Las Vegas Sands’ proposal to transform the Nassau Coliseum into a casino hotel has garnered significant backlash from various groups and local residents concerned about potential environmental harm. This week, both critics and supporters of the Long Island casino project presented their views before the Nassau County Legislature, a crucial opportunity given that some opposition groups have previously accused the county and the gaming company of opaque dealings. Last year, the New York State Supreme Court found the lease transfer agreement between the county and Sands to be in violation of state open meeting laws.
As Nassau County encourages public participation, some groups argue that the construction of such an extensive resort could breach New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). “The abounding harmful impacts of this massive casino are clearly unmitigable and should have informed any decisions on land control,” stated Say No To The Casino, a civic organization long opposed to the project. The group emphasized that the SEQRA process should have been completed before any lease agreement with Las Vegas Sands and should have also considered the impact of the proposed $4 billion NYU Langone development at Nassau Community College.
Additionally, a recent study highlighted that Long Island’s drinking water supply faces threats from climate change and over-pumping, issues that could be exacerbated by the construction of a large-scale casino hotel. The ongoing environmental review is crucial to Sands’ ambitions of establishing a Long Island casino for multiple reasons. Under New York law, the lease transfer for Nassau Coliseum cannot be finalized until the review is complete. Quick completion of this review is also necessary because if it is not finished before the state begins accepting bids for the three downstate casino permits, LVS might be excluded from the process until the review’s conclusion.
If the review identifies any issues, the county and Sands could potentially address these concerns, provided the process is timely. Time might be on their side, as it appears that the bidding window for the three downstate permits may not open until mid-2025 at the earliest.
Amid these discussions, charges of “environmental racism” have been leveled by project opponents. Such claims are not uncommon with new casino developments and are often used to underscore environmental concerns. Say No To The Casino highlighted risks to minority communities, stating, “We find it ironic that the same politicians who claim to want to ‘Save Our Suburbs’ are among the loudest voices in favor of forcing the country’s second largest casino, and the boundless long-term negative environmental, economic, and social consequences, into our community. The brunt of the impact would be shouldered by the vulnerable minority communities that surround the HUB. Erecting this casino would be nothing short of environmental racism.”
