Irving residents press council over casino zoning; Sands asks city to remove gaming from rezoning request

Dozens of Irving residents told the Irving City Council on the rezoning and a proposed destination resort that would include gaming near the University of Dallas, saying the project would bring crime, trafficking and social harms.

At a council meeting that drew several hours of public comment, speakers described the university and surrounding neighborhoods as family- and education-oriented and urged the council to block changes they said would permit casino gambling in Planned Unit Development 6. After public comments and a presentation by the landowner’s representative, the property owner asked the council to remove the destination-resort and gaming components from its rezoning request and to consider approval of the remaining uses in the proposal.

The city heard repeated testimony from nearby residents. Vicky Norman, who said she has lived in Irving for 26 years, described the University of Dallas as “priceless in forming young adults and volunteering to our city,” and warned that rezoning would “affect this area tremendously.” Erin Perdue, an Irving resident, said in public comment: “Casino gambling will increase all crime, including drugs, prostitution, and other forms. It will swindle the elderly out of their retirement savings and prey upon the young and innocent.”

Michael Simmons, another speaker, raised legal questions about proposed ordinance language he said could appear to permit gaming despite state law. Simmons named specific provisions from the draft ordinances — referencing language in the proposed ordinance that tied permitted casino gaming to a “destination resort” designation — and urged the council to seek legal clarity before voting.

Dr. John Soriano, an economics professor at the University of Dallas, summarized academic studies he said show casinos produce little net local economic benefit in dense, prosperous metropolitan areas and cited research linking casinos to increases in property and violent crime in counties where casinos opened.

Mark, a company representative for the prospective developer, described the site and the developer’s vision for a large-scale mixed-use “destination resort,” and repeatedly stressed the difference between what he described as a mixed-use resort with many amenities and a stand-alone casino. He said his firm purchased the 175-acre site in late 2022 and that the parcel’s access, visibility and surrounding transportation network make it “perfect for a large scale tourist based leisure and business development.”

Mark showed floor-plan metrics from other integrated resorts and said the gaming component would be a small fraction of a multiuse project that could include hotels, meeting and entertainment space and retail. He also described corporate policies his company uses, including volunteer hours and employee-support programs, and said the firm planned to work with the city on development standards should the council approve zoning changes.

After council questions about project scale, levy and traffic work, and whether work already under way (site borings, levee design and traffic studies) would continue, Mark told the council: “Sands has asked the Irving City Council to remove the destination resort and gaming component from the proposal initially sent to you and instead consider approval of the balance of the uses in the rezoning entitlement.” Several council members said they supported rezoning the site for denser, higher-value uses while keeping discussion of gaming for a later time if state law changes.

Council members and staff emphasized legal limits on local authority. Multiple public commenters and an on‑record speaker (Michael Simmons) referenced state law and the Texas constitution in arguing the city could not authorize gambling on its own. City staff and council members said any gaming authorizations would depend on changes at the state level.

What happens next: the developer asked the council to remove the destination‑resort and gaming language from the draft ordinance and to move forward with the remaining rezoning changes; the council discussion indicated willingness to consider that approach and to continue outreach and site‑planning discussions. The developer said the full destination-resort project would be economically feasible only if gaming were included, and that without gaming the project would be scaled differently.

Community context and concerns: speakers repeatedly cited proximity to the University of Dallas and neighborhood schools, fears about crime and trafficking, potential impacts on property values and youth, and questions about economic trade‑offs. Others on council said they valued the site as a long‑term economic asset and expressed concern about leaving a large parcel undeveloped or filled with low‑value uses such as warehouses.

No final council ordinance vote on the PUD changes or the specific removal language appears in the transcript excerpt. The developer’s formal request to remove the destination‑resort and gaming elements was made on the public record; council discussion that followed indicated some members were prepared to proceed with rezoning for higher‑intensity mixed uses while excluding gaming pending state action.