Residents urge Roanoke City Council to abandon proposed casino over social and economic harms
Loading...
Summary
Nearly a dozen public commenters told the Roanoke City Council Nov. 3 they oppose a proposed casino, citing addiction, public-safety costs, market saturation and weak local economic benefits; speakers asked the council to pursue alternate revenue sources instead.
Roanoke — A steady stream of public commenters urged the Roanoke City Council on Nov. 3 to abandon plans to pursue a casino in the city, warning the project would deepen addiction, heighten public-safety costs and deliver weaker-than-promised economic gains.
Speakers raised concerns during the council’s allotted public-comment period. Anita Atkins cited research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond summarizing studies of communities that received casinos and said those places did not experience sustained economic growth and instead faced increased alcohol-related traffic fatalities. “It didn’t spur the widespread growth that they thought it would do,” Atkins said.
Other speakers described local consequences they fear. Bruce Bottler said casinos draw many patrons from surrounding counties who are living paycheck to paycheck and predicted revenue gained by the city would be offset by social costs. John Dove, a long-time Roanoke resident, said the casino would “add socioeconomic consequences detrimental to our city and our valley.” Brian Smith, a local pastor, warned of addiction and public-safety expenses and cited national studies that estimate gambling-related addiction affects a share of the population.
Sarah Kate Brown Miller, director of the Roanoke Prevention Alliance (a nonprofit fiscal-sponsored by Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare), told council the alliance is focused on youth substance-use prevention and said zoning and other local policies can limit youth exposure to addictive products. Several speakers also noted nearby gambling options—such as facilities in neighboring counties and West Virginia—raising concerns about market saturation.
No council member offered a formal response during public comment; the mayor thanked speakers and reminded the public that the city manager will receive and respond to matters as appropriate. The council did not take any immediate action on a casino proposal at the meeting.
Next steps: Comments were referred to the city manager for response or report back to council; no vote or ordinance on a casino was recorded at this session.
