Council holds public hearing on LU 297 for proposed Coney Island development; no vote taken

The New York City Council subcommittee on land use on LU 297 opened a public hearing on a proposed Coney Island development that would require a city map amendment — including demapping a portion of Bowery, acquiring volumes of air above West 12th Street and Stillwell Avenue, and adjusting the grade of part of Stillwell Avenue. The subcommittee heard presentations by the applicant team, then received roughly 40 in‑person and about 15 online testimonies; the council did not vote on the item.

Councilmember Justin Brannan, representing Coney Island, framed the proceeding: "Coney Island has always stood as a beacon of excitement, imagination, and possibility ... the original people's playground," he said, while reminding the room "we are not here today to decide whether there should be a casino in Coney Island." Brannan and Chair Riley noted that final authority over any gaming license rests with state processes — a community advisory committee (CAC), the Gaming Facility Location Board and the New York State Gaming Commission — and that local land‑use approval is required only for an applicant to compete for a state license.

Applicant presentation and commitments

Representatives for the project (who introduced themselves for the record as Jody Stein and a multi‑disciplinary team including Sarah Davis and other consultants) described a four‑block campus adjacent to the boardwalk and Stillwell Avenue. They said the land‑use action sought in LU 297 is limited to map changes: demapping a segment of Bowery, acquiring air rights above parts of Stillwell Avenue and West 12th Street (the West 12th air volume was adjusted after City Planning feedback; presenters said they raised the lower limiting plane by 20 feet), and raising the elevation of a portion of Stillwell Avenue "for flood mitigation" — a change described in testimony as ranging roughly from a small increment up to about 2 feet to meet the building grade.

Project elements the applicants emphasized included a pedestrianized Stillwell Avenue through the site, a one‑acre publicly accessible rooftop open space (accessed without entering any gaming area), a bus lobby and organized vehicular circulation with an internal parking facility of about 1,500 spaces. The team also said they plan a mix of uses — hotel rooms, an entertainment venue and retail surrounding the site — and described transportation mitigation measures such as shuttle service, advocacy for ferry and express subway service, signal timing changes, added turning lanes and traffic attendants.

On jobs and community benefits, the applicants cited projected figures and commitments repeatedly in testimony: "4,500 union construction jobs and 4,000 permanent gaming and hospitality union jobs," a developer‑funded $200,000,000 community trust governed by a board of community stakeholders and a stated local hiring preference and workforce partnerships with community colleges and organizations. The team said the project would incorporate flood‑resiliency measures and could serve as a "resilience hub," and that programmatic supports for public safety and gambling addiction would be provided through operator partners and on‑site space for NYPD, FDNY and EMS.

Responses and questions from council members

Council members questioned the applicants about alternatives and contingencies. When asked what would happen if the development did not receive a state gaming license, the applicant replied that the campus concept relies on the license and that, if denied, "there is no plan at this time for anything to happen at the site" and the proposed land‑use action would not proceed. The applicant said the immediate procedural next step, if the council approves the map change, would be to participate in the CAC and to submit a supplemental state application.

Public testimony: split between support and opposition

Public testimony ran through organized panels. Supporters included labor representatives, local business groups and some longtime residents who said the project would deliver jobs, training and capital to an area they described as underinvested. Randy Levine, president of the New York Yankees and a board member of Legends Hospitality (a partner in the venture), said of his organization’s involvement: "Whenever we put the Yankee name to something, we insist that it's complete excellence." The Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce and several unions and business owners testified in favor, citing job creation, hotel demand and year‑round economic activity.

Opponents — including many Coney Island residents, NYCHA residents and small‑business owners — raised concerns about traffic, emergency access, public safety, housing displacement and gambling harms. Speakers who said they oppose the demapping included Charlene Davis, who said she uses a wheelchair and relies on oxygen and described difficulty during crowded days when ambulances have trouble reaching residents; Jenny Hernandez and Marissa Solomon cited a petition they submitted with over 10,000 signatures opposing the demapping; Lucy Mojica Díaz warned of higher property taxes and displacement; and Aiden Harushian called the development a "betrayal of the community." Several witnesses noted that the project footprint affects streets used daily by residents and that removing or repurposing those public streets would change access to the beach and boardwalk.

Many speakers — both supporters and opponents — pressed the applicants for specific, line‑item commitments. Council members asked whether the applicants could identify exact dollar amounts for investments in NYCHA repairs, addiction services or guaranteed contracts for local small businesses; applicants repeatedly replied that more detailed figures would be included in the state application and community advisory committee process and that some information was sensitive because the state licensing process is competitive.

Process and next steps

Council members repeatedly emphasized that approval of LU 297 would not itself authorize construction or operation of a casino; it would only amend the city map so the applicant could proceed in the state licensing process. If the council were to approve the map amendment, the applicants said the next steps would include CAC formation and the state review process; the New York State Gaming Commission would make the ultimate licensing decision later in the year.

The subcommittee recessed public comment in the room before starting online testimony (official staff announced an estimate to begin online testimony later in the afternoon) and indicated written testimony would be accepted for up to 72 hours after the hearing. No formal motion or vote on LU 297 was taken at the hearing.

Why this matters

The map changes proposed in LU 297 touch streets, pedestrian connections and public access that residents and businesses use year‑round, while the broader project would depend on a state gaming license. Supporters frame the plan as long‑term private investment, jobs and infrastructure; opponents say the same changes risk traffic congestion, strain on emergency services, social harms from gaming and loss of neighborhood character. Because a state license is required before a casino could be built, the subcommittee's decision on the map amendment — and the CAC process that would follow — are pivotal steps in a multi‑stage process between city and state review.

The hearing record remains open. The subcommittee did not vote on LU 297 at this session; council members and the applicant said further engagement through the CAC and state processes would follow if the council approves the map amendment.