USVI Horse Racing Deal Debate: Bryan, Legislature, and the Future of the St Croix Track
M.A. Dworkin
St. Croix - Horse racing in the Virgin Islands has never been just another form of entertainment. On St. Croix, race days have long meant family tents, food, local bragging rights, stable work, small business activity, and a shared sporting culture that stretches across generations. That is why the latest talks between Gov. Albert Bryan Jr. and the 36th Legislature over revised horse racing agreements carry more weight than a standard development deal.
At the center of the debate is the long-stalled effort to rebuild the Randal "Doc" James Racetrack on St. Croix. The Bryan administration wants lawmakers to move a revised agreement forward so the territory can restart racing on St. Croix while supporting continued activity at the Clinton E. Phipps Racetrack on St. Thomas.
The challenge is that senators are not being asked to approve a simple construction plan. They are weighing public assets, private gaming interests, past failures, concerns about Southland Gaming, and the deep frustration of a St. Croix racing community that has waited years for a real reopening path.
The revised agreement is about more than rebuilding a track
The Bryan administration’s push centers on a revised agreement that would help rebuild the Randal "Doc" James Racetrack, the St. Croix venue that has been closed far too long for many horse owners, trainers, jockeys, vendors, and fans.
The argument from the administration is direct. The territory cannot keep talking about restoring horse racing without a workable agreement, a developer or operator with the ability to complete the job, and a structure that gives both districts a fair path forward. For St. Croix, that means turning the Randal "Doc" James facility from a symbol of delay into a race-ready venue.
The St. Croix track matters because it served a different role from a generic sports facility. It was a community gathering place. People planned around race days. Horsemen and horsewomen built routines around the barns. Young people grew up learning the rhythms of the sport from parents, grandparents, trainers, and grooms.
A rebuilt track would need more than a repaired racing surface. It would likely require attention to:
The racing oval and safety rail
Stables, barns, and support areas
Grandstand and spectator spaces
Veterinary and paddock areas
Water, electrical, drainage, and road access
Clear operating rules and racing dates
Coordination with horse owners and racing officials
That last point is easy to overlook. A track can be built and still fail if the operating structure does not support horsemen, racing integrity, maintenance, and a reliable calendar. That is one reason lawmakers are pressing for details before signing off.
The debate over the USVI Horse Racing Deal Debate Bryan, Legislature, and the Future of St Croix Track boils down to trust. Lawmakers want to know whether this revised arrangement fixes the problems that sank earlier promises, or whether it simply repackages them.
St. Thomas support gives the proposal political balance
While much of the emotional force of the debate sits with St. Croix, the Clinton E. Phipps Racetrack on St. Thomas remains a key part of the discussion.
Support for the St. Thomas track gives the administration’s proposal a territory-wide frame. The administration has presented horse racing as a sport that should work in both districts, not as a one-island project. That matters politically because any agreement involving public approvals, gaming rights, or long-term development obligations must answer a basic question: does it treat both districts fairly?
The Clinton E. Phipps Racetrack has stayed more visible in the racing conversation because St. Thomas has had a clearer path toward activity than St. Croix. For lawmakers and racing supporters, that creates both hope and tension.
On one hand, St. Thomas can be seen as proof that horse racing can still draw interest and support in the territory. On the other hand, St. Croix residents often point to the difference in progress as evidence that their track has been left behind.
A strong agreement would need to avoid turning the two tracks into rivals for attention. The better path is a linked racing system where each track strengthens the other. If both venues operate, the territory can support fuller racing calendars, more movement of horses between islands, shared standards, and broader fan interest.
That is the promise. The Legislature is now asking whether the revised proposal can actually deliver it.
Legislators are asking the questions that past deals left unanswered
The 36th Legislature’s reservations are not surprising. Lawmakers are being asked to consider a deal in a sector where old promises have not produced the outcome the public expected.
Their concerns appear to fall into several broad areas.
Accountability
Senators want to know who is responsible if deadlines are missed, construction stalls, or financing falls short. A revised agreement must be clear about performance markers and consequences. Without that, St. Croix could face another round of public announcements followed by little visible progress.
Control of public assets
Racetracks are not just private business sites. They sit at the intersection of public land, government approvals, community heritage, and regulated gaming. Legislators have reason to ask how much control a private operator would have, for how long, and under what conditions.
Gaming revenue and public return
Horse racing agreements in the Virgin Islands have often been tied to gaming economics. That makes lawmakers cautious. If gaming rights help fund racetrack improvements, senators want to know whether the territory and the racing industry get a fair exchange.
Fairness to local horsemen
A rebuilt track is only meaningful if local racing participants can use it. Lawmakers are likely to focus on purse structures, stable access, racing dates, fees, and governance. The people who kept the sport alive through difficult years cannot be treated as an afterthought.
Southland Gaming concerns
Southland Gaming sits at the center of some legislative unease. Lawmakers and community members have raised questions about the company’s role, the reach of its gaming interests, and whether the revised structure gives too much control to a private gaming operator.
Those concerns do not automatically mean the proposal should fail. They do mean the agreement needs daylight. If Southland or any related operator is expected to benefit from gaming activity connected to racing, the public should understand the tradeoff. What moves to the territory? What moves to the track? What moves to the racing community? What protections exist if business priorities change?
The Legislature’s caution reflects a hard lesson: excitement is not a substitute for enforceable terms.
The St. Croix closure still shapes the politics of the deal
The long closure of the Randal "Doc" James Racetrack has roots in more than storm damage or construction delays. Political differences and disputes over control, development terms, and direction helped push the St. Croix track into a long period of uncertainty.
For many in the St. Croix racing community, that history still stings. The closure did not just pause a sport. It disrupted livelihoods and broke routines that had been built over decades. Horses require daily care. Trainers need places to work. Jockeys need races. Vendors need crowds. Fans need a calendar they can believe in.
When political fights stall a racetrack, the damage spreads. A year without racing can turn into several. Owners may sell horses or move them away. Younger participants may choose other work. Facilities decline. Public confidence thins.
That is why the current debate carries a burden from the past. Every new promise is measured against the last one. Every revised agreement faces the same public question: why should this time be different?
The answer cannot be a slogan. It has to be found in the text of the agreement, the financing plan, the construction schedule, and the oversight structure.
The Mapp and VIGL agreement explains why trust is low
To understand the current skepticism, it helps to look back at the agreement reached under former Gov. Kenneth Mapp with VIGL.
That earlier arrangement was intended to revive horse racing in the territory by tying racetrack development to gaming operations. VIGL was expected to play a major role in building or improving racing facilities, including the St. Croix and St. Thomas tracks, while receiving certain business opportunities connected to gaming.
On paper, the concept had a logic. Gaming revenue could help support expensive track improvements, and the territory could restore a sport with deep local roots without relying only on public funds.
In practice, the agreement did not produce the full racetrack revival many expected.
Several forces worked against it:
Hurricanes caused major damage across the territory and changed public priorities.
The cost and complexity of rebuilding grew.
Political support shifted as administrations changed.
Disputes emerged over obligations, timelines, and expectations.
The St. Croix track remained closed, which deepened public frustration.
The failure of the Mapp and VIGL agreement is not just background. It is the reason the Legislature is pressing the Bryan administration now. Senators do not want to approve a second version of a promise that leaves St. Croix waiting again.
A revised agreement has to answer what the prior deal did not. It must show who pays, who builds, who operates, who regulates, and what happens if the promises are not kept.
The future of St. Croix racing depends on more than approval
Legislative approval, if it comes, would not be the finish line. It would be the start of a difficult rebuilding process.
The most visible challenge is construction. A racing facility must be safe for horses, jockeys, and spectators. Drainage matters. Track surface matters. Barn conditions matter. A rushed reopening could create new problems and expose the government and operators to criticism.
The next challenge is money. Racetrack projects are expensive, and costs can rise. If gaming revenue is part of the plan, lawmakers will want clear projections and safeguards. If private investment is promised, the agreement should define how much, by when, and for what specific work.
Then comes governance. Virgin Islands horse racing needs a clear system for rules, race dates, purses, licensing, inspections, and dispute resolution. Reopening a track without strong oversight would invite conflict.
There is also the challenge of rebuilding participation. Some horse owners and trainers may be ready to return quickly. Others may need proof that racing dates will hold and purses will justify the investment. A reopened track must rebuild confidence one race card at a time.
The St. Croix community will also expect inclusion. People who remember the old race days want more than a ribbon-cutting. They want a living venue where local culture has room to breathe. Food vendors, small businesses, families, and longtime racing fans are part of the sport’s ecosystem.
A successful reopening would need to serve all of them.
Horse racing remains part of St. Croix’s identity
The Randal "Doc" James Racetrack carries a name and a history that mean something on St. Croix. The island’s racing culture did not appear overnight. It grew through local stables, family traditions, island rivalries, and generations of people who understood horses not as props, but as athletes requiring skill and care.
That history explains the passion behind the current debate. For some observers, the issue may look like a disagreement over contracts and gaming rights. For many Crucians, it is about restoring a piece of community life that should never have been allowed to fade for this long.
Horse racing has also been one of the places where Virgin Islands culture expresses itself in public. Race days create shared space across age, class, and neighborhood lines. They support informal economies. They give local horsemen and horsewomen a stage. They preserve knowledge that is passed hands-on, in barns and along the rail.
That cultural value does not erase the need for careful lawmaking. It makes careful lawmaking more urgent.
If the Bryan administration wants the Legislature to back the revised agreement, it must show that the deal protects the public interest as well as the sport. If lawmakers want to honor the racing community, they must move beyond suspicion alone and define the terms that would make approval responsible.
The future of the St. Croix track will depend on that balance.
A real reopening plan should be transparent, enforceable, and grounded in the people who made racing matter in the first place. The Virgin Islands has already seen what happens when big promises outrun delivery. This time, if the Randal "Doc" James Racetrack is to return, the agreement must be strong enough to carry the weight of history and practical enough to get horses back on the track.
