Fairfax Board Votes 5-4 To Oppose Tysons Casino Project

A hot topic

The Tuesday vote supported a proposal raised by Hunter Mill District Supervisor Walter Alcorn, which was to totally oppose any casino legislation until it was requested and approved by a majority of supervisors. Proposals would also need to meet a variety of other requirements to be considered suitable.

That’s significant, since the most common site for casino proposals would be near the Spring Hill Metro station in Tysons.

“We’ve seen in other parts of the commonwealth where there are successful casino proposals, we’ve seen those come up through the local government, through local communities,” said Alcorn. “This has been the opposite — this has come really from the state down to the local level. So it doesn’t have the community support.”

The vote comes before any official casino legislation has been submitted. The earliest that could happen is when the new legislative session begins on Jan. 14.

Virginia is not a casino-rich state, but it has been open to expansion recently. A temporary casino in Petersburg is set to open in late Jan. 2026, and Norfolk opened a temporary casino just over one month ago on Nov. 7.

Split opinions

Supporters of a northern Virginia casino believe that it would bring a plethora of funding to the state, while critics believe that it would drive Fortune 500 companies out of the area and could negatively affect local businesses.

“Folks have pushed for the Board to simply be either in favor of or against a casino, however, the issue is far more nuanced,” Board Chair Jeff McKay said. “We are not happy that casino proposals are created in a vacuum in Richmond, far away from those most impacted.”

Alcorn, whose district includes Reston, Vienna, and parts of Tysons and Herndon, also noted that gaming revenue splits are directed more to the state and less to local governments, which is another reason to oppose a new casino project.

“Tysons is the number-one business center in the commonwealth,” Franconia District Supervisor Rodney Lusk, who voted to support the blanket casino opposition, said. “How do we ensure we’re not creating an issue?”

While local opposition might not completely rule out a future casino, it would present a clear and obvious roadblock to suitors.

Regardless of the opinions, the casino topic remains very divisive. Supervisors previously voted 9-0 to include a letter about the casino debate in the legislative package.