1) Las Vegas Sands withdrew casino gaming from their zoning request. Isn't this issue dead now?

No, unfortunately the casino issue is far from dead.
 

• Las Vegas Sands withdrew their request for casino gaming in the zoning because they did not have the votes in the city council to approve it.  They are waiting to see what the city council make up will be after this election.  Once they have enough council members to approve it, they will ask for their land to be rezoned for casino gaming.
   

• Further, on the state level, LV Sands is working on bills to limit the rights of property owners who object to unwanted developments next to them.  Currently, TX law requires only 20% of property owners within 200ft to protest in order to trigger a three-fourths majority of city council to implement a zoning change.  TX House Bill 24 and Senate Bill 844, sponsored by representatives who have received donations from LV Sands, propose to amend the law to require 60% of property owners protest to trigger the three-fourths majority of city council.  Below the 60% threshold of protest, the zoning change only requires a simple majority of city council.  It is very difficult to meet the 60% threshold.
   

        That is a lot of legal detail.  The bottom line is this: LV Sands is funding bills at the state level that will make it much easier for them to         overcome local opposition to their plans.  Without concern for the people who will have to live with their casino, they clearly are using         their immense resources to strong arm their will into Irving. 

        

        These bills have a high chance of passing.  If they do, we will need a supermajority against zoning for a casino in Irving on our city         council for years to come.

        Read More: Las Vegas Sands wanted a casino in Irving. A new bill could make that process easier
 

• Also on the state level, LV Sands is spending millions lobbying to legalizing gambling in Texas.  They have recently given campaign donations to TX Sen. Nathan Johnson, who is sponsoring SJR 82, which will pave the way for legalization of casino gambling in Texas.  Until casino gaming is dead on the state level, the relevance of the casino to Irving will be alive.
  
   Read More: Senator denies link between campaign donations and gambling legalization resolution

2) David Pfaff says this issue is years down the line and not relevant in this election.  Isn’t his position on the casino essentially the same as Sergio Porres’ position?

No, Pfaff and Porres are not the same on the casino issue.  Pfaff has never stated how he will vote on a casino were he to be elected to Irving city council and the casino zoning were to come to his vote.  After this election, LV Sands is likely to resubmit a zoning request for casino gaming with a favorable city council.  If casino gaming in Irving were given a referendum of city residents, and Pfaff were on the city council, Pfaff’s position on the issue would be very influential in swaying voters.  And yet despite the importance of this issue, Pfaff refuses to define his position.  He could very well be pro-casino, but he will not tell voters that fact before the election.  His refusal to take a solid position indicates that he may actually be pro-casino, but wants to avoid scrutiny and opposition from the anti-casino public.

 

In contrast, Sergio Porres is very clear—no casino for Irving.  A vote for Sergio is a vote for protecting Irving from the casino.  If elected, Sergio will do the will of the voters and vote no on any attempt by Las Vegas Sands, and any other landowner in Irving, to install a casino in our city.

 

3) Sergio Porres seems like a one-issue candidate. Is the casino the only issue he cares about?

Unlike the business-as-usual establishment, Sergio Porres will stand up for the best interests of Irving rather than the best interests of corporations and developers.  The Las Vegas Sands’ casino issue is the latest in the long-standing trend of Irving governance.

Four members of the current city council wanted to grant Sands’ request to add casino gaming to the rezoning of their land without any plan from Sands, the equivalent of a blank check.  For far too long, Irving leadership has given developers this blank check, sometimes literally. Mayor Herb Gears gave developer Billy Bob Barnett a blank check in the first phase of the Toyota Music Factory development, which resulted in Barnett embezzling millions of our tax dollars, and therefore a much smaller development than promised.  

The likes of Herb Gears are also responsible for Irving’s overdevelopment on apartment housing over single family residents.  Now, Irving has the highest renter to homeowner ratio in the state.  No more.

See More: City of Irving Officials Draw Scrutiny for Las Colinas Entertainment Center Spending

Sergio Porres supports development, but it must be the right kind for Irving, one that supports Irving’s families and makes Irving an attractive city in which to raise a family.  He will stand for the interests and wishes of Irving citizens over outside corporations every time.