Senate Bill 756 Reverts to Original Form Amid Intensifying Casino Debate in Fairfax, Virginia
Senate Bill 756 Returns to Its Original Version
Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D-34) has restored the initial language in a revised bill that permits casino gaming in Fairfax County. This means Senate Bill 756 (SB 756), which addresses casino authorization in Northern Virginia, remains unchanged despite extensive discussion within the local Senate.
Key Provisions and Changes in SB 756
The legislation limits potential casino sites to a 1.5-million-square-foot mixed-use development located in Tysons. Apart from that, it aligns Fairfax County’s casino regulations with those of five other Virginia cities already permitted to host casinos. Notably, recent Senate-approved provisions were removed. These included the allowance for a temporary casino prior to a local referendum and a revised revenue-sharing model that would have split gaming tax income evenly between the state and the county. The current tax revenue structure directs about 70% to the state and 30% to the locality hosting the casino.
Legislative Journey and Reversal
Senate Bill 756 progressed swiftly over recent months, passing a previous version by a 12–7 vote in February. However, key lawmakers, including Scott Surovell and Fairfax Sen. Dave Marsden (D-35), who were responsible for final negotiations on the bill, have since taken a step back from amendments that would have altered its original form.
Renewed Opposition to the Casino Bill
This reversal came amid strong opposition to a provision that proposed a temporary casino without local approval or oversight. Community groups opposed to casino developments led the backlash, with voices from the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and the House of Delegates joining the opposition.
Concerns from Fairfax County Leaders
Chairman Jeff McKay and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors issued a letter urging local House delegates to reject SB 756. They criticized the temporary casino clause as particularly troubling, describing it as both shortsighted and problematic.
The board members expressed concerns that the bill could undermine the county’s control over land use and impair its ability to manage development in important areas like Tysons. They further noted that the recent version of the bill was shaped by pro-casino advocates who do not represent Fairfax or Tysons, and that it was introduced late in the legislative session without public awareness.
The board emphasized the disregard for the desires of Fairfax voters and their elected officials, warning that the bill risks disrupting development in one of Virginia’s key economic hubs.
McKay remarked that while the House approved a version preserving some local authority, significant concerns remain. He vowed to continue opposing any efforts to impose a casino in Tysons.
Local District and Governor’s Response
Providence District Supervisor Dalia Palchik, whose district covers much of Tysons, called on Governor Abigail Spanberger to veto SB 756. Palchik criticized the legislation as lacking sincerity in its presentation.
Governor Spanberger has until 11:59 p.m. on Monday, April 13, to decide whether to sign, veto, or amend the bill. The fate of SB 756 remains uncertain as stakeholders await the governor’s decision.
