Gambling is illegal in Texas, but that didn't stop a billion-dollar company from trying to open a casino — residents did
One by one, residents of the Texas city of Irving stood up to voice their opposition to controversial plans for a new casino complex to open in their own backyard.
'We do not live in Las Vegas because we do not want to live in Las Vegas,' one man who described himself as a local educator said at the city's planning and zoning commission meeting last Monday.
'This deal is a bad deal for Irving and what happens in Vegas has to stay in Vegas,' said another resident, during the six-hour-long meeting that rolled into the early hours Tuesday.
At a separate heated town hall event the week before, others held up signs saying 'Don't Vegas my Irving' as a casino lobbyist was booed and jeered for nearly two hours.
Despite the protests, at around 2:30 a.m. Tuesday, planning commissioners voted to recommend approval of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation's plans to install a 'destination resort' with a casino to the city council.
But ultimately the residents prevailed — at least for now.
Following immense public pressure, Sands announced Thursday it had removed the casino element from their proposal.
For the last month, Irving has been embroiled in a scrappy public fight over the proposal put forward by Sands, owned by Trump megadonor Miriam Adelson, who also has a majority stake in the Dallas Mavericks.
Sands bought the property and the land where the Texas Stadium used to stand in 2023. Now it wants to rezone it to be home to a new casino.
But aside from fierce opposition from many Irving residents, Sands has another major battle on its hands: gambling is illegal in the state of Texas.
The casino behemoth has been lobbying hard for gambling legalization in the state for years.
'Y'all can relax,' casino lobbyist Andy Abboud, the company's senior vice president of government relations, told the unimpressed town hall last week. 'It's not even legal yet!'
But campaigners believe Sands is biding its time in order to achieve its end goal.
'They're facing some challenges at the state level, but they are playing the long game,' Irving city councilman Luis Canosa told The Independent. 'They are lobbying very hard, spending tens of millions every year. And it doesn't matter for them if it gets legalized in 10 or 15 years, they still want to have the security that they have the rezoning, which once it's given, cannot be taken away.'
Texas has some of the most restrictive gaming laws in the U.S. and campaigners argue that greenlighting casinos would lead to a rise in domestic violence, gambling addiction and human trafficking.
To build its casino in Texas, Sands needs a Constitutional Amendment legalizing gambling at state level to pass and it needs Irving City Council to approve the zoning entitlements.
'They want to leave gaming open to establish a full predatory casino that extracts money from the working class, from hurting families, from addicts, from older people in Social Security checks that cannot afford to lose anything,' Canosa said. 'It's going to be a machine to extract money from the working class people for the exclusive benefit of billionaire special interests.'
Canosa described Irving, a suburb of Dallas, as a place where people 'from different walks of life coexist peacefully' and where many Texans have moved to raise a family.
At the tense town hall last week, Abboud from Sands was asked by a resident whether the company was considering alternative cities, such as Frisco, Arlington or Dallas, for its $4 billion development.
'I hate to disappoint everybody…but we're focused on Irving right now,' he replied.
Abboud tried to bill the complex as a 'family-friendly' destination.
'It would become another spectacular entertainment option for people that are living here,' he said, as some people in the crowd shouted. 'It'd be more restaurants, it would be an arena. It would be family-friendly entertainment with bowling alleys, movie theaters…an arena where you can see everything from Coldplay to Lady Gaga to Disney on Ice.'
Abboud, who was hit with questions for over an hour, was honest that Sands is not interested in opening the development without a casino.
'Can you please do a destination tourist place but without a casino?' Sister Mary Angelica asked. 'This would show that the Sands company really cared about the people who live here and are not only profit-minded.'
But Abboud's answer was all business.
'The bottom line is that if we're going to build a $4 billion facility and build an arena and build all the other amenities, the gaming component helps us subsidize and build all of the other amenities that make it great,' he said, to a chorus of booing.
For now, the company says it will proceed with the complex without the casino.
'Team Sands will now pretend they don't want gaming in Irving until they get a friendlier council,' Canosa said after Thursday's win. 'If their pro-casino candidates get across the finish line, they'll bring it back in a heartbeat.'
The councilman was the first to bring the city's intention to fast-track the plans to the public at the end of February and claimed the company 'tried to go behind residents' backs' with the negotiations.
'We don't want it here, and the residents don't want it. There's massive opposition,' he told The Independent.
Not everyone agrees. City council member Dennis Webb said it was a loss of opportunity for Irving.
'I am sad that people keep wanting to come to Irving wanting to do something for us, and we keep losing all of these opportunities to get some great amenities for our citizens, who constantly tell me there is nothing in Irving to do,' he said, according to the Dallas News.
Sands executive Mark Boekenheide reinforced Abboud's message that the company 'cannot commit' to the project without the casino element. 'The economics will not work without a casino piece,' Boekenheide told city council members Thursday.
The executive said that the complex is projected to create 9,000 jobs for the community and could generate millions in tax revenue for the city.
Speaking before Thursday's meeting, Casnosa told The Independent he would be 'proud' if his fellow council members stood up to Sands.
'If the gaming piece gets delayed or taken out, that will mean that at least enough of the representatives listened to the people and stood strong in in, frankly, a heroic act,' Canosa said. 'Because whenever people see in Texas that Miriam Adelson is showing up with an interest, everybody bends over backwards.
'These people are very powerful. It does take a lot of integrity to stand up.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
Newsom: Pentagon lying over LA to justify National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Monday accused the Defense Department of 'lying to the American people' in justifying deploying National Guard troops to the state to quell Los Angeles protests against federal immigration raids, asserting that the situation intensified only when the Pentagon deployed troops. 'The situation became escalated when THEY deployed troops,' Newsom posted to X, referring to the Pentagon. 'Donald Trump has manufactured a crisis and is inflaming conditions. He clearly can't solve this, so California will.' Newsom was responding to a post from DOD Rapid Response on X, a Pentagon-run account, which claimed that 'Los Angeles is burning, and local leaders are refusing to respond.' President Trump on Saturday deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area amid the ICE protests, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying the decision was made due to 'violent mobs' attacking 'Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations.' While protests have intensified in recent days, devolving at times into violence, the majority of gatherings have been largely peaceful. Still, California National Guard troops began arriving in Los Angeles on Sunday morning, with some 300 deployed on the ground later that day at three locations: Los Angeles proper, Paramount and Compton. White House officials have sought to highlight images of burning vehicles and clashes with law enforcement to make the case that the situation had gotten out of control. 'The people that are causing the problem are professional agitators. They're insurrectionists. They're bad people. They should be in jail,' Trump told reporters on Monday. In addition, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has threatened to deploy approximately 500 U.S. Marines to the city, with U.S. Northern Command on Sunday confirming the service members were 'prepared to deploy.' The use of American troops has rankled California officials, who have said the federal response 'inflammatory' and said the deployment of soldiers 'will erode public trust.' Newsom also has traded insults with Hegseth, calling him 'a joke,' and that the idea of deploying active duty Marines in California was 'deranged behavior.' 'Pete Hegseth's a joke. He's a joke. Everybody knows he's so in over his head. What an embarrassment. That guy's weakness masquerading as strength. . . . It's a serious moment,' Newsom said in an interview with podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen. The tit-for-tat continued when chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell then took to X on Monday to attack Newsom. 'LA is on FIRE right now, but instead of tackling the issue, Gavin Newsom is spending his time attacking Secretary Hegseth,' Parnell wrote. 'Unlike Newsom, [Hegseth] isn't afraid to lead.' Newsom, who has formally demanded the Trump administration pull the National Guard troops off the streets, has declared the deployment 'unlawful' and said California will sue the Trump administration over its actions. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,' David Sapp, Newsom's legal affairs secretary, wrote in a letter to Hegseth on Sunday. 'Accordingly, we ask that you immediately rescind your order and return the National Guard to its rightful control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when necessary.' In the past 60 years, a U.S. president has only on one occasion mobilized a state's National Guard troops without the consent of its governor to quell unrest or enforce the law. That was in 1965, when former President Lyndon Johnson sent Guard members to Selma, Ala., to protect civil rights protesters there.
San Francisco Chronicle
35 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
AP PHOTOS: Trump's new travel ban takes effect, and some protest
President Donald Trump's ban on travel to the United States took effect Monday. Demonstrators outside Los Angeles International Airport held signs protesting the ban affecting citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries. At Miami International Airport, passengers moved steadily through an area for international arrivals. Tensions are escalating over the Trump administration's campaign of immigration enforcement. The new ban applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the U.S. and don't hold a valid visa. This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass. Sen. Warren: DOGE accessed ‘sensitive' student loan data at Education Dept., calls for probe
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she wants to know how the quasi-governmental Department of Government Efficiency gained access to 'sensitive' student loan information at the U.S. Department of Education. On Monday, Warren and U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, both Democrats, called for the agency's acting inspector general to find out how that breach happened. They were joined by Democratic senators from eight states, including U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. Warren said lawmakers learned of the potential breach of systems at Federal Student Aid after DOGE, which was helmed until recently by tech titan Elon Musk, infiltrated the agency. In response, Education Department officials revealed that DOGE workers 'supported' a review of the FSA's contracts. As a part of that review, one employee was granted 'read-only' access to two internal systems that held sensitive personal information about borrowers. The agency said it had since revoked that access. But, according to Warren, it did not explain why that access had been revoked, or whether the employee had continued access to other databases. 'Because of the [Education] department's refusal to provide full and complete information, the full extent of DOGE's role and influence at ED remains unknown,' the lawmakers wrote in a June 8 letter to René L. Rocque, the agency's acting inspector general. That 'lack of clarity is not only frustrating for borrowers but also dangerous for the future of an agency that handles an extensive student loan portfolio and a range of federal aid programs for higher education,' the lawmakers continued. Warren, Markey and their colleagues have called on Roque's office to determine whether the department adhered to the Federal Privacy Act, which dictates how the government can collect and use personal information. They also asked Roque to 'determine the impact of DOGE's new plans to consolidate Americans' personal information across government databases.' 'It won't end well for Trump' if he does this amid LA protests, ex-GOP rep says All Ivy League schools are supporting Harvard lawsuit — except these 2 Embassies directed to resume processing Harvard University student visas Over 12,000 Harvard alums lend weight to court battle with Trump in new filing Markey: Trump using National Guard in LA to distract from big cuts in 'Big Beautiful Bill' Read the original article on MassLive.
