General Assembly sends casino bill to the governor
After the General Assembly passed a casino bill this weekend, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Chair Jeffrey McKay said, “I will continue to fight any and all efforts to jam a casino in Tysons.”
The bill (SB 756) agreed to by both the Senate and House of Delegates would allow the development of a casino in Tysons – but only if the Board of Supervisors authorizes a referendum and voters approve it.
The bill now goes to Gov. Abigail Spanberger. She has several options: sign it, veto it, or send the bill back to the General Assembly with requested amendments. If she vetoes it, each chamber needs a two-thirds vote to override a veto.
Location restricted to Tysons
The final legislation is nearly identical to the bill introduced earlier this year by Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon). This is the fourth year a casino bill has been debated in the General Assembly, and the first time it has passed.
Proponents argued that a casino would bring more revenue to the state while discouraging Virginia gamblers from spending money at MGM National Harbor in Maryland. It would also generate a huge windfall for a casino developer.
Grassroots organizers who mobilized against a casino charged it would worsen traffic, hurt local businesses, and damage Tysons’ image – while sending the bulk of the money to Richmond. Casino opponents are now urging Spanberger to veto the bill.
Related story: House of Delegates passes a casino bill
Spanberger previously indicated she would consider signing the bill if the General Assembly passed legislation to create a state gaming commission. Legislation introduced Del. Paul Krizek (D-Alexandria) to create a gaming commission never made it out of committee.
Like Surovell’s original bill proposed in January, the final measure requires a casino in Fairfax County to be part of a mixed-use development with at least 1.5 million square feet of space near the Metro Silver Line. That restricts the location to Tysons.
Favorable provisions removed
Several provisions in earlier versions of SB 756 were stripped out of the final bill by a conference committee formed to reconcile the different bills passed by the House and Senate.
Those provisions would have allowed a casino in other parts of Fairfax County, set a deadline for a referendum, required the casino developer to build a public safety facility, and allowed Fairfax County to retain 50 percent of the revenue. The final bill includes a 70-30 split, with the majority of revenue going to the state.
Another proposal that came up in conference and was ultimately rejected would have allowed a temporary casino to be established for five years with the authority of the state’s Major Employment and Investment Project Approval Commission.
The Board of Supervisors opposed that provision, saying it would undermine the county’s authority to make land use decisions and would “authorize a temporary casino on behalf of a single well-heeled developer in a way that throws the economic development of Tysons into chaos.”
Limiting the casino to Tysons would benefit the Comstock Cos., which last year announced plans to pursue development of an entertainment complex next to the Silver Line. The Board of Supervisors would have the authority to select the company to operate a casino.
Veto urged
The final bill cleared the House of Delegates on a 55-41 vote and passed the Senate 25-13.
In addition to Surovell, the other Fairfax County senators who voted for the bill are Dave Marsden (D-Burke) and Stella Pekarsky (D-Centreville). Marsden had introduced casino legislation in 2022, 2023, and 2024.
Among House members, Del. Laura Jane Cohen (D-Burke) and Garrett McGuire (D-Franconia) voted for the casino bill.
In the days before the bill cleared the General Assembly, McKay told several news outlets that he would not hold a referendum on a casino and would urge Spanberger to veto the bill.
After the measure passed, Fairfax County supervisors Dalia Palchik (Providence), Walter Alcorn (Hunter Mill), and Jimmy Bierman (Dranesville) issued statements calling for a veto.
“We did not ask for it, and we don’t want it,” Alcorn said.
Palchik said, “The prescribed location and lousy financial deal for Fairfax make a mockery of local land use authority and take financial advantage of our community.”