New proposed lease agreement for Nassau Coliseum

A new lease agreement for the Nassau Coliseum between Nassau County and Las Vegas Sands Was the focus of a county Planning Commission public hearing on June 20.   

The newly proposed lease would give Sands control of the Coliseum site for 42 years and the right to operate the facility through maintaining the property and holding events. It does not include the right to develop on the site.

Las Vegas Sands is vying for one of the three casino licenses that the state Gaming Commission is expected to award toward the end of 2025 at the earliest. The company reportedly paid $241 million for control of the Coliseum property in Uniondale. 

“The crowd as a whole seemed to have a lot of people on both sides of the argument, but there was a significant statement of pro-going through with the lease offer,” Jeannine Maynard, co-facilitator of the Greater Uniondale Area Action Committee, said.

Maynard has seen many other proposed plans for the Coliseum fall through in the past, and she feels that this solution is better than leaving a lot or a building that is no longer properly maintained.

“With the way this has progressed, Sands has established relationships with our police department and our fire department, and they coordinate for the supervision of the site and all other conditions,” she said. “We know that this current team knows what they’re doing.”

Those in favor of the lease plan were largely made up of labor unions and leaders who are concerned about current Coliseum employees maintaining their jobs and creating new jobs for the community.

“The Nassau County Veteran’s Memorial Coliseum is an iconic economic engine in our region with a rich history of providing good union jobs to local residents,” Ryan Stanton, executive director of Long Island Federation of Labor, said in a written statement. “We urge Nassau County to approve the current lease to ensure the working people of our communities do not become collateral damage.”

According to Pearl Jacobs, president of the Nostrand Gardens Civic Association and member of the Say No to the Casino Civic Association, they were asserting that this project is an investment into the community, but she does not see it that way.

“We’re not asking for a handout from a casino that’s going to be ultimately detrimental to our quality of life,” Jacobs said. “What we need is our elected officials to invest the tax money that we pay back into the community.”

Those against the lease plan are opposed to the multi-million dollar resort and casino Sands wants to eventually build on the property. Concerns of environmental impacts, adverse health effects, and gambling addiction fears propel activists, like Jacobs, to speak up in protest of the company and their plans.

“There’s a myriad of issues, and one of the primary issues is the environmental impact (the Sands casino) would have on our communities and our quality of life,” Jacobs said. “This is more of a suburban community, and we don’t want to get more urbanized.”

The Long Island group of the Sierra Club, a grassroots environmental organization, is primarily concerned with the increased air, light, and noise pollution the casino would potentially bring, as well as other environmental issues.

“The land is not known for this type of use, nor should it be,” Jane Fasullo, chairperson of the Long Island group of the Sierra Club, said. “We’re wanting to make sure an environmental impact (study) is done and all of these components are looked at before any approval is done.”

The county granted Sands a lease in 2023, which was voided in November, and the company was then granted temporary permits for the building at the end of 2023 until a new lease agreement could be reached.

The Planning Commission is accepting written public comments until June 28, and then the lease will be put to a vote on July 18.