SB 756 Reverts to Original Form as Casino Debate in Fairfax, Virginia, Intensifies

Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D-34) reverted to his original language in a new substitute bill permitting casino gaming in Fairfax County, meaning that Senate Bill 756 (SB 756), regarding the allowance of casinos in Northern Virginia, remained the same, despite tons of deliberation in the local senate.

Senate Bill 756 Is Back in Its Previous State

The measure restricted potential sites to a 1.5-million-square-foot mixed-use development in Tysons, but otherwise treated Fairfax the same as the five Virginia cities already eligible to host a casino. Provisions approved by the Senate on Friday were removed, including those that would have allowed a temporary casino before a local referendum and split gaming tax revenue evenly between the state and county. This was going to be an alternative to the current formula, which directs roughly 70% of proceeds to the state and 30% to the host locality.

SB 756 actually moved quite rapidly over the last few months, with lawmakers advancing the previous version with a 12–7 vote back in February. However, Surovell and other lawmakers tasked with negotiating a final version of SB 756, including fellow Fairfax Sen. Dave Marsden (D-35), appear to have reversed course. 

Opposition to the Bill Rises Again

The shift followed intense backlash to a proposal that would have allowed a temporary casino without local oversight or approval. Community groups that have strongly opposed a casino led the criticism. They were joined by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and the House of Delegates, both of which also opposed the plan.

Led by Chairman Jeff McKay, the board sent a letter on Friday to Fairfax County’s House delegates urging them to oppose SB 756. The letter singled out the temporary casino provision as especially concerning, describing it as “problematic” and “deeply short-sighted.”

Board members warned that it would undermine the county’s authority over land use decisions and weaken its ability to guide development in areas like Tysons. According to the board members, the latest version of SB 756 was crafted by pro-casino advocates who do not represent Tysons, and it was developed at the eleventh hour of the session without public visibility.

They explained that it was already problematic to disregard the wishes of Fairfax County voters and their duly elected representatives. What’s even more concerning, the board members said, is to do so in a way that could undermine planned development in one of the state’s key economic drivers.

McKay stated in a press release that the House ultimately approved a bill that still raises serious concerns but preserves some degree of local authority. He added that he would continue to oppose any efforts to force a casino into Tysons.

Meanwhile, Providence District Supervisor Dalia Palchik, whose district includes most of Tysons, urged Gov. Abigail Spanberger to veto the bill. Palchik wrote in a statement that this legislation is not being put forward in good faith by its patron.

Spanberger has until 11:59 p.m. on Monday, April 13, to take action on all legislation sent to her desk, including signing, vetoing, or proposing amendments, so only time will tell if SB 756 will pass.