Title: The State of New York's Casino Bidding Process

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. We'll talk about casinos now because 10 sites in and around New York City, or it might be down to 9, we'll find out, have been competing for three downstate casino licenses that the State Gaming Commission is expected to award by the end of the year. From Coney Island to the Bronx, from Yonkers to the Nassau Coliseum site, the race is on for the three licenses.

There's also competition between different community groups and leaders from around some of those sites who either want a casino in their neighborhoods or don't. The Citi Field area is one prime example. The two state senators from that part of Queens, John Liu and Jessica Ramos, are on different sides of that. Let's see what's happening with the race for and against casino licenses with Nick Garber, who covers city and state politics for the business news site Crain's New York. Hey, Nick. Thanks for coming on for this. Welcome back to WNYC.

Nick Garber: Hey, Brian. Thanks for having me.

Brian: Can you start with some basics for our listeners? This goes back to a statewide ballot referendum back in 2013, right?

Nick: That's right. Under then Governor Cuomo, the state created the process by which there would be three full-scale casinos that could open in or around New York City. That process got accelerated back in 2022 under Kathy Hochul to basically get the tax revenue faster, which is something that state policymakers are pretty eager to get their hands on, all the money that's going to come out of these casinos. Then that process itself has been delayed by a couple years, but finally, it seems like this year is going to be the year that these three casino licenses for the New York City area are going to be given out.

Brian: Do I have it right that the number was pegged at seven sites statewide, four upstate and three downstate, and the downstate casinos had to wait for a decade to get their licenses approved, the upstate ones didn't?

Nick: Yes. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but that sounds about right. There have been some early warning signs. I think some of the revenues from those upstate casinos have not been everything their wildest dreams might have indicated. There's rosy predictions about hundreds of millions of dollars coming in from the New York City casinos are not necessarily guaranteed, but we shall see.

Brian: My understanding is the reason for the different timelines was that they wanted to give the four upstate casinos a chance to get themselves economically planted before the three would open down around here, where there's so much population and so much potential competition, and people wouldn't go upstate and combine upstate vacations with visits to casinos unless those casinos were already flourishing. I think that's why they got going, and we had to wait down here.

Now the downstate bidding process is on. Three casinos, four in and around New York City. I'm going to read a list. Bear with us on this, but I think it's going to be interesting. I'm going to read a list of all the bids that was published recently by city and state. Here we go as I page through this. Hudson Yards West, you know where Hudson Yards is on the far west side of Manhattan. Coney Island is another one. Sands New York, that's the one that would be at the site of the Nassau Coliseum in Uniondale.

Bally's Bronx at Ferry Point Park. Freedom Plaza, Midtown East between First Avenue and the FDR Drive, between East 38th Street and East 41st Street. That's around the UN. I think it's controversial because of that. Caesars Palace Times Square needs no explanation. Saks Fifth Avenue was on this list when it got published originally. I think Saks has pulled out, Nick, right?

Nick: That's right. We had the story, we were the first to report that a couple of weeks ago, that Saks is the first serious project to withdraw from consideration. They are not going to be part of this process.

Brian: What was the original idea there? What's the relationship between a clothing store and a casino?

Nick: Good question. Saks is or was, there's been some turmoil, but they were owned by this parent company called Hudson's Bay, which is based in Canada. They wanted to convert the upper few floors of the famous flagship department store in Midtown into some fancy James Bond-style casino. They had some pretty serious hurdles, much like all the other Manhattan proposals, which we can get to. I think they seemingly just recognized that they were not going to probably have a serious shot at getting one of these three licenses. They told me they decided not to apply.

Brian: Continuing down the list, Metropolitan Park, that's the Citi Field one. Resorts World New York City, that's on Rockaway Boulevard in Jamaica. Empire City Casino, Yonkers Avenue in Yonkers. The Avenir, that's on 11th Avenue in Midtown. I guess that's it. Do you know if I left any out right off the top of your head?

Nick: No, I think you got them all.

Brian: Listeners, are you involved with supporting or opposing or potentially developing any of the downstate casinos? Steve Cohen, if you want to call in, we could talk about Juan Soto and how the Mets are doing so far and your casino project. If anybody wants to call in who's opposing or supporting or potentially developing any of the downstate casinos that are now legal to create, three of them will be approved.

Who wants it in your neighborhood for jobs, for entertainment, for whatever? Who doesn't over quality of life concerns, gambling addiction concerns, or whatever on that side? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, with Nick Garber from Crain's. Nick, how's this going to work? Tell us about the State Gaming Commission and what you think they're looking for when they weigh these bids against each other.

Nick: The state has laid out actually a whole list of criteria, I can pull it up in a second, but they're ultimately going to send the final bids to a five-person board of local heavyweights, folks with backgrounds in finance and real estate. They are going to have to weigh basically how much economic development each of these proposals would create, whether they would create jobs, whether they would hire locally and have commitments for minority hiring. Those are going to be the criteria that the state is going to use at the end of the year. Before that, each of these proposals is going to need to pass through a pretty rigorous political essentially process where folks in each neighborhood will get to decide whether they want this in their neighborhood or not.

Brian: For example, we just got a text that came in as soon as I put out the invitation, "No casino at Coney Island ever." Can you talk about Coney Island in particular? Have you reported on it as a site for support and opposition for a casino?

Nick: Yes, a bit. They're the only proposal in Brooklyn. They're from a company called Thor Equities, a real estate developer, and they have several gaming partners, like most of these proposals do. I believe they got a thumbs down from the local community board, which isn't a shock. That's happened with a few proposals, and community boards are essentially symbolic. They don't get to decide.

The reason they went before a community board, this gets a little wonky, but a few of the proposals have extra hurdles that they need to overcome at the local level. They have land use zoning issues that they need to resolve before they even apply at the state level. That's why Coney Island has been under review already, even though the process hasn't totally gotten underway yet. Coney Island has gotten pushback in the neighborhood.

I think, as you can imagine, not everyone is keen on the idea of having a huge gambling facility, a giant hotel or resort, as most of these proposals are. Then, of course, all the social issues that accompany gambling. We're seeing gambling addiction rise all around the country as sports betting has gotten more common. I think that's been some of the rationale for opponents of the Coney Island bid, much like the other ones.

Brian: Listener writes, "I live near the current Empire City Slots Casino and Racetrack in Yonkers, and I think the MGM plan to develop the site will be an economic plus to an area that's been, and then this continues, somewhat underinvested in for many years, but has the infrastructure already to support the extra traffic, et cetera." There's one in support. Does that crystallize what we're hearing from some community advocates for these casinos?

Nick: I think so. It's hard to overstate how huge some of these proposals are. They're multi-billion dollar mega developments that would absolutely create hundreds, if not thousands, of both temporary construction jobs and permanent union jobs, which is why, by the way, the hotel workers and casino workers union, which is very powerful in New York, they basically helped start this whole process because it's going to be a bonanza for them in terms of growing their membership. I think a lot of people view these as positive for economic development. Of course, the opponents would say otherwise.

Brian: It's interesting because that same listener sent a follow-up text after writing, and I'll read it again. "I live near the current Empire City Slots Casino and Racetrack in Yonkers, and I think the MGM plan to redevelop the site will be an economic plus." Then that same person wrote again and wrote, "The diners across the street from the current casino are closing due to low business." That strikes me as, if not a contradiction, at least it plants a question. If they already have one version of a casino and business isn't good, they're looking to a bigger casino to save them rather than something else.

Nick: Yes, there's a lot of questions about whether the projections for each of these facilities is going to live up to the hype. The one your listener is talking about, Empire City, that's, as you were alluding to, one of the two racetrack casinos that already exists in New York or down in the downstate area, which have slot machines, but not full-scale table games, live dealers. There's been the conventional wisdom since the start of this process that two out of the three downstate licenses are going to go to those two racetracks, which is Empire City in Yonkers and then Resorts World over at the Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens.

People have assumed they're going to get two of the three just because it's an easier task to stand those up as full-scale casinos, and the tax money would start flowing to the state more quickly. I've heard from sources who say all bets are off. No one knows who's going to get all three. It could not go to one of those. We could get less than all three licenses awarded. There's no requirement that all three have to be given out.

Brian: We really don't know what will happen, even though their target date is December of this year for giving out the three licenses. What's the difference between the casino that already exists in Yonkers-- Listeners from the city, let's say, you pass this right after the Deegan becomes the Thruway if you're heading north there. What's the difference between the casino that exists and the casino that they're applying to build?

Nick: My understanding is that those existing casinos have slot machines, electronic games, but not live dealers, table games, blackjack and craps and the kind of thing you would expect to see in Las Vegas, for example. Those full-scale casinos, I think, are another order of magnitude in terms of money making for the owners and indirectly tax revenue for the state. It would be a pretty big change. I think both of those existing racetrack casinos are planning to expand physically do a big expansion of their campus if they get these licenses. They'll be transforming in their own way, too.

Brian: We have some interesting callers. At least they look interesting on hold. We have to take a break, and then we're going to continue. Interesting. Kathleen is calling from Beacon, which is near the Newburgh Casino. That's one of the upstate ones that did open. I think she's going to say she's got a cautionary tale. Allison in Manhasset, we see you calling as an organizer of the Say No to the Casino site for Uniondale, Nassau Coliseum site.

212-433-WNYC is our number if you want to call or text and get in yourself as we continue to talk about the nine now competing bids for the three downstate casino licenses in New York State, the competition between them and the competition among community groups who want them and don't want them in the various neighborhoods. 212-433-9692 as we continue with Nick Garber from Crain's, who's reporting on it. Stay with us.

[MUSIC]

Brian: Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we continue with Nick Garber from Crain's on the nine bids for the three downstate casino licenses that the New York State Gaming Commission is supposed to issue by the end of the year. Competition between the sites, competition between groups in many of these neighborhoods, as we're hearing and seeing, who either want or don't want. Just a little more from that listener who wrote in promoting the Yonkers site.

I had asked what the difference would be between the casino that's already there and the one that would be built. Listener writes, "The new casino will have live shows and entertainment, so more traffic to the area would help many family-owned small businesses." Kathleen in Beacon is calling in with her experience about one of the upstate casinos that's already gotten planted in Newburgh. Kathleen, you're on WNYC. Thank you so much for calling in.

Kathleen: Hi, Brian. Such a pleasure to talk to you today. I wanted to tell you about the Newburgh casino. As the other person said, the diner nearby had to close, the other little restaurants, the pizza stores, everything is closed near this Newburgh casino. The people of New York City should be aware. You want this in your neighborhood as much as you want a meth lab in your neighborhood. The profit of the casinos comes from compulsive gamblers. It doesn't come from the regular everyday people. They promise that's who's going to be there, but who shows up are people who are really down on their luck and just not something that you want in your neighborhood.

From all of the suggestions that were put out, the Coney Island, Nassau, I suggest Times Square. Let the visitors who are visiting New York City go ahead. If you're going to have to have it somewhere, I would put it in Times Square because the compulsive gambling-- Take a look at Atlantic City. Anybody who supports this should see pictures of Atlantic City in its heyday when it was the only place to gamble. I think they'll come to the conclusion, you don't want this. They will promise the world the casinos do, and they don't deliver on it.

Brian: Kathleen, thank you very much for your call from Beacon. An interesting call, Nick, for a few reasons. One is we have the hope from the texter from Yonkers that a new, bigger casino would create more traffic to help many family-owned small businesses. Kathleen says the casino and its bigness in Newburgh, near Newburgh, is putting small businesses out of business, as opposed to people just going there. I don't know if you have any reporting at Crain's that indicates that one way or another.

Nick: I don't know what the data or the research would say about how casinos impact the businesses around them. It's certainly safe to say that businesses are not unanimously in favor of any one of these bids. I think the basic model that casinos use is that they try to suck you in, and they're usually windowless. They try to keep you inside as much as possible. It's hardly a sure bet that someone who's patronizing one of these casinos would then go eat at a restaurant across the street. I think it's much more likely that they would stay inside, which is why most of these projects come with big attached hotels rather than inviting their patrons to go patronize the surrounding neighborhoods.

Brian: Allison in Manhasset, on the Nassau Coliseum. I should say, on the Nassau Coliseum site bid. Hi, Allison.

Allison: Hi, how are you? Thank you for having me.

Brian: Sure.

Allison: I live in Manhasset now, but I grew up in East Meadow, New York, literally across the Hempstead Turnpike from the Nassau Coliseum site. When I first heard about the Sands proposal about, I guess, two and a half years ago, I felt like it was a personal assault on my childhood. My gut reaction was that there's no way this could be a good idea. Then what I did is I did my research and studies of what happens when casinos move into suburban communities. What I found confirmed my gut reaction.

There are no positive factors that come out of it. It's horrible for the local economy. Crime rates go up, property values go down. For the Nassau Coliseum site, it is uniquely unsuitable. The site is near tens of thousands of college students and high school students. The college young population is most vulnerable to problem gambling. My research showed that if you live within a 50-mile radius of a casino, you are more likely to become a problem gambler. 70% to 80% of casinos' revenues, as Kathleen was mentioning, come from those problem gamblers.

What else did we learn? The Sands site, in particular, it's a proposed massive site. 4 million square feet larger, double the size of Roosevelt Field, and the second largest casino floor in the country. They were expecting 10 million visitors per year, which is the same amount as Universal Studios in Orlando, Florida. They are expecting 23,000 cars per day to clog Long Island's already over-congested roads. They plan to pump about 700,000 to 800,000 gallons of water per day, already taxing our very vulnerable water supply here on Long Island. There are no positive factors.

Yes, we have the unions here in support, and we all want to support the unions, but my push is they want our support, but they should support the communities they want to build in. They might have jobs for 18 to 24 months and then leave us to deal with the country's second-largest casino floor. I've looked into the tax revenue argument. When you look at it, they expect $2 billion a year in revenue, and for Nassau County, for example, would at max be $50 million a year. That works out to about 1% of the county budget.

I've joked, if you leave me and some of the members of my group to sit down with the budget, I can find them 1% of the budget. Across all the vectors, the only people this works for is the Sands, taking $2 billion out of our economy and leaving us with all the social ills, the crime, the problem gambling, all the negatives that come with it. There's no upside for us here in Nassau County, and like I said, I think it is the most uniquely unsuitable site.

I would prefer no casinos. I don't think it's good for any state to be welcoming these businesses into their communities. I wish our elected officials would be thinking much more long-term about opportunities to raise money for taxes in ways that are also going to benefit their constituents. I'm here very frustrated, fighting very hard to make sure the Sands does not come to our site here in Uniondale.

Brian: Allison, I'm looking at the city and state article on who's supporting and who's opposing these various proposed casino sites, and on who's opposed to the one for the Nassau Coliseum site. It lists the Say No to the Casino Civic Association, that's your group, also Hofstra University, and Garden City Mayor Mary Carter Flanagan opposed.

Then on who's supporting, it lists Nassau County Executive, Bruce Blakeman, the Long Island Federation of Labor, also another union group, the Construction Trades Council of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Also supporting, Nassau Community College and the East Meadow and Hempstead Chambers of Commerce and the group called the Long Island Association. Do you have any thoughts on why at the university level?

Allison: I do.

Brian: I was surprised to see colleges listed either way. Hofstra is against, Nassau Community College is for. What's your thought on that?

Allison: I've learned a lot in the past two and a half years getting involved in this world, and money talks. Sands had apparently been on the ground building support for about a year before it was officially announced. You mentioned our County Executive, Bruce Blakeman, is in favor of this. Nassau Community College gets the bulk of its money from the county, so it's in their best interest if they want county money to also support the Sands. You listed a lot of those names.

If you look closely, they have either received some funds from Sands or funds from the unions, or they receive funds from the county. What I've learned in exploring who is coming out for this, it comes down to money and making sure they get a piece of the money, in my opinion. It was shocking to me at first, and then again, the more I get into this, the more cynical I get about public life and our politicians and how public life works, to realize it comes down to money.

What my group is really trying to get across is that all of that support you just mentioned is manufactured. There's money involved. There is insider work involved. There is no grassroots support on the ground. If you talk to anyone on the local diner in Eisenhower Park across the street, they either don't know about it or they shiver at the thought. Our group has found when we come to county meetings on this, the support is, in my opinion, 100% manufactured, and the opposition is 100% pure love for our communities, a pure grassroots groundswell in defense and protection of our communities. We're here for a reason. Nassau County is wonderful for so many reasons. Why would we wish that on ourselves in our future?

Something else I joke about, my grandparents, they're part of the World War II generation. One in Europe, one was in Japan. They came home, they formed families, they bought their Levitt homes. The history of Long Island, the tradition is based on hard work and community. We have such things to be proud of. Grumman down the street helped us land on the moon, for goodness sake. Here we are giving it all up and saying, "Sure, let's give that up and put up a casino."

Brian: Saying casino is the way we need to fund our local economies. Allison, thank you for your call. I really appreciate it. A few more minutes on the debate about casinos coming to possibly three different downstate communities, approved by the state. If you didn't hear the beginning of the segment, in a statewide voter referendum back in 2013, they already built four upstate to give upstate smaller communities an economic head start. Now, three are supposed to be approved downstate by the end of the year, and nine different communities are competing with each other. As you just heard from that caller, there's opposition within each of these communities, and so there are internal debates as well as competition between.

We have a few more minutes with our guest, Nick Garber, who's reporting on all of this for Crain's. Nick, the last couple of callers mentioned gambling addiction, and that it's problem gamblers who most frequent the casinos, but also, I think they're concerned about the spread of gambling addiction per se. We have pushback on that from a listener who writes, "Gambling will happen either way. It's better to have it happen in a legal setting where taxes can be levied."

Someone else writes to that point, going to get this one up, that gambling addiction is the problem of the individual. Somebody wrote something to that effect. The individual has to have that much restraint. It's not on society to stop them from destroying themselves. Where does that come into it? I know with the legal online sports betting, that's become so big. You hear them promote this sports betting company or that sports betting company, and at the very end, there's a tag.

It's like small print in a radio commercial or television commercial that's problem gambling, call 1-800-whatever-the-number-is. Like they're required to acknowledge it, but of course, it's downplayed. I'm curious where that comes in, if you've reported on this at all, to the deliberations as to where to put casinos. I guess the question of whether to have casinos has already left the barn.

Nick: To answer your question, Brian, I'm not aware of any criteria that the state itself, the Gaming Commission, has that take into account gambling addiction. I just don't think the state is treating that as an issue that should necessarily play into whether we award these three downstate licenses, because in some ways, that's already set in stone. That said, it will certainly factor into the political process that's going to play out over the next few months over whether and where we should cite these casinos.

If it would be helpful to explain the process a little bit, once the applications are due in June, there are going to be these six-person committees that are going to form to hold binding votes on each of the 10 proposals that are out there. These committees are going to be composed of local elected officials or people who they appoint, so the state senator, the city council person, the assembly member from each neighborhood that has a bid in it. I think there's absolutely no question that gambling addiction is going to be a big part of the debate surrounding each of these bids.

One thing that's interesting is, I'm sure your listeners are familiar or might be interested in Steve Cohen's big casino bid, that the billionaire who owns the New York Mets wants to open a casino right next to Citi Field in Queens. One of the reasons that has encountered some criticism is because it's, of course, right next to Flushing, where there's a huge Chinese population and gambling has historically been a major cultural force among some Chinese communities. I know there have been some elected officials who, basically, accused Steve Cohen of trying to take advantage of its proximity to Flushing by inviting Chinese-American patrons to come to the casino.

One of the people who made that argument was John Liu, the local state senator. Then just a few months after he made that argument, he announced a couple weeks ago that he is going to sponsor this big bill that Steve Cohen needs to even have a shot at building his casino. It seemed like a bit of an about face for Senator Liu there, to acknowledge the risks of gambling addiction that this casino would pose for his own community, essentially, and then say, "Actually, I'm going to sponsor the legislation you need to potentially open this casino to at least have a shot at competing in the statewide process."

Brian: John Liu was against it before he was for it, and State Senator Jessica Ramos from the district adjacent has been against it. Why would they have different interests if they're representing communities on either side of that casino?

Nick: It's a great question. For what it's worth, I think Senator Liu hadn't officially come out against the casino beforehand. If you ask him now, I think he would say he's not necessarily supporting the casino per se. He introduced the legislation that will just give Steve Cohen a shot at competing in the statewide process. I believe that would be his argument.

Senator Ramos, who, of course, is also running for mayor, has been pretty clear that she believes this would be a blight on her district. She represents the Corona area, while Senator Liu represents Flushing further east. Clearly, they came down differently on whether this project would, as a whole, potentially pose any kind of benefit, even from an economic development standpoint, given the also likely downsides of contributing to some people's gambling addictions.

Brian: I want to acknowledge one more site that has come up in this conversation, where there's a bid before we run out of time, and that's Times Square. We had the caller earlier from Beacon, up in the Hudson Valley, not liking the casino that's opened around Newburgh there, saying, "Hey, if you're going to put one in downstate, put it in Times Square, where there's already a lot of stuff like that." We got immediate pushback from a listener who wrote, "People that live in rural areas like Beacon don't understand how urban communities operate in general. There are endless things to get addicted to in New York City. Casinos will not change everything." Actually, that was in support of that caller.

There's another one who wrote, "No casino at Times Square. I live near there. We don't want a casino in our neighborhood." Close to that, with the other proposal, this is competing with Times Square, but right nearby in Hudson Yards, Albert in Hell's Kitchen has a thought about that, living in that neighborhood. Albert, we've got about 30 seconds for you. Hi there.

Albert: Hi. First of all, we were promised 5,000 units of housing. Now it's down to 1,500. It's a great beat and switch. They're promising us union jobs. The library that we're supposed to get is now an amenity space in one of the buildings, and the public school is now a Success Academy. Everything has been diminished. If you walk out on the streets of Hell's Kitchen today, you will not find one person in favor of this.

Brian: Albert, thank you very much. What about housing? That's what we so often talk about, about what is needed in almost every community in downstate New York, Nick, and obviously, you've reported on that topic, plenty for Crain's. Albert talks about how housing was promised for the Hudson Yards development. It didn't come nearly at the rate that it was originally promised. I think he told our screener now he thinks one of the reasons is so they'd have room for a casino. Is housing part of the community benefits package that any of these bidders are proposing?

Nick: It's a great question. Most of these bids, I don't believe, have any housing included in the proposals themselves, but I think some of them are making these side promises that, by the way, we'll also finance some affordable housing down the street. Steve Cohen, I think, is promising to do something of that sort in Queens. I think Resorts World might have something similar also in Queens. The Hudson Yards one is really interesting.

Your caller is exactly right, that under this rezoning that the city approved years ago, the one that paved the way for Hudson Yards, the related companies, which is the developer there, promised it would build a certain amount of housing on phase two of this project, when they eventually build out the west side of Hudson Yards. Now, with this rezoning, they're trying to change the terms of that deal and say, "Actually, we need to have this casino in order to pay for the rest of the development, and so we want to build a little less housing."

That's, as you might imagine, been incredibly controversial on the west side of Manhattan. It was a factor in getting Mark Levine, the borough president, to come out against the proposal. It seems like it could pose a pretty serious threat to related chances of getting one of these licenses, which is interesting and a bit surprising, given how huge their project is and the job-creating potential that they can point to. Housing is definitely going to be a factor.

Brian: Listeners, thanks for all your calls and texts, for and against, and descriptive. Nick Garber from Crain's, thanks a lot for coming on to talk about the casino proposals.

Nick: Thanks so much, Brian.

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.