Don’t bet on New York gaming regulators winning any races.
A top Sands Casino official ripped state gaming regulators for a “confusing” years-long review process that means licenses in the Big Apple region are still months away.
“We’re very disappointed by New York,” Patrick Dumont, president and chief operating officer of Sands, told investors on a first-quarter earnings call first reported on the gambling site playny.com.
Sands has pitched a $4 billion casino complex at the Nassau Coliseum site in Uniondale but the state gaming commission said it won’t decide as many as three new casino licenses in the New York City area until late 2025 — after nearly three years of preliminary discussions.
“We’ve been working there for a long time and we thought it would happen in 24 … Now they’re saying 25 or 26,” Dumont said.
“I don’t think we have any clarity to be honest with you. It’s confusing and disappointing … I just don’t know about New York. We wish they’d figure it out and let us know,” he said in rare public criticism leveled at a regulator ruling on applications.
Still, Dumont said he remained “hopeful that things [will] turn around” in New York.
The foot-dragging pushes out the over-under on the earliest a gaming facility could open in the metro area to some time in 2026.
Sands is now saying publicly what other casino industry insiders and bidders have griped privately about the snails pace. But the longer time frame could benefit other bidders struggling to overcome community and political resistance.
Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman and the Republican-led county legislature approved a 99-year lease for Sands to run a casino at the government owned Nassau Coliseum — if they ultimately win a state gaming license.
The Nassau-backed Sands bid has been beset by some opposition and legal challenges — led by Hofstra University.
Nassau on Friday announced it will rework its lease agreement with Sands after Hostra won a court ruling that determined county officials violated the open meetings and environmental laws when ramming through the initial approval last year.
Neighborhood and political support will be crucial in determining which bidders win the right to operate a casino in the New York City area.
Any casino bid must get sign off from the state Gaming Facility Location Board.
The review board in a particular area where a casino is being proposed includes the local council member, state senator and assemblyman, borough president and the mayor and governor.
Community boards have raised objections to some of the casino plans pitched in the city — notably the Related Companies/Wynn $12 billion gaming facility and officer tower complex for Hudson Yards and the Thor Equity consortium gaming facility complex along the Coney Island boardwalk.
Other casino projects include Mets owner Steve Cohen’s bid for a $8 billion project near Citi Field, Bally’s at Ferry Point in the Bronx, and the Silverstein Properties in Hell’s Kitchen.
The Cohen and Bally’s proposals also need a state law approved to convert use of their properties from parkland to commercial use.
Meanwhile, Genting-Resorts Worlds at Aqueduct racetrack and MGM-Empire City at Yonkers Raceway are seeking a license to add table games to their slots parlor.
Reached for comment, the Gaming Commission referred The Post to previous statements made by executive director Robert Williams, who insisted the timetable to award casino licenses is “ahead of schedule” because Gov. Kathy Hochul and the state legislature have not anticipated revenues from casinos to help bankroll the MTA until 2026.
A winning bidder must pay an upfront $500 million license fee for the privilege of operating a casino.
The Hudson Yards, Citi Field, Coney Island and Bronx pitches would also have to first be approved under the city’s lengthy Uniformed Land Use Review Procedure, the commission said.
“I have been informally advised that navigating the [land use] process will extend through the second quarter of 2025,” Williams said.
He said bidders will also have to undergo a separate state environmental scrutiny — under the State Environmental Quality Review Act that could take time.
