In a decision that surprised few, the community advisory committee (CAC) for Coney Island has voted against Thor Equities’ ambitious $3.4 billion casino complex proposal. The vote, which took place on Monday afternoon, ended with a 2-4 result, rejecting the bid and halting its progress to the state consideration phase. This outcome was anticipated as it had been revealed last week that at least three committee members planned to oppose the project. To advance, The Coney needed four affirmative votes, a threshold met by only three other bidders so far.
Throughout the process, The Coney project struggled to gain local support, a fact that became evident during two particularly contentious public hearings. Of the eight bidders vying for three potential downstate New York casino licenses, The Coney appeared to face the most substantial opposition, making the chances of securing CAC approval slim.
Before the voting took place, the committee reviewed a substantial number of amendments proposed by Thor Equities. These amendments, presented on September 19, covered ten categories and consisted of nearly 150 pages of modifications. In a twist of procedural fate, these changes were accepted by a vote of 5-1 just moments before the main proposal was rejected.
A pattern has emerged from the CAC votes conducted so far, with one still pending. Out of the seven bidders who have undergone the voting process, six submitted last-minute amendments. Despite these efforts, the amendments did not alter the outcomes significantly, as all four rejected projects—including Caesars, Avenir, Freedom Plaza, and The Coney—had submitted changes. Conversely, Resorts World NYC succeeded without any amendments.
It is noteworthy that appointees of both the mayor and the governor have consistently supported every project across all CACs. Interestingly, in the case of the four rejections, these appointees were the only ones voting positively.
During the final deliberations for The Coney proposal, the atmosphere was notably different from the earlier session for Bally’s Bronx project, which received a 5-1 approval vote. The Bronx committee members articulated a strong need to invest in underserved areas, commending Bally’s for its collaborative approach. Such arguments could have been applied to Coney Island, yet Thor Equities and The Coney did not receive similar commendations.
The process, marked by tension and discomfort, left Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso reflecting on the division it caused. “There was a lot of disruption and uncomfortable moments throughout this process that I wish would’ve never happened,” he remarked. He expressed hope that the community could avoid lasting damage from the disputes, emphasizing the enduring nature of their shared environment.
Alex Sommer, a mayoral appointee, provided the only supportive commentary, though it focused on the broader implications of the process rather than the specific project. “As the mayor’s office has emphasized throughout this process, we believe casinos can serve as major economic development initiatives, creating good-paying jobs and delivering benefits to the city, region, and local communities,” Sommer stated, underscoring the potential economic advantages of casino developments.
Looking ahead, the final CAC vote is scheduled for the Metropolitan Park project at 11 a.m. on Tuesday. Following this, the state’s Gaming Facility Location Board will begin its evaluation process, aiming to make recommendations to the New York State Gaming Commission by December 1. The commission is then tasked with issuing up to three licenses by December 31.
So far, successful bids moving forward are Bally’s Bronx, Resorts World, and MGM Empire City. Each of these projects has navigated the complex CAC process, reflecting varying levels of community and governmental support.
Despite the setback for Thor Equities, the broader context of economic development in New York highlights differing perspectives on casino projects. Proponents argue that such developments can revitalize local economies, offering employment opportunities and injecting significant financial investment into the region. This viewpoint was evident in the support shown for approved projects, where economic upliftment and job creation were key talking points.
However, critics of casino expansions often point to potential social costs, including increased gambling addiction and community disruption. The debate surrounding these projects underscores the complexity of balancing economic benefits with social responsibilities—a challenge faced not only by New York but by regions globally considering similar developments.
The Coney’s rejection serves as a reminder of the varied local sentiment towards large-scale casino projects. While some see them as engines of economic growth, others fear the changes they bring might overshadow the benefits. As the state moves forward with its final decisions, the outcomes will likely shape New York’s gaming landscape for years to come, setting precedents for how future bids might be evaluated and perceived by both communities and decision-makers alike.