A marathon public hearing on rezoning part of Irving for casino gambling resulted in a small victory for casino proponents despite the protests of scores of Irving residents.
At 2:37 AM on March 18, the Irving Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) gaveled out of a meeting that had started at 5:30 PM the night before. The commission issued a 5-4 recommendation to move forward with rezoning land near the former Dallas Cowboys Stadium. The recommendation is non-binding and does not guarantee any action when the City Council convenes to vote on March 20.
The outcome of the P&Z recommendation did not reflect the opinions of the residents who spoke.
Referencing the notion that casino would be connected to a “destination resort,” Irving resident Susan Hansen said, “We already are a national destination… we are a destination for families that want freedom and this became exponentially [more] apparent after the 2020 COVID lockdown, people realized that there were [jobs, churches and schools] in Texas and this is where they wanted to raise their families.”
Hansen criticized a casino as contrary to the pro-family values she believes the community represents.
Debra Romanick Baldwin, PhD, asked the commission why the rezoning was “such a bad idea.”
Answering her own question, Baldwin predicted a wave of organized crime and human trafficking accompanying the casino and an unappealing architectural design for the casino building. She noted that the process was too rushed and effectively endorsed a crime.
Baldwin concluded, “As Planning & Zoning Commissioners, your responsibility is not to a private land owner – it is to your city, your council [and] its residents.”
As Baldwin walked away from the podium and the live stream camera panned the audience, even one of the pro-casino protestors could be seen clapping for Baldwin around the 2:16:00 time marker.
The Dallas Express previously reported that some of the pro-casino protestors appeared to have been compensated for their participation. The outlet was told that many of these proponents did not know what they were supporting before they arrived.
Another speaker paid homage to the seeming contradictions of city leadership in previous hearings on the matter. Gregory Pimentel called out what he saw as “the attempt to hide [casino gambling] as a small detail [when it is] the Central and essential part of this plan.”
Pimentel’s comments appeared to nod toward a previous exchange Councilman Luis Canosa (D-4) had in the city council. When the rezoning issue was announced to the public and simultaneously advanced to a final vote on February 27, Canosa had been told by several of his colleagues that his questions about the rezoning were overly granular, moments after many of them had described the project as transformational for Irving. Every councilman but Canosa voted to proceed with the proposed vote.
Pimentel said, “Casinos do not grow economies, they drain income from existing businesses.”
Scores of citizens made comments similar to those of Hansen, Baldwin, and Pimentel, while less than a handful spoke in support.
Randle Meadows from Murphy Nasica, a political consulting firm with a history of working with Sands-supported candidates for elected office in Texas, spoke.
Meadows said that his prior experiences in law enforcement informed him that there would not be a significant increase in crime if casino gambling was legalized. He then reiterated a talking point previously employed by a Sands representative: Texas has the largest illegal gaming market in the country, and legalizing gaming would help regulate the market.
This was the third public hearing in roughly three weeks since the public became aware that there was going to be a vote, and the sentiments of the citizen speakers indicated overwhelming public outrage.
It is not immediately clear how the March 20 vote will go. If the council approves rezoning the area for casino gaming and the Las Vegas Sands does not ultimately pursue another city, the next step to legalizing gambling would be to amend the state constitution.
Casino gambling is already outlawed in the Lonestar State, and legalizing this form of gaming would require two-thirds approval in the Texas House and Senate and the approval of a majority of voters on the statewide ballot.