Fairfax County Doesn’t Need a Casino to Thrive — Fairfax County Needs Honest Answers
By Lynne Mulston, Fairfax County resident and Chair of the No Fairfax Casino Coalition Steering Committee
Feb. 28, 2026 - The bill to authorize a casino in Fairfax County, SB 756, has been amended to include the entirety of the county, but its patron, Sen. Scott Surovell (D‑Mount Vernon), continues to anchor his bill in a narrative about a “cratering” Tysons that only a casino can fix. He touts jobs, tax revenue, and a voter referendum. But the case he presents leans heavily on selective numbers, optimistic projections, and a willingness to sideline the community most affected.
State Override, Local Consequences
The Virginia General Assembly should protect local land‑use authority and oppose legislation like SB 756. State‑directed projects often ignore local impacts; high‑intensity uses like casinos require careful review of traffic, safety, and infrastructure, and bypassing that process weakens responsible planning. Supporters point to economic benefits, but Fairfax County’s experience shows growth and local control can coexist, and state overrides create uncertainty for residents and businesses.
Virginia has long balanced statewide goals with local authority, and SB 756 disrupts that balance by treating local decision‑making as optional. At its core, the question is whether communities retain the ability to shape their own future.
Tysons Already Has a Path Forward
Fairfax County has already approved major mixed‑use projects in the very area targeted by SB 756, including The View, a 2019 plan designed to deliver a walkable, transit‑oriented downtown with jobs, housing, and convention capacity—without the social costs of gaming. Yet the bill’s patron repeatedly claims that Fairfax—“a county larger than eight states”—has no conference center. As the Coalition’s review notes, “It is a misrepresentation to suggest that Fairfax County doesn’t have a single place you can host a convention.” The region’s proximity to Washington, D.C., metro access, and its approved development pipeline already offer what the bill claims to provide.
Misrepresenting Local Governance
The patron has also argued that the Board of Supervisors’ opposition should be discounted because a temporary vacancy existed during its 5–4 vote. That framing omits the actual process. The Board held a public hearing on November 18, 2025, where residents testified directly on the casino legislation. On December 9, the Board voted to adopt its 2026 legislative package, which included a clear, written statement opposing the casino. This was not a rushed or irregular action—it was the county’s formal legislative process, informed by public input. The supervisor who later filled the vacancy has since publicly opposed the project as well[1]. Dismissing the Board’s position because the outcome is inconvenient undermines representative government and the community engagement that shaped it.
Inflated Numbers, Unfounded Promises
Supporters of SB 756 frequently cite a Tysons office vacancy rate of “25–30%” and “double the national average,” without evidence. Independent analysis by Newmark Group[2] puts Tysons at 23.6% in Q4 2025, compared with a 20.4% national average—higher, but nowhere near double. The same pattern appears in revenue claims. The bill’s sponsor has floated large county windfalls tied to a billion‑dollar casino, even as Fairfax County’s own feasibility study projects far smaller gains. The bill advances without a current, independent economic and social impact study for Tysons. The Coalition warns that the patron’s numbers “are simply not credible,” and the 2019 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) report often cited is outdated and not tailored to Fairfax. Basing a major land‑use decision on unverified projections is irresponsible.
Transparency Matters
The patron has suggested that opposition to his bill is fueled by anonymous texts, undisclosed polling, and corporate meddling. That claim does not apply to the No Fairfax Casino Coalition and should not be used to dismiss thousands of residents and an elected Board that oppose the project. If transparency is the standard, it must apply equally to developers, corporate backers, and any polling or outreach tied to the casino campaign. Fairfax residents deserve to know who stands to profit and how public resources will be used.
A Better Future Is Already in Motion
Tysons does not need a casino to reinvent itself. Approved mixed‑use plans emphasize density, transit integration, public space, and a diversified economy. Projects like The View aim to create a 24‑hour urban center that attracts jobs and visitors without the social tradeoffs of gaming. Before any decision is made, Fairfax and the state should require an independent, up‑to‑date economic and social impact study; full disclosure of developer and donor funding tied to the casino push; and a side‑by‑side comparison of the casino proposal with existing approved projects.
Fairfax County should not be asked to gamble its future on inflated numbers and a development model that serves a narrow set of interests. Rigorous analysis, transparency, and respect for local planning—not selective data and political pressure—should guide decisions about Tysons’ future.
[1]Fate Of Fairfax Co. Casino Bill Voted On By VA Senate; Patch, Feb. 13, 2026, Michael O’Connell;
“ Rachna Sizemore Heizer (D) was elected as the new Braddock District supervisor on Dec. 9, 2025.
During an Oct. 1 candidate forum ahead of the Democratic Party primary in the supervisor's race, Sizemore Heizer said she did not support the effort to bring a casino to Tysons. When asked recently if her position had changed since being sworn in, Sizemore Heizer told Patch that she opposed the legislation and would not support anything her constituents opposed. She added that it was an issue that constituents mentioned frequently during the campaign.”
[2] Newmark Northern Virginia Office Market Overview (4Q25); Section 03, Market Statistics., Page 19