If you’ve lived in Reston for any amount of time, you’ve seen how quickly a land-use story can go from “no way” to “wait, what?” when Richmond gets involved. That’s where we are again with the Fairfax County casino conversation.
As of Thursday, February 12, 2026, a casino bill in the Virginia Senate (SB 756) has moved closer to a full Senate vote, with amendments and shifting language that have locals watching carefully. Some versions of this idea have tried to pin a casino to Tysons. This year’s debate has included moves that would remove or soften location constraints, which is why Reston has re-entered the discussion, even if nobody has officially “picked” Reston as a site.
This post breaks down what we can verify right now, what has changed recently, and why you keep hearing people point to areas near Metro stations, including parts of Reston.
The quick version
SB 756 is the bill in play for the 2026 session. It is designed to make Fairfax County eligible for casino gaming, but only after a local process that includes a voter referendum. (No referendum, no casino.)
In committee, the bill moved forward with language that did not mandate Tysons as the only eligible area, which raised alarms countywide. Local reporting highlighted that removal of the “Tysons-only” constraint as a major change.
On the Senate floor, lawmakers debated substitute language again. Reporting from February 12 notes discussion about requiring a large mixed-use development, plus a public clarification that the bill text did not actually include the phrase “convention center,” even though that was referenced in floor comments.
Comstock continues to be a major name tied to this push, including lobbying and political spending reported over the last couple of years.
Reston Station south of the Dulles Toll Road is repeatedly mentioned by locals because it checks several practical boxes that often show up in casino proposals: Metro adjacency, large-scale mixed-use, and redevelopment momentum. To be very clear: that is conjecture, not an official selection.
First, what SB 756 actually does (in plain English)
Casino bills can sound like they’re “approving a casino.” Most of the time, they are actually “approving eligibility” and laying out a process.
SB 756 is part of Virginia’s broader casino framework and focuses on who can host a casino and under what conditions. The bill’s mechanics matter because they define the guardrails.
Here are the practical steps that flow from this type of legislation:
State law must allow a locality to host a casino.
The locality’s governing body (in this case, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors) would have to take steps that trigger a referendum process.
Voters would have to approve casino gaming in Fairfax County in that referendum.
After that, there is still a licensing process and local land-use approvals.
So even in the most “pro-casino” timeline, this is not a quick flip of a switch.
You can read SB 756’s engrossed text via the bill-tracking pages that publish the statutory language, including the February 12 engrossed version of SB 756. One accessible copy is on the LegiScan SB 756 engrossed text page. For Virginia code context, the bill also references Virginia’s casino statutes, including sections in Title 58.1 on the Virginia legislative code site.
What changed in the bill language that people care about
Earlier versions of the Fairfax casino concept often tried to narrow the location to Tysons or to very specific geography tied to the Silver Line and nearby regional assets.
In the engrossed bill text dated February 12, one of the notable edits is that several specific geographic constraints appear struck through, while a large-scale mixed-use requirement remains. In the version published as engrossed, the language keeps the idea that a proposed site would need to be part of a coordinated mixed-use project of at least 1.5 million square feet, while showing other elements (like being within a quarter mile of a Silver Line station, and being within two miles of a large regional mall, and being outside the Beltway) as removed in that marked-up section. You can see that directly in the engrossed text formatting.
That kind of change matters because it shifts the conversation from “it must be in Tysons” to “it must be a certain kind of large redevelopment.” Once you do that, more sites come into play, including places that were previously “not on the list” in the public mind.
What happened this week: the Senate timeline, with dates
Here’s the short, verifiable timeline from recent reporting:
Tuesday, February 10, 2026: SB 756 advanced out of the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee with a change that removed the requirement that a casino be built in Tysons, sending it toward the Senate floor. That was covered by local outlets and Patch.
Thursday, February 12, 2026: On the Senate floor, there was further wrangling over substitute language. Patch reported that a new substitute was approved and the bill was submitted for its third reading. Patch also published a clarification stating that while “convention center” was referenced in floor comments, the bill text did not actually use that phrase.
As of Thursday, February 12, 2026: WUSA9 reported the bill had advanced to its third reading, moving closer to a full Senate vote.
If you’ve been hearing “the Senate passed it,” you’re not crazy. People often use “passed” loosely once a bill clears a major committee hurdle or moves through a key floor step. The precise status language can be wonky, but the practical takeaway for residents is this: it is moving, and the direction of movement has reopened siting questions.
How we got here: the Fairfax casino idea did not appear out of thin air
This is the fourth year in a row that a Fairfax casino concept has surfaced in Richmond in one form or another, and the location story has shifted more than once.
A few key waypoints from prior coverage:
Earlier efforts discussed a casino along the Silver Line corridor outside the Beltway, and later versions narrowed toward Tysons.
In 2024 and 2025, bills moved in fits and starts, with heavy local opposition and the proposal stalling in the House in at least one recent cycle.
Local reporting this week again notes this is a repeated push, not a brand-new idea.
If you want the “why now” in one sentence: supporters argue it is a revenue tool and an economic development play, while opponents argue it is imposed on a locality that did not request it and that it risks traffic, social costs, and local planning priorities.
The Comstock factor: why one company’s name keeps coming up
When locals say “this isn’t random,” they’re usually referring to a combination of (1) who benefits from a specific site and (2) how hard they’re lobbying.
Comstock has been reported as a major backer of the Fairfax casino effort. Patch reported that the Reston-based developer spent millions across lobbying and political contributions tied to this effort, including a detailed breakdown of lobbying disclosures and campaign contributions.
Separately, FFXnow reported that Comstock has proposed building a casino near the Spring Hill Metro station in Tysons as part of a larger “entertainment district” concept.
So even though the “Tysons-only” idea has been debated and amended, the political and development gravitational pull around Metro-accessible, high-density sites remains.
Why Reston keeps getting pulled back into it
Let’s separate two things that get mixed together online and in neighborhood conversations:
What the bill text requires or allows
What sites people think are plausible in the real world
Even if a bill does not name Reston, it can still create conditions that make certain places feel “obvious” to residents.
The Metro reality
Casino proposals tend to lean on transit adjacency because it is one of the few arguments that works across audiences. If you can say “Metro-accessible,” you’re trying to reduce (or at least reframe) the traffic argument.
Reston has two Silver Line stations: Wiehle-Reston East and Reston Town Center. If the conversation focuses on “near Metro” plus “big mixed-use,” Reston will be mentioned.
You can see the station list and context on WMATA’s Silver Line information.
The “large mixed-use” puzzle piece
In the engrossed text, one of the remaining ideas visible in the markup is that the site needs to be part of a coordinated mixed-use development of at least 1.5 million square feet. That kind of threshold narrows the field to major projects, not small parcels.
See that language in the SB 756 engrossed text.
This is where locals start pointing at places that already look like “large coordinated mixed-use,” because those are easier to imagine as candidates than starting from scratch.
Why people point specifically to Reston Station south of the Toll Road
This is the part I want to handle carefully.
There is no official statement that says “a casino will be at Reston Station.” What there is, is a pattern:
When the bill language is written around Metro proximity and large redevelopment, residents look at the map and identify sites that match the physical profile.
Reston Station is one of the region’s most visible mixed-use redevelopment areas near a Silver Line station, with ongoing phases and large-scale entitlements.
Reston Station also sits right on the mental boundary locals use when they talk about “what counts as the Metro corridor area,” especially around the Wiehle-Reston East station. For anyone new to the geography: the Dulles Toll Road splits the area, and “south of the Toll Road” is a common way people describe the part of the district that feels more directly connected to Metro access and walkable development patterns.
If you want to see the project framing, start with the Reston Station project site. Again, that is not proof of anything casino-related. It’s simply a way to understand why locals keep naming it when the policy conversation is about big mixed-use near transit.
Tysons vs Reston: why the siting politics are so messy
Tysons and Reston are both major employment and mixed-use hubs, but the politics and planning DNA are different.
Tysons
Dense, regional draw, lots of office inventory, and a long-running push to evolve into a true urban center
Multiple Silver Line stations and major road infrastructure
Strong stakeholder groups and sharp opposition in recent cycles, especially around traffic and community character
Reston
A master-planned community with a very active civic structure and a long history of land-use engagement
Silver Line access, but with a planning culture that tends to emphasize balanced growth and local compatibility
A “we planned this carefully” mindset that makes surprise proposals land differently
That difference matters because casino proposals do not just change one parcel. They can change traffic patterns, policing and public safety demands, and the retail mix around nearby centers. Whether you are pro-casino or anti-casino, most people agree that the scale is not subtle.
What happens next (and what residents should watch)
If you only follow one thing, follow the process steps that have to happen before anything becomes real.
1) Does the bill clear both chambers?
Senate movement is one thing. A bill still has to get through the House and then go to the governor.
Patch noted the crossover deadline timing dynamics and that bills need approval in both houses.
2) What does the final language say about location and project requirements?
The details matter. If location constraints come out, the siting debate becomes broader. If they go back in, the debate narrows.
If you want to read what the bill says without commentary, use the SB 756 engrossed text and look for the parts describing the “eligible host locality” and site criteria.
3) Would Fairfax County even agree to put a referendum on the ballot?
Local reporting has noted skepticism and opposition among local leaders and community groups.
Even if Richmond authorizes eligibility, there is still local political will, or lack of it.
4) Watch the Silver Line station-area rumor cycle
This is a small, practical point, but it’s real: once Metro-adjacent siting enters the chat, neighborhood Facebook groups light up and half the posts are maps with circles drawn on them.
If you see a claim that a specific site has been “chosen,” look for one of these before believing it:
A formal statement from a bill sponsor
A recorded Fairfax County action (agenda item, staff report, or vote)
A document tied to a licensing process
Absent that, most of what you will see is speculation, sometimes informed, sometimes not.
What this means for Reston real estate (without overhyping it)
People always ask the same question: “Will this change home values?”
Here’s the honest answer. It’s too early for anyone to credibly quantify value impacts because the outcome is not settled, the site is not selected, and the project scope is not defined.
What we can say is more grounded:
Uncertainty affects behavior. When a major policy story is unresolved, some buyers hesitate and some sellers wait.
Micro-location matters. Even if a casino were ever approved, impacts would not be evenly distributed across Reston. Proximity to traffic chokepoints, station-area roads, and pedestrian corridors would matter more than a zip code headline.
Reston’s planning culture is a factor. Reston residents and associations are used to showing up, reading documents, and pushing back (or pushing through) depending on the issue. That tends to shape outcomes.
If you own near a Silver Line station area and you’re trying to make a decision this spring, the most practical move is to treat this as a policy story to monitor, not a conclusion to price in today.
A grounded takeaway
SB 756 is moving in Richmond, and the siting language has shifted enough that Reston is back in the conversation, even if no one has officially put a pin on the map here.
If you want to keep it simple:
This is not a done deal.
The language details matter more than the headlines.
Reston gets mentioned because Metro-adjacent, large mixed-use places are the obvious candidates when a bill is written that way.
I’ll keep tracking the actual votes and the actual text changes, not the rumor version.
Check out this article next
