No no, let's go through every sentence (ok, every paragraph):
If you build a property worth a billion dollars the municipality will get about 3.3% of the value in annual property taxes. It's a hotel they are building. On top of that I'm sure there are additional municipal levies and fees. It's difficult to imagine that something on a grand scale wouldn't cost a billion or more so there you go.
No one is going to spend a billion dollars here. Not even close. They want to make money fast. I'm thinking a fancy Hilton Garden Inn and convert the Cinesphere into a Sportsbook. Note that they supposedly spent a billion dollars on Fallsview, but despite having comparable commercial property tax rates in NF they somehow only pay $7.4 million in tax there. The property will not be assessed at its construction cost.
I do not know what municipal levies and fees you are talking about.
But hey, I'm sure $33 million mean nothing to you right? How the hell is $33 million 'a wash'? Do you think it costs the city $33 million per year EXTRA in FIRE/POLICE/911/Snow Removal? I would guess it costs <$10m.
These numbers are arbitrary. It will not be assessed at a billion dollars.
You are so fixated on your bias against gambling that you completely ignore the fiscal benefits, the entire point of this debate. Not a drop in the bucket huh? Take that socialist attitude to every revenue generating idea proposed and guess what you are left with? A massive budget deficit.
I think the point of this particular debate was on what a good location would be. spider has insisted the discussion should not be about whether the casino is a good idea, but people keep going off topic on him. However, if the entire point of the debate is whether a casino provides fiscal benefits, and we should not discuss whether it is good social policy, then that really predetermines the result of the debate. It will be a boring debate. But what I find most intriguing about this paragraph is the idea that it is somehow socialist of Mr. freshcutgrass to oppose "revenue generating ideas" from the provincial government. My understanding of traditional conservative ideology is that the government should not be involved in such revenue generating ideas. Why is the provincial government competing against private enterprise in casinos/hotels/entertainment? The whole thing is a distinctly socialist endeavour, albeit a bad one.
For the record, I also think the City should be allowing more billboards around town. They generate huge revenues in fees and taxes and are completely benign. I bet the City is leaving tens of millions in taxes on the table there as well. But hey, just another drop in the bucket right pal?
An interesting digression. You sound like the sort of individual who reads dystopian sci fi and thinks it sounds like a nice place to vacation. Is there some push by the billboard companies for more billboards, but the City keeps turning them down? How many more billboards would have to go up for the City to make an additional "tens of millions" in taxes? Would I be wrong in guessing "tens of thousands?" When the billboard tax (which, I note, Rob Ford opposed) was passed in 2009 it was to generate $10.4 million. So just for ten million (not tens) the City would have to encourage private billboard companies to double the number of billboards in the City. Which presumably they won't do, because (1) they're fighting the City over the tax and (2) they don't have anywhere close to enough advertisers to double the number of billboards in the city.
Also, a general point, Toronto doesn't have a budget deficit, the province does, which is why the province wants to build the casino.
