Union reps offer support for Caesars Times Square proposal
The New York State Gaming Commission hosted a virtual public comment hearing on Wednesday night for the Caesars Palace Times Square casino proposal from Caesars Entertainment and partners SL Green and Jay Z’s Roc Nation. Another hearing for the same purpose is scheduled for 28 May at 5pm local time.
Wednesday’s two-hour hearing was an early step in the environmental review process. According to Robert Williams, executive director of the NYSGC, the commission has deemed the project to be a “Type 1 action”, meaning it could pose environmental risks and therefore requires certain review processes.
The purpose of the hearing was to garner public feedback from elected officials, local leaders and residents as stakeholders begin to craft their draft environmental impact statement. There will be additional input periods along the way before the official environmental statement is lodged.
Caesars and its partners are proposing a casino, hotel and other amenities at 1515 Broadway. It is currently an office tower, but it would be completely gutted and retrofitted if approved for a casino licence.
The deadline for casino bidders to submit official applications to the state is 27 June. Neither the commission nor project representatives gave a timeline for the environmental statement process. Once bids are collected, the commission will award up to three licences by year’s end.
Schiffer: Times Square is ‘logical’ choice
Robert Schiffer, executive vice president of development for SL Green, gave a brief presentation on the project to start the hearing. He called Times Square “the logical choice” for a New York City casino, being the heart of the city’s entertainment district.
While most casinos are built to keep patrons inside, he said, this project is pitched as a community lynchpin. He shared a mockup of the city grid with its litany of nearby dining, lodging and transportation options.
Two points made by Schiffer were referenced by speakers throughout the hearing offering their own support: There would be no housing displacement and limited construction disruption. The project does not offer housing as many others do, but in Times Square, the project wouldn’t displace any existing housing either. Having the existing building in place also significantly cuts down on construction timelines and noise pollution.
“This team is committed to a New York-first, neighbourhood-forward, sustainable approach,” Schiffer said.
Trade reps out in full force
Once the meeting was opened for public comment, the vast majority – perhaps 75% – of speakers were union and labour officials. All offered support of the project due to the number of construction and permanent jobs it would provide.
“This is the only project where we’re guaranteed to see a significant number of new, good-paying union jobs be created,” one man said. “Jobs that won’t happen without this licence.”
Multiple speakers suggested it is likely Manhattan will get one of the licences, as three of eight bids are located there. In addition to Caesars Times Square, Silverstein Properties’ Avenir project and Soloviev Group’s Freedom Plaza proposal are also in the borough.
The areas featured in other bids could just as likely be developed for other, non-gaming reasons down the road, speakers said. But the Caesars Times Square project hinges greatly on the casino licence and will not be nearly as attractive for future development without it, they asserted. Nearly all labour officials noted that Caesars and partners have been collaborating with them for multiple years.
Opposition comes from theatre industry
Two speakers opposed to the project were from the theatre industry, which has opposed the project from the start. Whereas proponents say a casino is the perfect fit for an entertainment hub like Times Square, opponents say the opposite, arguing that gambling doesn’t fit into the arts.
One speaker argued that noise pollution from the construction would affect rehearsals and matinees. Traffic congestion and the inability for showgoers to navigate the area and get to performances on time was also mentioned.
Only one participant touched on responsible gambling and the idea that the casino’s success would bring financial hardship on local residents and vulnerable populations.
“Once people start losing their money, then we have to bring in groups to save their lives,” he argued. “Nobody talks about these benefits that aren’t benefits. Sucking the money out, that’s the only way for the casino to make its money. The casino never talks about that and I’d like them to.”