VA Casino Bill Heads Back to Governor After Revisions

^{Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger will get to review Senate Bill 756 again with much of the same language. (Photo: ZUMA Press, Inc. / Alamy Live News)} 

After changing multiple times during its passage through the Virginia legislature, a bill that would allow for a Fairfax County casino has been sent to the desk of Governor Abigail Spanberger with much of the same language originally proposed in January.

While provisions for Senate Bill 756 were being debated up until the when the Virginia General Assembly adjourned on March 14, the legislation ultimately looks like the version first introduced by Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax) in January.

Bill Treats Fairfax County Like Other Host Sites

Under the final version of the bill, the location of the potential casino has again been limited to a specific mixed-use development in Tysons, rather than being open to any location in Fairfax County. In addition, late provisions that had been agreed upon in the Virginia Senate on Friday were eliminated, including a boost to how much tax revenue the county would have received and the ability to open a temporary casino even before a local referendum approved the project.

In the end, the Virginia Senate voted 25-13 to accept the final version of the bill, with the House of Delegates also voting 55-41 in favor of SB 756.

Over the last two months, the proposal had changed several times. Along with changing the potential location, a requirement for a local referendum on the project was weakened, eliminated, and then strengthened again throughout the legislative process. In the final version, Fairfax County will be treated identically to the five existing casino host cities in Virginia, receiving 30 percent of tax proceeds while 70 percent goes to the state government, while a local referendum will have to pass before the casino can be built.

Controversially, Sen. Surovell and others negotiating the language for the final bill attempted to push through a provision that would have allowed for a temporary casino to operate for years without a local vote. That idea sparked immediate backlash from Fairfax County community groups and the House of Delegates, leading to supporters backtracking on the plan.

Local Groups, Delegates Still Opposed to Fairfax Casino

Still, while anti-casino groups were happy that the temporary casino provision was dropped, they still weren’t happy with the bill, with many calling on Gov. Spanberger to veto the legislation.

“If the antics of the last 24 hours have made one thing clear, it’s that this legislation is not being put forward in good faith by its patron,” Providence District Supervisor Dalia Palchik, a member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors who represents most of Tysons, wrote in a statement on Saturday. “The prescribed location and lousy financial deal for Fairfax make a mockery of local land use authority and take financial advantage of our community.”

While the bill received majority support from state senators representing Fairfax County, delegates from the county voted 12-3 against SB 756 even without the temporary casino language.

Many of those opposed to the casino have cited significant local opposition to the proposal. But at least one state senator who voted for the bill called that position hypocritical, saying that Democrats in Northern Virginia pushed redistricting on the rest of the state.

“Do you think somebody in Augusta wants to be represented in Congress by somebody from Fairfax?” Senator Mark Peake (R-Lynchburg) told reporters. “And you have the gall to talk about us passing a bill to put a casino in Fairfax when we’ve got four or five in the rest of the commonwealth.”