By: Justin Winograd

The decades-long dream of transforming Coney Island into a glittering casino destination came to an abrupt halt Monday afternoon when a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) voted to reject the much-publicized bid known as “The Coney.” In a 4–2 vote, the committee declined to advance the proposal, effectively shutting the door on what developers claimed would have been a transformative economic engine for southern Brooklyn.

As Spectrum News reported on Monday, the decision draws attention to the decisive power of community opposition in shaping the future of New York City’s gaming landscape. While several other casino proposals across the metropolitan region advanced in recent weeks, the Coney Island project faced overwhelming skepticism from local residents, civic leaders, and elected officials.

Developers behind “The Coney” had pitched the project as a once-in-a-generation investment that would bring life-changing opportunities to one of New York City’s most iconic yet economically challenged neighborhoods. Their plan called for a new casino complex on Coney Island’s famed boardwalk, alongside entertainment venues, restaurants, and retail space.

According to project backers, the casino would have created 4,500 permanent jobs and more than 4,000 construction jobs during the building phase. Crucially, they promised that at least 25% of those jobs would be reserved for Coney Island residents, a commitment meant to alleviate concerns about outsiders profiting from the project while locals shouldered its social consequences.

Developers argued that Coney Island’s unique character, historic amusement heritage, and year-round tourism potential made it an ideal site for a new casino license, one of just three expected to be awarded in the downstate New York region.

But as Spectrum News highlighted in its coverage, the promises of jobs and revitalization collided with deep unease among residents who feared that a casino would exacerbate crime, strain infrastructure, and erode the cultural fabric of the neighborhood.

One of the most vocal opponents of the proposal was City Councilman Justin Brannan, who also sat on the Community Advisory Committee. Last week, Brannan publicly announced he would vote against the project, citing the overwhelming opposition he had heard from his constituents.

“We’ve heard so much feedback from community members, and it was overwhelmingly, people just didn’t want it,” Brannan told Spectrum News during an interview on Mornings On 1. “And it’s my job as a leader to listen to my constituents and to make the right decisions. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions, and this is one of those situations where it just doesn’t make sense.”

Brannan’s stance reflected the mood of many Brooklyn residents who voiced concerns at public forums and in letters to the committee. From fears of increased traffic congestion on the already overburdened Belt Parkway to worries about gambling addiction and neighborhood safety, the chorus of opposition proved insurmountable.

While Coney Island’s bid faltered, several other casino proposals are advancing in New York’s high-stakes race for three coveted downstate licenses. As the report on Spectrum News noted, Community Advisory Committees have already approved bids for:

Bally’s in the Bronx, which envisions the construction of an entirely new casino.

Resorts World near Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens, currently an electronic gaming facility, which seeks expansion into a full-scale casino.

Empire City Casino in Yonkers, another existing facility that hopes to expand operations.

These projects, bolstered by existing infrastructure and fewer grassroots objections, are now closer to receiving approval from state regulators.

By contrast, the Coney Island bid joins three Manhattan proposals—all rejected last week—in being sidelined by their respective committees. Each Manhattan project had promised glitzy developments but faced staunch local resistance in neighborhoods already strained by density, affordability crises, and concerns over livability.

One additional project, Metropolitan Park near Citi Field in Queens, remains under review and is scheduled for a Community Advisory Committee vote Tuesday. Its fate will help further define the competitive landscape for the licenses, but the Coney Island rejection is already reshaping the narrative around the city’s casino expansion.

For developers, the rejection marks a devastating setback. “The Coney” consortium had invested significant resources into feasibility studies, community outreach, and marketing. They pitched the project as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring sustained, year-round economic vitality to Coney Island, which often struggles with high unemployment and seasonal boom-and-bust cycles tied to summer tourism.

Labor leaders had also expressed enthusiasm for the project’s construction phase, touting the potential for thousands of unionized jobs. For many in organized labor, casinos represented not just employment but a pathway to middle-class stability in industries ranging from construction to hospitality.

But as the Spectrum News report observed, even promises of strong labor participation could not overcome local fears that the project would permanently alter the neighborhood’s character. Critics argued that Coney Island’s identity as a historic working-class amusement district would be swallowed by the glitter of a corporate casino.

The committee’s 4–2 vote against “The Coney” is more than a procedural setback—it is a demonstration of how community sentiment can directly shape billion-dollar projects. As the Spectrum News report stressed, each casino proposal must pass through the scrutiny of local advisory committees before advancing to state regulators. This design was intentional: New York lawmakers wanted to ensure that casinos, with their potential to transform neighborhoods, were not imposed on unwilling communities.

For Coney Island, the message was clear. Residents weighed the potential economic benefits against perceived social costs and concluded the price was too high. Their representatives listened, and the developers’ grand vision crumbled under the weight of local democracy.

The rejection of “The Coney” also carries political resonance. For progressive leaders in Brooklyn, blocking the casino aligned with concerns about economic inequality, problem gambling, and the risks of overdevelopment. For more moderate voices like Brannan, opposing the project demonstrated attentiveness to constituents’ concerns.

Meanwhile, the broader political establishment in New York is eager to secure the economic windfall that new casinos could bring. Billions in potential tax revenue, thousands of jobs, and expanded tourism appeal to both state and city leaders, especially in the wake of pandemic-era budget shortfalls. But as the Spectrum News report noted, the rejection of Coney Island’s bid underscores the tension between statewide economic ambitions and hyper-local community interests.

What happens next for Coney Island remains uncertain. Without the casino, developers will need to reimagine how to spur long-term economic growth in the neighborhood. Ideas such as expanding year-round attractions, investing in housing, or enhancing transportation infrastructure have all been floated in the past.

For now, the community has made its decision: the risks of a casino outweigh its potential rewards. As Spectrum News reported, this outcome reinforces the idea that while casinos may fit into certain urban contexts—such as Queens or Yonkers—they are not univ.