Neighborhood-casinos bill sparks debate

Kirsten Searer

Friday, May 27, 2005 | 9:32 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A bill that would limit the number of neighborhood casinos allowed in master-planned communities sparked controversy in the state Senate and was facing a deadline today.

Several senators have said they want to change Assembly Bill 485, which would specify that new neighborhood casinos only be allowed in master-planned communities.

The bill has attracted the interest of many of the state's major players, including top gaming and development groups.

Proponents argue that the bill will help avoid a debacle such as the debate over Red Rock Station, when neighbors argued that Station Casinos broke its word on how tall the casino would be.

Others wonder if the bill would actually eliminate some of the public's input on neighborhood casinos.

The bill started out as a noncontroversial measure to restrict the relocation of condemned grandfathered gaming licenses, mostly in Washoe County.

But it was amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Now developers would choose a casino for their master planned community, said Mark Fiorentino, an attorney for a variety of gaming and property groups.

From there, the development would go through six months of public discussion -- at least four public meetings -- that would set the height and other specifications of the casino property.

The property would then have to stick to those specifications.

Fiorentino argues that the bill would protect residents in growing areas. Right now, a company could buy 30 acres in the middle of nowhere, and then build any casino once growth has spread to the area.

"When I'm in a master-planned community, I have to put all of the cards on the table at once," he said. "I have to show exactly where the schools are going to be. I have to show exactly where the roads are going to be, where the residential neighborhoods are going to be.

"I don't get to do it in pieces. It all has to be one piece of paper."

In exchange for committing to a casino plan early in the stages, gaming companies receive more certainty that residents can't change the plans, Fiorentino said.

Gaming companies could spend $1 million putting casino plans in place -- long before the doors would open for business.

"In exchange for making the rules a lot more difficult, making the process a lot more open on the front end, I get stability on the rear end," he said. "I have to have that because in order to do this now, I'm going to spend $1 million."

Under the bill, residents could no longer appeal their complaints to the Gaming Policy Committee, which now mitigates disputes over gaming properties.

Fiorentino points out that the committee has been used twice since its inception in 1997.

Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, said she thinks the committee is another layer of bureaucracy. Titus said she likes the idea of letting residents know early on what a casino will look like. Still, she wants an amendment that bar casinos from changing plans without a vote of the residents in the master-planned community.

"I want to make sure that not only do you know when you move in but they can't change the rules on you, so I want to add that piece of accountability to it," Titus said.

She also wants to require that casinos with grandfathered licenses would have to build by 2010 or lose their grandfathering rights.

"What has happened is the communities around those areas have changed," she said.

Titus said she thinks developers and gamers are reluctant to support the "use-it-or-lose-it" portion of her amendment. Station Casinos has several grandfathered properties that would be affected, she said.

Several Las Vegas residents have sent e-mails to state senators criticizing the bill, saying it could give Station Casinos an unfair advantage.

"Assembly Bill 485 would severely undermine what little say residents already have in whether or not a Strip-sized casino moves into their neighborhoods," wrote Las Vegas resident Sharon Walker.

"The Legislature should do what the County Commission could not -- SAY NO TO STATION!" wrote North Las Vegas resident Charles Whiteside. "Don't let Station take away our ability to fight neighborhood casinos.

Lesley Pittman, vice president of corporate and government relations for Station Casinos, called the e-mail campaign "a little suspicious" and said it could be directed by the Culinary Union, which has long haggled with the non-union Station Casinos.

The union should not worry about Station monopolizing the market because all casinos would start out on the same footing when trying to get into a master-planned community, she said.

Culinary officials were unavailable for comment.

And while it might limit the number of casinos in each community most Clark County residents prefer to stop casinos from popping up on every corner, she said.

"The fact of the matter is that's what residents in this community want," she said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Mark Amodei, R-Carson City, said there could be up to five proposed amendments on the bill today. It must clear the Senate today or die because of a legislative deadline.

Amodei said he still likes the amendment his committee approved, but the amendments could bog down if senators start to think they are designed to give one company an advantage over another.

"When any company tries to use the process to a competitive advantage, it makes it much harder to get votes," he said.

Either way, Nevada Resort Association lobbyist Greg Ferraro said his group wants the original version of the bill to move today.

"We're going to put all of our resources behind getting that bill," he said.