On Tuesday, the Coney Island YMCA was abuzz as the first public hearing regarding The Coney casino license bid took place, resembling more of a pitched battle than a community discussion. Nearly 100 speakers took the floor over a span of four hours, facing interruptions and the occasional need for security intervention. Lively exchanges underscored the stakes involved as eight contenders vie for three coveted casino licenses in downstate New York, with The Coney being the sole Brooklyn-based submission.
The chaotic session was orchestrated by The Coney’s community advisory committee (CAC), which is instrumental in gauging local support for the proposed casino. At least four of the CAC’s six members must approve the bid, with another hearing required before the September 30 deadline for voting.
The proposal for The Coney, a $3.4 billion venture, is championed by a consortium that includes Thor Equities, the Chickasaw Nation, and Saratoga Casino Holdings. This ambitious project aims to transform Coney Island into a vibrant, year-round attraction, featuring a casino, hotel, convention center, and entertainment venues.
As Brooklyn’s solitary candidate among the bids, proponents of The Coney highlight its potential to rejuvenate a historically underperforming local economy. They argue it could reestablish Coney Island as a major economic driver. On the other hand, critics worry about the detrimental effects of a casino, fearing it might strip the neighborhood of its historical charm. Both sides made their voices heard loudly on Tuesday.
Project representatives were met with challenges as they attempted to present their case, often competing against the crowd’s noise. “Seventeen percent unemployment is what we’re facing today,” Thor COO Melissa Gliatta noted, emphasizing the demand for career opportunities rather than just jobs, based on extensive community engagement.
Addressing concerns about traffic, Thor Executive Vice President Peter McEneaney acknowledged it as a primary issue for locals. The plan includes de-mapping some streets to alleviate congestion and incorporates a “multi-modal” transportation strategy, prioritizing public transport over cars.
The project partners also pledged $75 million for emergency services, supplementing a $200 million community-managed trust fund linked to the casino. Community leader Robert Cornegy Jr. tried to clarify any misunderstandings about his involvement, reiterating his commitment to inclusive development projects.
However, opposition from locals was vehement and deep-rooted. Initially balanced, the tone shifted towards opposition as the hearing progressed. Many opponents, including those who consistently attended local meetings, vowed to persist in their efforts to block the casino. “A casino doesn’t come and go, it takes roots, it reshapes the landscape,” lamented Roman, a local resident. He expressed concerns about Coney Island losing its identity, one built on family and leisure.
Community Board 13’s earlier vote against the project in January was non-binding but influential, with several representatives urging the CAC to consider their decision. “Please respect the vote of the CB13,” implored board chair Jeffrey Sanoff, referencing similar public hearing dynamics.
Traffic and strained emergency services were recurrent themes, with residents sharing personal stories about how these issues impact their lives.
Supporters of The Coney, however, emphasized the economic benefits, arguing that the area has long been in need of substantial private investment. “The Coney project represents one of the most significant private investments in Brooklyn in decades,” said Dina Rabiner of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce, highlighting the potential for thousands of permanent jobs.
Despite being outnumbered, supporters contended that opponents were attributing current community issues to the potential casino. “The gentleman that just left said crime, traffic, and addiction. We have that right now and there is no casino!” insisted Ed Watson, pointing out the existing challenges without the casino’s presence.
As the debate continues, both sides remain steadfast in their positions, with the future of Coney Island hanging in the balance. Another public hearing is set to further explore these issues before the decisive CAC vote.
4.4/5
