In a pivotal and emotionally charged session last Tuesday night, the Florida Senate Regulated Industries Committee voted 5-2 to advance House Bill 105, a measure that would allow Gulfstream Park to decouple its live racing and casino licenses. The legislation, seen by many as a watershed moment for Florida’s storied Thoroughbred industry, moved forward only after the Senate panel added a crucial amendment mandating that live racing at Gulfstream continue for at least seven more years.
The bill’s advancement has triggered a wave of concern across the Florida Thoroughbred community, with nearly three dozen industry stakeholders—trainers, owners, breeders, veterinarians, and suppliers—testifying against the measure. Their unified message: decoupling would imperil the entire state’s horse racing ecosystem.
Gulfstream Park, located in Hallandale Beach and owned by 1/ST Racing and Gaming, is not just a historic racing venue but also a prime piece of South Florida real estate. 1/ST, headquartered in Aurora, Ontario and led by Belinda Stronach, has signaled interest in potentially selling or redeveloping the site. Under current Florida law, Gulfstream must host at least 40 days of live racing annually to retain its casino license. However, it voluntarily operates around 200 race days per year, bolstered by a longstanding agreement with horsemen that includes approximately $6 million in annual purse subsidies from casino revenue.
Despite its obligations, Gulfstream’s owners have pushed for the ability to decouple the two licenses—effectively freeing the casino operation from the requirement to support live racing. In response, Sen. Danny Burgess, the bill’s sponsor, introduced an amendment before the vote requiring the licenses to remain linked for four more years. After that period, Gulfstream would need to give a three-year notice before halting racing—creating a seven-year timeline that legislators hope will allow time for strategic planning and industry adaptation.
“This is a lengthy runway out the gate so that we can build this out,” Burgess said, acknowledging the opposition and expressing hope that the bill would prompt a collaborative solution for the industry’s future.
The reaction from the Thoroughbred community has been fierce. Vanessa Nye, a lawyer and breeder, summarized the sentiment of many when she said, “You’re doing this on behalf of getting a single sparkling casino in Hallandale that will destroy an entire agricultural ecosystem of small businesses.”
David O’Farrell of Ocala Stud echoed this concern, stating that the bill betrays the intent behind allowing racetrack casinos in 2005: to sustain the horse industry, not dismantle it.
The creation of the Thoroughbred Racing Initiative, a new lobbying effort spearheaded by industry groups, has amplified the opposition. The initiative contends that the bill would remove a critical financial incentive to continue live racing, potentially hollowing out the economic and cultural infrastructure that surrounds it. They also argue that while the legislation passed relatively easily through two House committees earlier this year, support is weaker in the Senate.
Sen. Jason Pizzo, whose district includes Gulfstream Park and who comes from a real estate development background, offered a more critical take on the industry’s trajectory. Pointing to declining foal-crop and mare-breeding numbers, he challenged the narrative that Florida racing is thriving and described the slot machine revenue as a subsidy that few other businesses are required to maintain.
“I’ve told [1/ST], just get rid of the slot machines. Hand them back,” Pizzo said, emphasizing his vision for the property to be used for affordable housing or commercial development. However, he also voiced support for the horsemen’s future—just not under the current structure. “That conversation is now going to be had,” he added. “Everyone up here feels very, very passionately about you and your future.”
At its core, House Bill 105 represents a crossroads. While it does not immediately end racing at Gulfstream Park, it lays the legal groundwork for significant changes. With the required seven-year notice period now enshrined in the bill’s language, 1/ST Racing and Gaming cannot simply walk away from racing overnight. But opponents fear that the moment the window opens, the company will do just that—leaving a gaping hole in the state’s equine economy.
As the bill moves closer to becoming law, attention will likely shift to how 1/ST, lawmakers, and the racing community use the next seven years. Will this be a period of reinvention and compromise—or a slow march toward the sunset of one of America’s premier racetracks?
Only time, and further business maneuvering, will tell.
