CasiYES Tops CasiNO

“I think this is a slam dunk,” says John Wright, senior vice president of Ipsos Reid in a National Post article yesterday.

This?

A casino in Toronto.

“Unless something incredible happens,” Mr. Wright continues, “the debate for the most part is over.”

In other words, according to the Ipsos Reid poll, for 906 people (presumably residents of Toronto) this has happened:

A Toronto casino will create jobs. How many? Thousands and thousands. Maybe even 10,000. Maybe. What kind of jobs? Full and part time. Maybe even union jobs. How much money in revenue will Toronto get for hosting a casino? Millions and millions. Maybe even $400 million a year according to no robust examination whatsoever. Why not $500 million if we simply float a boat in the lake, claims one pro-casino councillor who shall remain nameless although who else could it be? Where will this casino be? Ummm… What’s your answer first? We got preferences but let’s not decide on such an important factor until we know if a casinos coming or not.

I know this is going to come across as just another anti-casino screed. Truth be told, I am neither here nor there on the concept of casinos. They rarely serve as a destination of choice for me. gamblingThat doesn’t mean I don’t think others should have the opportunity to do so if they wish.

The deleterious effects of gambling as a reason for not building a casino in town leaves me equally cold. It is moralistic in tone and opens up the argument that the government should not be in the business of or profit from any activity that is harmful to a segment of society. Prohibition anyone? How’s that war of drugs been working out for us?

As our friend over on Twitter, @lifeonqueen, said, “…it symbolizes the immorality of using casinos as a tax substitute.” Now we’re getting to the meat of the argument. Governments preying on our more self-indulgent (and worse) natures instead of engaging fully with us about the necessity of proper taxation. Delivering the appearance of getting something for nothing.

And, according to the results of this online poll, a solid majority have bought into it.gambling1

From what I can tell, the city is being pressured into a yes-or-not vote with the details to be worked out later. We all know the devil is in the details, yet we’re essentially willing to sign off on a blank document. Who does that except for the extremely desperate? Why are we so desperate?

My two biggest concerns about this situation are money and location.

How much money, directly and indirectly, will end up in the city’s coffers when this is said and done? So far, the numbers have been vague. Vague, vague, vague. At this point, we’re can’t even be sure if it’ll end up costing the city more to have a casino than what we take in. gambling2That’s, what would you call it? A gamble.

Location is almost as important in this equation. To not have the ultimate say in where a casino would be is really not being an equal partner in the decision. Putting an inward looking edifice which a casino is along the waterfront, bringing cars downtown to fill its 10,000 parking spaces is an absolute deal breaker for me. I can’t see where’d there be any amount of money offered up in return for that.

Now, I would seriously consider a casino up at Woodbine. Remember Woodbine Live? Proof during the 2010 mayoral campaign that Rob Ford knew how to work with the private sector. It was supposed to look like this. In fact, it looks like this.

It’s a prime placement for some serious economic development especially for an automobile-oriented enterprise like this casino’s supposed to be. The decision seems a no-brainer to me if we’re going the casino route, if, when all the facts and figures are in, it makes fiscal sense for the city.gambling3

But we’re so far away from that kind of detailed discussion right now. Yes or No should be just a starting point with more than a few opt out escape hatches built in. No, but… Yes, if… That’s the level of discussion we need to have before getting down to the nitty gritty.

Right now, we’re just being asked to cross our fingers and trust a group of people who in no way has earned that trust that everything’s going to work out just fine for everyone concerned. Win-win-win.

You wouldn’t buy a water heater for you house under those stipulations. Why on earth would we consent to building a casino that way?

odds on-ly submitted by Cityslikr

A Bad Deal With Fake Numbers And Pretty Pictures*

Look. Personally, I’ve got nothing against casinos. I am not a betting man because, among other reasons, there are more interesting vices to feed. Casinos can be fun to visit from time to time especially if there’s an opportunity to see exotic animals maul their handlers. Hey. If you could guarantee me that I just might see a white tiger take hold of Celine Dion by the head, I’d become a regular patron.

Besides, the genie’s out of the bottle. Whatever you might think of governments living off the avails of gambling, we’re all in, dependant on the revenue it generates. Like we are with alcohol and tobacco products. And like those, there’s going to be negative social fallout but the upsides are too tempting to resist.

New casinos are coming. The provincial government and Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation have told us so. It’s just a question of where.

So let’s have a robust debate about the pros and cons of building a casino (or two) in Toronto.

That would mean dealing with actual numbers, estimates and information.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be happening as we begin the consultation process.

The city’s casino staff report is rife with best case scenario formulations, based on hypothetical deals the city would swing with the province and OLG for heightened cuts of percentages and hosting fees. The bottom line — how much money would the city of Toronto receive hosting a casino — is awfully muddy. $168 million? $18 million? It depends. (See Hamutal Dotan’s The Great Casino Myth yesterday at Torontoist).

Depends. Depends. Depends.

On the type of casino that is built. Stand alone or a resort like complex. Where the casino is built. Etobicoke. Exhibition Place. The Port Lands.

Depends. Depends. Depends.

What the proposed consultation process seems to be is, here’s some possible numbers based on some possible locations and designs, give us a yes or no answer now. If you don’t agree to play along with us, there are 36 other municipalities waiting in the wings to pounce on this once in a lifetime opportunity. That’s hardly a robust debate. It’s deal making with a gun to your head. Why would we play along with that?

As a number of deputants pointed out yesterday at the Executive Committee meeting, this casino push is a scramble by Queen’s Park to contend with their deficit and debt. A downtown Toronto casino makes a whole lot of sense to them. There’s gold in that thar waterfront. For the province.

But for Toronto?

Depends. Depends. Depends.

On a whole lot of factors that will not be decided upon before the residents of Toronto are asked to form and make a decision. There’s no development plan to look at. No economic impact study. Right now, just numbers Ernst and Young accumulated from the OLG, developers and casino operators. None of whom should considered objective sources on this debate.

If we’re going to get a casino, fine. But on this city’s terms. Despite the mayor and his supporters’ claims that Toronto is in desperate financial straits (and thereby weakening our bargaining position), the one thing we should know for certain is that, as it stands now, pro-casino proponents need us more than we need them.

* lifted directly from Councillor Adam Vaughan’s press scrum

unhoodwinkedly submitted by Cityslikr