One of the city council members in Irving believes that the debate over casinos cannot continue in its current form.
The subject has been a hot topic of discussion ever since the city council was presented with a proposal in February to rezone several tracts of land to allow for gaming.
“Irving’s vision is for a premier development in PUD 6,” City Council Member Mark Cronenwett (D-5) told The Dallas Express.
But what does this mean?
“We need a development that will draw visitors while providing quality amenities for our residents and tax revenues for our city. Changes must be made to PUD 6 to allow for the possibility of such a development. The proposed changes provide roughly 4 million square feet of convention center, sports arena, hotel, and restaurants.
“To reject these changes out of hand would have been imprudent and contrary to the best interests of our City. This is why we allowed the proposal [at the February 27 working session] to move forward to P&Z,” Cronenwett said.
Then, he addressed the most contentious element of the project: “The gaming piece is understandably of great concern to many. I had asked for this piece to be removed from the proposal and am continuing those efforts.”
“I also initiated the consideration of retaining outside legal and industry experts to advise the council. If the gaming piece remains, then we need more time to consider the impact and to engage the community in meaningful discussions,” he explained.
Cronenwett told DX that he supports Council Member Brad LaMorgese’s (D2) town halls to promote public engagement and plans to host his own forum soon.
He also said that he anticipates that there will be a motion to extend the consideration of this topic at the March 20 city council meeting.
The process leading to the upcoming rezoning vote on gaming on land where the old Dallas Cowboys stadium once stood has confused and concerned many Irving residents. Not one person who commented publicly during the Irving Planning & Zoning Commission work session on March 4, including those who support the idea of a casino, appeared pleased about the timing of the process.
DX reported that there is only a roughly three-week period between the public’s awareness that a gaming vote was advancing and the time the vote is scheduled to be held.
Former city council candidate Matt Varble, a casino “concept” supporter, alleged that city negotiations with the Las Vegas Sands Corporation were being conducted out of the public view and that the city manager was unfairly springing this matter on the public and council before they could appropriately deliberate and consent. City Manager Chris Hillman denied this.
DX asked Cronenwett about the public’s concern about the process.
“There’s not been any effort by the city to conceal from the public what they’re entitled to know about,” he said. “I would also add that the speed at which this has been brought to the city has been due to business considerations and for that reason, the city is responding as best it can to what’s being presented to it.”
Later, he added that both the city and Hillman are responding “as best [they] can to what is being presented to [them].”
Cronenwett talked turkey about city finances. He explained that the city is expecting to see an increase in public expenses for the police and fire departments, as both organizations anticipate needing more staff soon. He also mentioned the need to improve some city streets.
“We don’t have the tax revenue really to support that right now,” he said. “A premier resort like this will do that.”
DX asked about what might happen if the city approves the gaming rezoning. Casino gambling is currently against the law in Texas. The gaming laws can only be changed by amending the Texas constitution, which requires two-thirds approval in the Texas House and Senate and the approval of a majority of voters on a statewide ballot.
Many residents, including Council Member Luis Canosa (D-4), are concerned that if the rezoning is approved, the state will make casino decisions without input from the people of Irving.
Cronenwett said it is unclear what the state will do and whether a potential constitutional amendment would allow the cities to play some regulatory role with casinos in their jurisdiction.
“We just don’t know,” he said.
The debate over the potential for a casino has become increasingly contentious in recent days. Some proponents, such as the Texas Destination Resort Alliance (TDSA), favor allowing casinos because they would benefit the city and state economically.
The organization’s website says, “Revenue raised from these new sites could provide funding for public education and public higher education, for the arts as well as for public safety and law enforcement.”
However, Emma Petty, a self-described longtime Irving resident, described any potential monetary benefits of the gambling industry to education as a tired scam.
“I’m against [Texas casinos], of course you know, we had the Texas Lottery [that was supposedly going] to do miracles for our schools. We drank the Kool-Aid,” she said at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on March 4.
She added that she believes Texas schools never improved despite the purported support from Texas Lottery funds.
TDSA’s website also says, “Each new project would create thousands of construction jobs, and tens of thousands of permanent new jobs in new and existing hotels, convention centers, restaurants, retail centers, and offices.”
DX interviewed several local realtors, who nixed the notion that a casino could be an economic boon to DFW. One realtor, Chandler Crouch, told the outlet that Irving is too developed to see a great increase in growth like other cities, such as Thackerville, Oklahoma, saw when Winstar Casino was built. Likewise, each realtor said that a casino was likely to negatively impact housing prices by increasing crime in the area.