The mayoral team in the five boroughs is strongly advocating for the introduction of gambling establishments to the metropolis. They are suggesting modifications to urban planning regulations that would allow for these venues in a majority of the city’s districts, aiming to secure one of the three highly sought-after gaming permits available in the southern part of the state.
These alterations are significant because, currently, gaming establishments are essentially prohibited within the city limits. The proposed regulations would permit these venues to be established in numerous commercial and industrial areas, without any size restrictions and with the possibility of incorporating dining establishments, lodging facilities, and other amusement options.
Municipal authorities contend that this creates a level playing field for the city in the competition for a gaming license. They are facing intense rivalry from contenders such as existing establishments at a Queens racecourse and a Yonkers horse racing track, as well as a prominent proposal for a new venue at the former home of the Islanders hockey team on Long Island.
Undoubtedly, introducing gaming establishments to the city that never sleeps carries its own risks. The proposed zoning modifications still need to undergo an extensive public review process, including approvals from neighborhood councils, borough executives, and the City Council. However, if successful, this could significantly alter the city’s appearance and its financial standing.
Prior to the advancement of any casino license applications, the suggested site requires approval from a supermajority of the local community council. This empowers New York City neighborhoods, such as Coney Island, with significant influence throughout the procedure, potentially enabling them to halt undesirable developments.
Certain detractors, including Layla Law-Gisiko of Manhattan’s Community Board Five, express apprehension regarding ambiguous phrasing within the present propositions. They contend that these propositions might conflict with established zoning regulations and lack the detailed specifics found in previous versions. Law-Gisiko and her allies are advocating for substantial revisions to alleviate these apprehensions before any conclusive determinations are reached.