Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Casino Application topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves mayor's home-rule message allowing Bronx to seek casino application after heated debate
Summary
The City Council adopted mayor's home-rule message M0144 by a vote of 32-12-7 to allow the Bronx to submit an application that could lead to a casino proposal. Opponents argued the step undermines member deference and risks parkland; supporters said the vote simply allows an application, not project approval.
The New York City Council on Wednesday approved mayor's home-rule message M0144, authorizing the city to accept a Bronx application to pursue a casino-related land use action. The measure passed 32 in favor, 12 opposed and 7 abstentions.
The vote set off a vigorous floor debate over member deference and the use of public land. Opponents warned the vote would sideline the council member representing the affected district and criticized the process used to advance the request. "That is why member deference is such such a crucial principle because each and every one of us knows what is best for our communities because we are on the ground every day," an opponent said during floor remarks opposing M0144.
Those backing M0144 said the vote only authorizes the borough to submit an application and does not approve a casino or any land conveyance. "I wanna clarify that we're not voting on a casino today. We're voting on allowing The Bronx an opportunity to submit an application," Deputy Speaker Ayala said on the floor.
Council members who opposed the home-rule message framed their objections as procedural and local-representation concerns. "This isn't just a bad proposal. It's been a disgraceful process," another council member said, urging colleagues to protect local input and cautioning that the vote could set a precedent for bypassing district representatives.
The measure is a mayoral home-rule message, not a zoning approval. If a casino applicant proceeds, any land-use changes, parkland conveyance, or subsequent approvals would require additional council votes and public review under the city's land-use process.
The council's final tally for M0144 was reported at the end of the session: 32 in the affirmative, 12 in the negative and 7 abstentions. The vote was taken as part of the general orders calendar; several members used their floor time to explain or register their votes.
Next steps hinge on whether a formal application is filed and the substance of any proposed land-use or conveyance action. A city-wide or borough-specific approval would require further public hearings and separate council action.
