Special Report: Casino

Open Letter on Downtown Hamilton Casino

Letter to Councillor Farr from the Beasley Neighbourhood Association, Downtown Hamilton Mosque, The Commons and Living Rock Ministries on the proposed downtown Hamilton casino.

By Michael Borrelli
Published September 19, 2012

This letter was sent to Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr by Michael Borelli and Sylvia Nickerson on behalf of the Beasley Neighbourhood Association, Sayed M. Tora on behalf of the Downtown Hamilton Mosque, Randy Neudorf on behalf of The Commons, and Al Craig on behalf of Living Rock Ministries.

Dear Councillor Farr:

On behalf of the Beasley Neighbourhood Association, the Hamilton Downtown Mosque, The Commons Church Community, and Living Rock Ministries, we the undersigned express to you the Beasley community's strong opposition to any proposals to bring a casino downtown.

Furthermore, an unscientific poll placed on the OurBeasley.com website also indicated that approximately 88 percent of respondents "strongly oppose" a casino in the neighbourhood, with another 3 percent mildly opposed.

Discussions with members at our most recent BNA meeting only confirmed the opinions reflected in the poll, which had 200 responses, so we feel very confident in stating that the community is not supportive of any drive to bring a casino here.

This decision was not an easy one to make. As you know, the BNA prides itself on rejecting knee-jerk NIMBYism and remaining open to all development opportunities in our neighbourhood.

However, the BNA's vision is to "improve the quality of life for people who work, live and play in the Beasley neighbourhood," and after a month of consultations with our neighbours and the community partners who co-signed this letter, we strongly believe that pursuing casino development in or around the neighbourhood will lead to net negative effects on quality of life.

In addition to contradicting our vision for the downtown, a casino in the downtown core is inconsistent with the Downtown Secondary Plan's principle to "Make downtown living attractive" and "recognize the the value of modest improvements and changes," as well as the theme of "creating quality residential neighbourhoods."

We are strongly in favour of the Downtown Secondary Plan, and we think it should be respected and fully implemented, and concomitantly, we believe that a casino in the downtown core will challenge recent efforts to create attractive and quality residential neighborhoods .

Moreover, we think it is important to draw special attention to the principle of "[recognizing] the value of modest improvement and changes." While we appreciate the potentially transformative nature that a casino may have on an area's economic prospects, we do not believe that Ward 2, especially the Beasley Neighbourhood, is ready for such change.

Ours is still a Code Red neighbourhood with many residents struggling against poverty and at higher risk for addictions.

While gambling may be widely viewed as a socially acceptable entertainment activity and revenue generator for governments, its risks do not affect all people equally.

We are specifically concerned that a casino in downtown Hamilton will set back longstanding efforts to get some of our most vulnerable residents back on their feet, and we do not think it is ethical for the City of Hamilton to consider a neighbourhood like ours as a site for a casino, not at least until Beasley has developed the sufficient resilience and strength to resist negative effects such as gambling and substance addiction, crime, and personal bankruptcy, among others.

On the equity of siting a facility downtown, our position is quite stringent: Beasley is not a dumping ground for the negative effects of social experiments like casinos. We do not believe that our neighbourhood, or Ward 2 as a whole, can afford to deal with the potential negative effects of a casino.

Should council decide that the revenue from gambling is irresistible, and that a casino is an acceptable facility within Hamilton, then those councillors in better-off, more resilient parts of the City should volunteer their own Wards for a site.

We hope you will consider our input before the issue comes to Council's General Issues Committee on September 19th.

Sincerely,

Michael Borrelli and Sylvia Nickerson
Co-Presidents of the Beasley Neighbourhood Association

Sayed M. Tora
Imam, Downtown Hamilton Mosque

Randy Neudorf
Community Curator, The Commons

Al Craig
Executive Director, Living Rock Ministries

Michael Borrelli is a social researcher living with his family in Hamilton's North End. He tweets @BaysideBadger.

49 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted September 19, 2012 at 07:44:45

This video titled "If a Casino, where a Casino?" was part of an informative discussion titled "Ontario's Jackpot?" on The Agenda With Steve Paikin which aired on TV Ontario on March 21, 2012 about the prospects of a casino in the GTA. The same type of discussion needs to happen on the issue of a potential downtown Hamilton casino. http://ww3.tvo.org/video/181882/if-casin...

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2012-09-19 07:50:20

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted September 19, 2012 at 08:50:13

One of the most intriguing aspects of this whole thing to me is the call for a referendum. Forget for a minute whether one supports a casino or not. Are we opening a can of worms by demanding a referendum to decide whether a private enterprise (Mercanti's) can proceed with development?

What about the next 'This Ain't Hollywood'? Or the next bunch of sprawl townhomes? LRT? Bike lanes? What if people started using this is an example to call for a referendum on anything they feel is anti-social or controversial??

Don't we elect council to make decisions? Easy ones and tough ones? No offence to the general public, but they aren't qualified to make long-term planning decisions are they??

Comment edited by jason on 2012-09-19 08:54:33

Permalink | Context

By ThisIsOurHamilton (registered) - website | Posted September 19, 2012 at 09:11:21 in reply to Comment 81001

Don't we elect council to make decisions?

Yes, we do.

Are you happy (in general) with how Council's decisions might or might not be reflecting their constituents' desires?

Or that there's a basic level of engagement to provide this? (Councillors are not, as far as I know, clairvoyant.)

This, from a notable civic observer:

If you vote for a candidate once every four years but don't get involved in the meantime, it doesn't really matter much who you vote for. Once politicians get inside the Bubble, it's impossible to keep any kind of perspective without ongoing, substantive interaction with 'regular voters' for grounding.

As for what makes a good politician, I think it comes down more to temperament and broad intellectual framework than to a specific set of political beliefs.

A smart, patient, well-educated, open-minded, intellectually humble councillor will generally follow a sensible process of getting informed and land on a sensible policy that does a good job of leveraging the facts of an issue and bridging the hopes, fears and contradictions of the electorate and the various interest parties.

Here are some of the pitfalls that render councillors incompetent:

  • Ambition - voting to maximize upward political mobility
  • Megalomania - refusing to listen to others
  • Anger - voting to punish enemies
  • Fear - voting to avoid risks
  • Partisanship - voting along party lines
  • Dogmatism - voting along ideological lines
  • Laziness - phoning in votes instead of engaging the issues
  • Stubbornness - refusing to cooperate with others or compromise

Left isolated from the outside world, just about anyone will fall prey to one or more of these pitfalls, which is why it's so important for citizens to: a) elect councillors who will allow themselves to be engaged, and b) keep up their end of that engagement between elections.

As FDR famously said to Saul Alinsky: "Okay, you've convinced me. Now go out and put pressure on me!"

Permalink | Context

By Prop 8 Here We Come (anonymous) | Posted September 19, 2012 at 09:31:44 in reply to Comment 81003

Yay! Instead of special interests gaming elections we get to enjoy special interests gaming referendums, America style.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted September 19, 2012 at 09:16:22 in reply to Comment 81003

I understand all that. But getting involved between elections doesn't mean referendums does it?? I have zero desire to start having referendums for every big idea that comes along. The result of that will be Hamilton acting as a one-way freeway museum for the rest of eternity with vast majority of money spent on social issues and potholes.

Permalink | Context

By Borrelli (registered) | Posted September 19, 2012 at 10:35:11 in reply to Comment 81004

I'm quite nervous at the thought of a referendum on this topic, actually. There really is a perception inside of the downtown core that we are the dumping ground, and the council decision on the one-way implementation last week just cemented that. A referendum is yet another way for the suburbs to gang up on the core.

If a casino is going to come to Hamilton, its location should reflect the existing vision for the city as reflected in our vision and planning documents, not shoe-horning it into a downtown where you want to encourage people to live.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Conrad66 (registered) | Posted September 19, 2012 at 09:27:50

We should have a one of thoses referendums for the one way to tow ways and see what the LOWER CITY WHANT IN ward 1,2,and 3

Permalink | Context

By Conrad66 (registered) | Posted September 19, 2012 at 10:03:32 in reply to Comment 81008

Oh and one more thing M Merellie on the spec ... is Niagara Falls hurting the the Code Red i assumerd everry city has one .. Not only Hamilton has one lets stop living and a bubble

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Le Chiffre (anonymous) | Posted September 19, 2012 at 09:32:34

"Referendums were an extension for large populations of the practice of direct democracy in the Swiss canton meeting or the New England town meeting of voters, where legislation is still passed, and taxes are levied, directly by the voters. This type of referendum is direct democracy in the sense that the voters are actually passing legislation if they approve the proposition presented to them.

The other meaning of the word, and the one now meant in Canada, is the reference of a question to a popular vote, which is not binding on the government or legislature that referred it. A government or legislature may ignore the result and they have often done so. Thus the non-binding referendum is merely a kind of expensive public opinion poll."

http://www.revparl.ca/21/3/21n3_98e_Rowat.pdf

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Le Chiffre (anonymous) | Posted September 20, 2012 at 07:05:39

From [URL=http://goo.gl/jtFU8]Steven Malanga[/URL]:

“Over the long term, g@mbling revenue has failed to hold down taxes, despite supporters’ predictions. New Jersey was the first state to legalize both c@sinos and the l•ttery. When its first c@sino opened in 1978, the state was the fifth most heavily taxed in America, according to the Tax Foundation. Now, despite garnering more revenue from g@mbling than all but four states, its tax burden is the nation’s second heaviest. New York, which brings in the most money from g@mbling, is also the nation’s most heavily taxed state. Louisiana’s state l•ttery started in 1991, followed in 1993 by privately owned video poker and c@sinos. Since 1994, the state’s average per-capita tax burden has increased from $2,080 (in today’s dollars) to more than $3,000. “Initially, when g@mbling came in, it was highly misrepresented at the time as an answer to all our fiscal problems. History has simply proven that not to be true,” Louisiana state senator A. G. Crowe told the press in 2008….

G@mbling’s record as an economic-development tool is no better. Supporters often point to the number of people that local c@sinos or betting parlors employ. But they don’t take into account the employment lost in other industries because of the introduction of g@mbling. The National G@mbling Impact Study Commission, created by Congress, noted in a 1999 report that hundreds of restaurants and bars closed in the greater Atlantic City area after c@sinos began opening, offsetting some of the employment gains. The commission added that when it visited the city in 1998, it found unemployment substantially above the average for the nation and for much of New Jersey.

That situation hasn’t greatly improved with time. A special commission created by Governor Chris Christie noted in a 2010 report that, after nearly 35 years of legal g*mbling, Atlantic City suffered from the public perception that it was “unclean and unsafe” and had never been able to give rise to a meetings-and-conventions business. C*sinos, the report noted, had failed to spawn “non-g*ming amenities” that might attract visitors interested in anything other than g*mbling. The numbers underscore the lack of progress. Median family income in Atlantic City in 1980, according to the census, was $34,800 in 2010 dollars. In 2010, it was $35,500.”

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted September 21, 2012 at 08:19:23

Here is a link to an opinion piece by the Spectator editorial board today titled "If no casino referendum, consultation is crucial" http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/a...

There is also a commentary by Andrew Dreschel titled "Bratina pushes for casino conditions" in the Spectator print edition today but an online link does not seem to be up yet. He states that Mayor Bratina is bringing a motion at next week's council meeting to set up "...a subcommittee to determine what conditions council should impose on OLG's upcoming shout-out for casino proposals."

Dreschel adds: "Councillors solidly backed the idea, with the sole exception of Brian McHattie.

McHattie is concerned the group signals a weakness of council's support for Flamboro Downs and the struggling horse racing industry.

He also argues a casino is such a big issue, all councillors should be involved, not just a subcommittee.

In response, Bratina noted the group would make no final decisions but report to the general issues committee."

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2012-09-21 08:21:11

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted September 21, 2012 at 09:57:38

With casinos already in Niagara Falls and Toronto planning to open one as well just down the highway, who do we anticipate to draw to this downtown Hamilton casino?

Are we really this clueless about our reputation to think when presented with the above three options of cities with a casino all within about an hour and a half of one another tourists are going to pick the one in downtown Hamilton?

This casino will just suck money out of local residents and further tax our already overtaxed social services and that is about it.

If this city decides to build a casino the first thing I'll be doing is calling a realtor.

Permalink | Context

By Conrad66 (registered) | Posted September 26, 2012 at 12:37:23 in reply to Comment 81129

c_sino in both ways about 1 hour apt .. lol have you ever been in Vegas ... there is c_sinos all over and there not complaning .. lol

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted September 21, 2012 at 10:42:54 in reply to Comment 81129

Yup. Look at Brantford - has the casino there had any positive impact on their downtown? No. Brantford's downtown has been deader than Hamilton's for a long time, and the only thing that's really helped it was a satellite college campus.

Does anybody here go to the Brantford casino? Of course not. It's a vampire for sucking away Brantfordite money, just like the Hamilton casino will be an economic vampire sucking away downtown Hamiltonian cash... after all, our local problems with drugs and prostitution aren't bad enough, we need another addiction downtown.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted September 21, 2012 at 13:17:34 in reply to Comment 81131

the 'only' thing it helped was a college campus??

Again, folks who oppose a casino aren't putting forth the best arguments to build your case (see my previous comment below). Many people in Hamilton would kill to have Laurier build a multi-building campus in downtown Hamilton.

Comment edited by jason on 2012-09-21 13:17:50

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted September 21, 2012 at 13:55:37 in reply to Comment 81135

The City coffers already get annual revenue from the Flamborough Downs casino. (For that matter, Hamilton already has a university presence downtown, albeit a modest one - and I'd love to see a full downtown campus of another school that wanted to expand.)

A new casino in downtown Hamilton would do nothing to help the downtown economy and would probably produce a small net reduction in money spent at other entertainment destinations downtown. Based on data from other cities, people who come into Hamilton to go to the casino will spend their money and then leave. Meanwhile, people already in Hamilton would divert some of their entertainment money to the casino from other amenities they're currently spending it on, resulting in a net loss to the rest of the economy.

Permalink | Context

By Money Money (anonymous) | Posted September 21, 2012 at 16:39:53 in reply to Comment 81137

Ryan,
"Based on data from other cities" That's just too general for me, sorry. Could you provide this actual 'data' for us to see for ourselves. And when you say data, I hope you mean just that and not some opinion polls taken from other cities. If anyone thinks the Gov't is going to keep Flamboro open under any circumstances you're dreaming in technicolour. It's gone with or without us taking it downtown.

Permalink | Context

By BeulahAve (registered) | Posted September 21, 2012 at 20:32:55 in reply to Comment 81141

Working on a very fact-based piece now on this topic, will be published next week most likely

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted September 21, 2012 at 12:34:52 in reply to Comment 81131

I oppose a downtown casino, but this commentary from the Mayor of Brantford on the effects of the casino there, paints a very different picture.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted September 21, 2012 at 12:45:14 in reply to Comment 81133

He's saying that the casino itself doesn't do much either way, but the revenue sharing allowed the city to attract a Laurier campus, which has been a net win for downtown Brantford.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted September 21, 2012 at 14:11:35 in reply to Comment 81134

But also the worst fears about social repercussions didn't materialize - so, economic upside with little downside.

I think location is the key here. Brantford's casino is on the edge of its downtown, which is one of the reasons its effect is neutral. I don't have a problem with casinos in and of themselves - I hope it stays in Flamboro - but it would be a symbolic blow to our aspirations as a city if it were made a centrepiece of our downtown.

Also, I'm curious as to why a driveway to driveway experience was deemed critical to the business case for the ticat stadium, yet not a peep about the driving convenience of all the well-heeled out-of-towners who will supposedly flock to the casino, has been uttered by downtown casino proponents. Funny that.

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted September 26, 2012 at 11:15:31 in reply to Comment 81138

Exactly. PJ should put his casino on the East Mountain.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted September 21, 2012 at 10:26:34 in reply to Comment 81129

I'm not a casino fan. Have never stepped into one, but your comments here actually seem to sell the merits of one.

'Our reputation stinks compared to a city that already has a casino, and another that wants one. So, let's not build one here and ensure that Hamilton area folks keep spending their money in those two cities instead of ours...futher perpetuating our reputation and lack of tourism options.'

Permalink | Context

By Rimshot (anonymous) | Posted September 21, 2012 at 18:03:50 in reply to Comment 81130

"The City Of Penny Slots and Waterfalls"

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Le Chiffre (anonymous) | Posted September 21, 2012 at 17:53:37

Not that I would expect the CBC to treat a Ministry of Finance venture as a business story, but I wonder about Hizonner's motivation for naysaying a Hamilton c@sino.

What's the next closest c@sino to Brantford at the moment? How many kilometers away would it be from Brantford? And when that distance collapses in the wake of the gamification of Southern Ontario, are not the handsome profits from an isolated venture liable to collapse as well?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Le Chiffre (anonymous) | Posted September 22, 2012 at 06:51:08

Indiana legalized g_mbling in 1993, and several years later, c_sinos opened in the impoverished city of Gary. The city’s mayor testified before members of the National G_mbling Impact Study Commission that revenues from g_mbling were helping revive the city. Over the long term, though, c_sinos brought no appreciable benefit to Gary’s economy. In 1990, the census shows, family income in Gary was $38,158 in today’s dollars; it now averages $33,158—about 13 percent lower than before the c_sinos arrived. The city’s poverty rate remains unchanged. Atlantic City and Gary don’t seem unusual in this respect. As part of the congressional commission’s 1999 study, the National Opinion Research Center surveyed communities with legal g_mbling. It concluded that g_mbling produced no boost “in overall per capita income,” as increases in certain industries were offset by declines in others....

Another social cost is crime, which appears to rise after c_sinos open. The most comprehensive study of crime and legal g_mbling, conducted by economists Earl Grinols and David Mustard and published in The Review of Economic Statistics in 2006, examined 167 counties where c_sinos had opened over the 20-year period ending in 1996. In those counties, the authors estimated, 5.5 percent to 30 percent of serious crimes in six categories were attributable to g_mbling. The c_sino counties suffered 157 more aggravated assaults per 100,000 residents than non-c_sino counties did, for example. Of the seven kinds of crime studied, only one, murder, didn’t spike....

Perhaps the most unsettling statistic associated with legal g_mbling—obscured by media clichés about how “nearly everyone” g_mbles occasionally in America—is the inordinately large share of g_mbling revenue that comes from problem g_mblers. A 1998 study commissioned by Montana’s state g_mbling commission estimated that problem g_mblers accounted for 36 percent of revenue from electronic g_mbling devices and 18 percent of l_ttery scratch-ticket sales. A 1999 study by the Louisiana G_ming Control Board determined that problem g_mblers accounted for 30 percent of spending on riverboat c_sinos, 42 percent of spending at Indian c_sinos, and 27 percent of betting on video l_ttery terminals and other electronic games. A 2004 report in Ontario, Canada, found that problem g_mblers, though constituting about 4.8 percent of the province’s population, produced 35 percent of its g_mbling revenue from l_tteries, sports bettng, bingo, g_mbling machines, and c_sinos. The report’s authors pointed out that their findings contributed to “converging lines of evidence indicating that a substantial portion of g_ming revenue derives from people who are negatively impacted by their involvement in this activity.”

These troubled people can devastate their lives and those of their families through the intensity of their g_mbling. A National Opinion Research Center survey noted that nearly 20 percent of self-reported pathological g_mblers and 11 percent of problem g_mblers had filed for bankruptcy at some point in their lives, compared with less than 5 percent of non-g_mblers. Pathological g_mblers were also three times more likely than non-g_mblers to have collected unemployment compensation during the previous year. Some 21 percent of pathological g_mblers and 10 percent of problem g_mblers had been behind bars, the study found, compared with less than one-half of 1 percent of non-g_mblers. Divorce and homelessness rates were also far higher for g_mblers.

Despite such evidence, politicians desperate for revenue and l_ttery officials under pressure to deliver it have promoted new games that increase addiction levels. As participation in the traditional weekly drawing has declined, many state l_tteries have added “instant” games in which players discover immediately whether they have won or lost. G_mbling-addiction circles call these games “gateway dr_gs” because they’re often the first exposure to g_mbling for young people, who play them disproportionately. A National Opinion Research Center study reported that 75 percent of adolescents who g_mbled favored instant games. In Texas—where one state senator, Eliot Shapleigh, calls them the “cr_ck coca_ne” of l_tteries—an alarming 75 cents of every dollar spent on the l_ttery goes to instant g_mes. Including Texas, 42 states now offer them.

Even instant g_mes aren’t as addictive as the favorite g_mbling instruments of legal-bett_ng proponents: video sl_t and pok_r machines. Around the country, states have introduced these devices at “sl_t-only” or “convenience” c_sinos, sometimes at failing racetr_cks. The machines’ sophisticated technology makes losing feel like winning by feeding players near-winning combinations. This triggers the release of dopamine, the body’s feel-good chemical, in the players’ brains, encouraging them to keep playing—and losing. So addictive are these machines, according to Kevin Horrigan, a video-game designer and computer-science expert at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, that two-thirds of those seeking help for g_mbling addictions in the province report that their principal g_mbling activity is using video sl_ts.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted September 22, 2012 at 08:42:56 in reply to Comment 81150

Thanks for sharing this. Quick note: if you register an RTH user account, your comments will no longer have to pass through an anonymous spam filter and you won't have to spell "casino" as "c_sino".

Permalink | Context

By Le Chiffre (anonymous) | Posted September 22, 2012 at 06:53:12 in reply to Comment 81150

(Another grab from the Malanga essay.)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted September 22, 2012 at 18:20:54

Casinos indicate that a city or area has given up, & thrown in the towel.
Why does Hamilton want even more social ills & the problems that Always come along with casinos?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By John Neary (registered) | Posted September 22, 2012 at 19:22:47

It's nice to see that Living Rock signed on to this letter. Political activism from social services agencies in Beasley is long, long overdue. (Hey, Wesley Urban Ministries ... do you have a position on building a casino in Beasley?)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted September 24, 2012 at 08:07:40

In today's Hamilton Spectator:

An article by Molly Hayes titled "Council not ready to drop casino talk": http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

And a letter from Dermot P. Nolan titled "A casino would be a cancer in the core": http://www.thespec.com/opinion/letters/a...

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2012-09-24 08:08:51

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted September 24, 2012 at 08:57:15 in reply to Comment 81191

...and a poll.

Comment edited by highwater on 2012-09-24 08:57:34

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted September 25, 2012 at 10:57:46

I say build it. This city blows every possible opportunity thrown it's way so I can foresee no casino, no LRT, no positive development on the Rheem site, etc. Sorry, just ranting and fed up.

Comment edited by Woody10 on 2012-09-25 11:03:33

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted September 25, 2012 at 13:34:58 in reply to Comment 81231

Am I the only one who notices the number of pro-casino voices that couch it in "downtown sucks anyways"?

Permalink | Context

By Borrelli (registered) | Posted September 25, 2012 at 14:18:14 in reply to Comment 81234

Yeah, like the winner in the Spec today says we'll be a HillBilly town without a casino. These ignoramuses demonstrate exactly why downtown residents are afraid of this casino proposal: proponents are blinded by cash. They don't see the social costs, and never will since they'll bolt back to the 'burbs after they've had their T-bones and blackjack.

Seriously, casino supporters in the 'burbs, grow a pair and call your councillor and say you want a casino for Ancaster, or Stoney Creek or Dundas. See what your neighbours say then.

Comment edited by Borrelli on 2012-09-25 14:18:37

Permalink | Context

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted September 25, 2012 at 14:52:26 in reply to Comment 81236

I was speaking generally on all big projects. Yes, I'm pro casino, pro RedHill, pro waterfront stadium, pro LRT and, pro Hamilton. AND, I love downtown and what it offers so don't group everyone together like you think you know all the answers and everyones opinion. Take it at face value, I'm informed about the city and realize it's potential. Shutting down proposals just because YOU don't like it isn't very democratic is it? And the social costs are already astronomic in this city and we're probably better set up than most communities to deal with any fallout there might be. Remember, 10% of the proposed casino project is for gambling, the rest is restaurants, hotel etc. But I guess more surface parking is prefered by those who don't want it.

Oh, and in case you didn't know, the casino has been in the "burbs" of Flamborough for years, with shuttle buses running through Dundas and Ancaster on a regular basis.

Comment edited by Woody10 on 2012-09-25 14:57:52

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted September 26, 2012 at 11:33:56 in reply to Comment 81237

Wait a minute - your argument is that we already have lots of social services here so we might as well create more problems since we are pretty good at dealing with them? Amazing.

Permalink | Context

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted October 02, 2012 at 01:47:28 in reply to Comment 81266

Think deeper my friend, if it were to go to Burlington or Milton or another local town, their fallout would end up in our lap anyway just like the dozens of halfway houses full of other towns people. Why not at least benefit from the casino in our town to help our economy. Oh, and not an argument, just an opinion. I don't argue with people who have already made up their mind, just try to make them think (just a little).

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted September 26, 2012 at 11:32:26 in reply to Comment 81237

Flamboro downs is barely in the burbs. How many people live within a half km radius of the track? Flamboro Downs

Compared to how many people will actually have to LIVE in the vacinity of a downtown casino. Casino Downtown?

How about we put it in Ancaster? A casino in Ancaster

Permalink | Context

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted October 02, 2012 at 01:40:46 in reply to Comment 81265

So your argument is, "anywhere but my neighbourhood" hmmm, I get it now. Put it where YOU think more affluent people won't want it just to make a point, don't look at the economics, available brownspace, transportation, adjacent amenities etc. Funny if it wasn't so sad.

Comment edited by Woody10 on 2012-10-02 01:56:15

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 08, 2012 at 22:21:44 in reply to Comment 81357

My photos were simply a commentary on you calling flamboro downs "the burbs".

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted September 26, 2012 at 07:57:43

In today's Hamilton Spectator:

An article titled "The Gambling Question: Pros and Cons" by Joan Walters: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

An opinion piece titled "Council left spinning its own wheels on casino question" by Andrew Dreschel: http://www.thespec.com/opinion/article/8...

An opinion piece titled "Why on earth would Hamilton NOT want a casino downtown?" by Larry DiIanni: http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/a...

A letter titled "Casinos are only good for casinos" by Debra Hughes: http://www.thespec.com/opinion/letters/a...

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2012-09-26 07:58:41

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted September 26, 2012 at 11:48:03 in reply to Comment 81252

Perhaps Larry's downtown casino could have a shuttle hovercraft from Toronto?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Conrad66 (registered) | Posted September 26, 2012 at 08:47:18

Im all in with you Woody !!!! and i am all pro of everrything you mention .. SOME pls in this city has no idea what this will cost us as in TAX payers in this city if we loose the C_sino and JOBS in downtown restaurants Hotels entaintment it all comes down to making lots of money that the core havent seen in a while on a regular base .. Ohh and get some faces in Canada NOT the states ... get some facs near home Niagara Windsor Calgary Montreal

Permalink | Context

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted October 02, 2012 at 01:58:44 in reply to Comment 81257

4 million in lost income plus I think it would bring in a lot more if it was a more urban location.

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 08, 2012 at 22:19:43 in reply to Comment 81359

Where is this 4 million coming from?

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 09, 2012 at 08:24:20 in reply to Comment 81472

The 4 million in revenue that Flamborough currently brings in. Not sure how this would be 'lost' if the casino doesn't go downtown.

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 09, 2012 at 10:00:11 in reply to Comment 81482

What I mean is - what is the source of this 4 million dollars? Where is it coming from now? WHo is spending that. And where do they make that money? And where will it go if we don't get a casino here? Gaming is not a revenue generator. It just moves money around. It does not produce ANYTHING of value.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Conrad66 (registered) | Posted September 27, 2012 at 09:16:21

Oh and ONE more thing .. about this code red thing in ward 2 and 3 ? it was there when they built Copps and Jackson Squars and still will be there if they get the C_sino

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds