After an over five-hour public hearing, the Town of Hempstead isn’t any closer to deciding whether to vote yes on a rezoning proposal to support Nassau County’s first casino.
The Hempstead Town Board heard over 90 public comments across a two-part hearing Tuesday regarding the proposal to rezone the Nassau Coliseum and adjacent Marriott Hotel properties, referred to collectively as Mitchell Field, from a mixed-use district to an integrated resort district.
The rezoning would allow for the potential development of a casino in the location and additional developments such as bars, hotels, cultural centers, restaurants, and more.
The rezoning would not guarantee the development of a casino in the area; it would simply make one possible if a potential casino operator were to be awarded one of New York’s three downstate gambling licenses currently up for grabs. Applications for that license are due on June 27.
Who the party carrying out that potential casino development is currently up in the air, as the Las Vegas Sands, the casino’s original backer, pulled out of the project in April, citing concerns over the impact of potential legalization of iGaming on the market and their projected returns.
The fact that the new party has not yet been identified was one of the many points of contention for those speaking against the rezoning.
“Who is the applicant?” said one man who identified himself as someone who lived near to the development. “The residents and this board should have an understanding of who is placing themselves financially on the record.”
Out of the roughly 90 people who made a public comment, 39 were in favor and 51 were against the rezoning. It was unclear what position one speaker took. At each hearing session, over a dozen people held up signs in favor of and against the rezoning. Roughly 200 people attended across both sessions.
As the Sands is the current leaseholder of the land, it is on them to find a third party to take over the redevelopment of the space. A team representing Sands provided a presentation at the beginning of each section of the meeting, detailing proposals for the area’s development and traffic mitigation.
Sands representatives said that while the parties Sands is speaking with plan to apply for a gaming license and operate a casino or gambling facility, they also had developed alternative plans for the site without a casino if they were not to be awarded the license.
Beyond the lack of clarity on who would potentially operate a casino and develop the site, points of contention for those speaking against the rezoning included the proximity of three nearby schools, increased traffic and pollution and studies showing that casinos can increase crime and gambling addictions and decrease home value.
Those against it typically identified themselves as concerned residents who lived near the site and local elected officials, including the mayor of Garden City.
“I stand before you on behalf of the vast majority of Garden City residents who are viscerally against casino development at the coliseum grounds,” said Garden City Mayor Edward Finneran, who added that his board has voted to oppose the development. “We are against changing the character of our community.”
Multiple people speaking against the casino called Town of Hempstead Supervisor Don Clavin a hypocrite if he supported it, referencing his frequent calls to “save our suburbs.” Others suggested the board should do further independent studies while raising alarm over what they called negative social impacts brought by casinos.
While Hofstra University, which has vocally opposed the casino for years, sent a representative to speak against it, citing concerns of gambling addictions and safety for students, Nassau Community College sent Vice President of Community and Governmental Relations Jerry Kornbluth to speak in support of the rezoning and casino on behalf of the college.
“As someone who works just across the street at Nassau Community College, I see every day what this site could mean for our students and families, if only we let it,” Kornbluth said. He said the zoning in the area is outdated, and, if changed, could allow for student job opportunities in the resort district.
Those in support of the rezoning typically identified themselves as business owners, union leaders, including the Executive Director of the Long Island Federation of Labor, Ryan Stanton, chamber of commerce presidents, and locals who wanted economic development in the area. They cited a desire for union job opportunities and argued that the casino would be a way to encourage young people to stay in the area.
Many business leaders said that Sands had “educated” them on the casino’s and rezoning’s benefits. They felt that the project would revitalize and finally use space that had an opportunity been underutilized for decades.
“I really believe the Nassau hub has the potential to be so much more than it is today,” said a Hempstead resident. “Right now, that land is sitting idle. Our families, our peers, our local businesses cannot afford for it to sit idle any longer. We need forward-thinking zoning that clears the way for real investment in long-overdue economic growth. Please don’t let outdated policies continue to hold this community back.”
Many of those in support did not explicitly speak about, in support of, or against a casino but instead about the economic development and job opportunities that the general rezoning and development in the area would bring.
However, a significant portion of those who came out against the casino and rezoning said that they were in support of building something in the area, just not a casino. Speakers suggested an educational facility, middle-income housing, greenspace or larger concert venue, emphasizing that they supported union jobs for that build. One proposed a home field be built in the location for the New York Jets.
Members of the public also pointed out that since June 27 is the state deadline for an applicant to file for a gaming license, it was unlikely that a new party would be chosen and the area would be rezoned by that date, considering neither have happened nor has a date been set for either of those decisions.
They asked why the town would rush the decision with so little information on who the applicant would be when it seemed unlikely that Nassau would be the beneficiary of one of the licenses at this point.
The town board ended Tuesday’s portion of the hearing with a unanimous vote to leave the hearing open for written comment until June 10 at 10:30 a.m., when an additional public hearing will take place. At that time, he said Sands representatives will plan to provide additional information and anyone who did not get a chance to speak would be welcome to do so then.
The town’s representatives would not comment on whether the board would vote on the rezoning at that date. The next hearing will also take place at the Hempstead Town Hall.
