Comment 83936

By Dane (registered) | Posted December 14, 2012 at 14:12:18

One thing I keep reminding myself is that this isn't about banning gambling. Saying no to a casino isn't an attempt at prohibition here.

I think others have made the point as well; is this a good plan, does it advance the City? This is a business. Does it improve the City. Economically and socially. Normally, this would be predominately a private enterprise decsion but in this instance it's a public business. So we can have input. Whitehead wants to talk about nimbyism with respect to his wards sacrifice (mental health facility) for the public good being a counter point to a anti-casino agenda but, it just isn't comparable. You can't link social services to government business(casinos) that is just foolish. They don't operate under the same mandate.

I believe Sean is spot on. Concentrate on the money. Where's it coming from, who stands to benefit? And don't just think locally, as much as in pains me to say, Sam at the gaming committee meeting is right this is a province wide push to recoup from a failed cross border initiative.

I have said from the outset, this is lazy city building.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds