the proposed changes, each casino proposal would be subject to scrutiny by a newly established Community Advisory Committee (CAC). This committee, composed of six members, including the Mayor, Governor, borough president, and local state representatives, aims to conduct public meetings and approve casino applications before reaching the state’s Gaming Facility Location Board.

City Planning spokesperson Casey Berkovitz defended the amendment, stating it is a more effective utilization of time and resources within the city. The goal is to create a level playing field for New York City applicants to compete with proposals elsewhere in the state, according to Dan Garodnick, director of the city planning agency.

However, concerns about the potential impact of gaming facilities on local communities have surfaced. Critics argue that the amendment may allow for large hotels without city planning oversight and could be detrimental to neighborhoods.

Despite these concerns, Mayor Adams, supported by City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, emphasized the economic opportunities associated with casinos, citing a potential annual revenue of $5.3 billion. 

While approximately a dozen casino proposals are in the pipeline, only nine are specific to New York City, including locations in Midtown Manhattan, Coney Island, The Bronx, and Queens. Notably, some proposals, like the one near Citi Field, may still require state legislature approval due to parkland considerations.

The fate of the amendment now rests with the City Planning Commission, where questions about its potential drawbacks and the necessity of ULURP for certain cases have already been raised. If approved, the proposal will proceed to the City Council and Mayor Adams for final consideration.

The post NYC Community Boards Oppose Mayor’ Move to Streamline Casino Approvals appeared first on Keno Wizard.