Summary:
- Virginia lawmakers approve plan for a voter referendum on a Tysons casino.
- Fairfax County leaders say their opposition has been ignored.
- A future Governor’s decision and a possible public vote will determine the outcome.
A proposal to bring a casino to Fairfax County is still alive, even as local officials continue to push back.
Virginia lawmakers have approved a bill that would give voters the freedom to decide whether they want a casino in Tysons or not. The legislation is currently heading to Governor Abigail Spanberger, who has yet to say whether she will sign it, veto it, or make changes.
Back in December, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors voted 5-4 to oppose casino legislation. Despite that, state lawmakers, including some representing parts of the county, chose to move ahead anyway.
That decision has frustrated several local leaders. “It’s really sad that the people of Fairfax County were sold out by their own” Supervisor James Bierman Jr. said during a recent board meeting.
Board Chairman Jeffrey C. McKay also questioned how the bill gained enough support to pass. He pointed out that many of the votes came from lawmakers outside Fairfax County, even though several local representatives were against it.
“We Have Been on Defense”
Supporters of the plan argue that a casino could bring in significant revenue, especially money that currently goes to nearby Maryland, including MGM National Harbor. But critics say the potential downsides have not been fully addressed.
Supervisor Dalia Palchik, who represents the Tysons area, said the county never asked for a casino in the first place.
“The bill passed still does not make sense for our community… We have been on defense” she said.
Not everyone on the board is against the idea. Supervisor Pat Herrity said that while he has moral concerns about gambling, it is already widely accessible through mobile apps and online platforms.
Even if the governor signs the bill, the project is far from certain. County leaders would still need to approve putting the issue on a public ballot. That gives them another opportunity to slow or stop the process.
There are also practical concerns. Officials have raised questions about traffic, public safety, property values, and whether enough resources would be available to deal with gambling addiction.
A late amendment has added another layer of controversy, possibly allowing a “temporary” casino to operate for five years, a move local leaders strongly criticized as rushed and lacking transparency.
About the Author
