The ambitious $5.4 billion proposal for a Caesars casino in Times Square was definitively turned down by New York’s community advisory committee (CAC) during a concise meeting on Wednesday morning. In a 4-2 vote, the committee decided against advancing the project, marking it as the first of eight proposals to be officially eliminated from the race for one of three available downstate New York casino licenses. The proposal required four affirmative votes to move forward.
The final tally saw Carl Wilson, Chair, Chris Carroll, Matthew Tighe, and Richard Gottfried voting against the proposal, while Laura Smith and Peter Hatch voted in favor.
The rejection underscored the committee members’ collective sentiment that the proposal lacked sufficient public backing. Of the eight contenders, the Caesars Times Square proposal attracted the most public commentary, amassing over 12 hours of feedback across two public hearings. The Broadway community and theatre industry emerged as the principal adversaries of the project. Despite Caesars Entertainment’s efforts to foster collaboration and forge partnerships with theatre groups, robust opposition from influential organizations, including the IATSE union and Broadway Cares, proved insurmountable.
In response to the decision, Caesars Entertainment expressed its gratitude to the CAC members for their diligence. “We respect their decision and appreciate the opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue about the future of Times Square,” the company stated, acknowledging the outcome with disappointment yet reaffirming its commitment to New York through its ongoing investments in the Caesars Sportsbook platform.
The proceedings highlighted a somewhat disjointed process for the Caesars Times Square proposal. Laura Smith, appointed by New York City Mayor Eric Adams, voiced concerns about the rushed nature of the vote, which was moved up at the behest of some CAC members. “By moving today’s vote forward, we have effectively lost two weeks of deliberation,” she pointed out, underscoring a sentiment that the process had been prematurely accelerated.
The committee’s composition, largely comprising individuals with no prior experience in such evaluative processes, led members to rely heavily on state-appointed consultants. This reliance, coupled with scheduling difficulties, resulted in varied outcomes among the proposals. Notably, Caesars hearings extended over 12 hours, whereas Metropolitan Park’s hearings concluded after only five hours. In another instance, the Bally’s Bronx CAC convened a special meeting to discuss amendments, unlike the swift dismissal of a similar amendment from Caesars the day before the vote.
Conversely, former Assemblymember Richard Gottfried, appointed by Senator Liz Krueger, praised the process, describing it as “an open and deliberative process, as good or better than anything I’ve seen in state and local government.” His perspective contrasted with Smith’s criticism, highlighting the diverse viewpoints within the committee.
This decision also opens a broader industry discussion about the future of casino developments in urban environments. While Caesars’ proposal aimed to tap into the economic potential of Times Square, opponents argued that it risked overshadowing the cultural and artistic fabric of the area. They feared a casino could alter the district’s identity, traditionally centered around theatre and tourism, leading to a significant shift in the neighborhood’s dynamics.
Supporters of the casino, however, viewed it as a potential catalyst for economic growth, capable of attracting new business and tourism, and providing substantial employment opportunities. They argued that the economic benefits could extend beyond the casino itself, potentially revitalizing surrounding businesses and increasing tax revenues for the city.
The debate over the Caesars Times Square proposal highlights the complex balance between economic development and cultural preservation—a challenge faced by cities worldwide. As New York continues to evaluate other casino proposals, these considerations remain central to the decision-making process. The rejection of the Caesars bid serves as a crucial reminder of the public’s role in shaping urban development, emphasizing the importance of community input in large-scale projects.
Ultimately, while the project will not move forward, the discussions it sparked will likely influence how New York approaches future casino developments. Stakeholders across the board are now tasked with finding a harmonious path that respects both economic ambitions and cultural heritage, ensuring that the city’s growth strategies align with the values of its residents.
4.1/5
