Share
With a decisive vote on Monday, the Nassau County Legislature cleared the path for Las Vegas Sands to bid for a New York casino license by approving a lease for the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum.
The legislature approved the Coliseum lease by a vote of 18-1. This followed unanimous approval for a state environmental review of the property and prior endorsements from the county’s Planning Commission and the Legislature’s Rules Committee.
While the legislature had initially granted Sands a 99-year lease in a 2023 vote, with only Minority Leader Delia DeRiggi-Whitton opposing and former Legislator Kevan Abrahams abstaining, a New York State judge subsequently deemed the lease invalid.
The latest vote awarded Las Vegas Sands a 27-year lease with the option to extend the agreement for an additional 15 years in five-year increments, potentially granting the company control over the property for 42 years.
Key takeaways
- The Nassau County Legislature approved a lease for the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum.
- Las Vegas Sands can move forward with a bid for a New York casino license.
- Las Vegas Sands cannot officially apply for a downstate casino license until June 2025.
- Sands has a backup plan to develop the site without a casino if the license is not granted.
- The proposed casino is facing opposition from Hofstra University and concerns about long-term development restrictions.
Las Vegas Sands hinges on local approval and state authorization
As detailed in a story by Bonus.com, Las Vegas Sands unveiled a $5B to $6B development plan on Jan. 12, 2023, centered around the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum site and includes a casino.
However, Sands cannot officially apply for a downstate NY casino license until June 27, 2025. The New York State Gaming Facility Location Board, a body established by the New York State Gaming Commission (NYSGC), will then commence the evaluation of applications for three downstate casino licenses.
The NYSGC intends to issue casino licenses next summer. However, prospective operators must secure local approval prior to applying. Should Las Vegas Sands (NYSE: LVS) fail to obtain a license, the company has indicated its intention to develop a resort and commercial complex on the property.
Sands envisions a $4 billion luxury resort on the 72-acre Coliseum site, contingent upon securing a casino license. The proposed development would include upscale hotels, expansive outdoor spaces, and a live entertainment venue, aiming to preserve the Coliseum’s musical legacy.
Casino plan sparks controversy: causes community and union divide
While the proposed NY casino would occupy less than 10% of the property, Sands has faced opposition, particularly from nearby Hofstra University. Despite outreach efforts to the community, the company’s plans have sparked controversy.
According to a news article by the Long Island Press, Hoftra VP of Marketing and Communications Terry Coniglio said:
“The jobs of those employed at the Coliseum are not dependent on the lease. The operating lease at issue is not for the purpose of maintaining jobs. Rather, it is a precursor to and contemplates the development of a casino at the Nassau Hub. The 42-year term of the proposed lease would foreclose the possibility of any long-term development of the Coliseum by anyone other than Las Vegas Sands.”
On the other hand, a coalition of labor unions and business leaders staged a rally outside the Nassau County Executive Building in Mineola on July 22nd.
They called on the Legislature to approve the Coliseum lease transfer, arguing that it was essential to protect the jobs of over 400 union employees at the venue. Matthew Aracich, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Nassau and Suffolk counties, said:
“The economic development in this county is the thing that will drive the county into the future.
Look, we have to look at this objectively. If we didn’t go ahead and move that lease forward, these people would be out of a job. And it’s not just a job; it’s a career—a career they spent many years in. What do we do to replace them? Just a swipe and it’s gone. That’s an unconscionable action.”
