Comment 85870

By Le Chiffre (anonymous) | Posted February 05, 2013 at 13:23:46

If I understand this issue correctly, Hamilton council's vote is for a casino or against a casino. If council doesn't want casino downtown, change zoning to reflect that stand. You don't need a referendum, just political will.

Moreover:

"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

Kicking the question to 2014 is a sound enough plan, and the OLG shouldn't complain, since the Slots at racetracks agreements have now expired and SARP municipalities that haven't been renewed have no guarantee of any run-off revenues. This gives the Council a good chance to prime voters for the 2014 municipal election by selling on the merits of a tax increase (offsetting the loss of $4.5 million annually) in the run-up to the referendum vote.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds