[Ice_Burn]

People on both sides need to stop using the argument that it'll cause or promote addiction. The real question is how this site is going to deal with the tremendous pressure of increased traffic to the area, because anyone who thinks people are going to take public transit to this casino is straight-up high.

Imagine this place on the same night that there's a Jay game at the Rogers Centre, and a concert at the ACC. All those tour buses and other cars would make the whole area surrounding the casino completely rammed with traffic, and I have yet to see anything to suggest a solution to alleviate this.

The reason why people are suggesting the suburbs, especially Woodbine, is because those areas can support that increased traffic and have loads of space in which to provide parking. Not because of some absurd notion of downtown NIMBY's wanting to turn suburbanites into gambling addicts or some such nonsense.

 

[TOperson]

People on both sides need to stop using the argument that it'll cause or promote addiction.

Why? With the long history of casinos doing exactly that, why should this discussion be off-limits?

 

[balenciaga]

Why? With the long history of casinos doing exactly that, why should this discussion be off-limits?

yet why don't we ban the consumption of alcohol? or lottery? There are addiction problem too.

 

[balenciaga]

People on both sides need to stop using the argument that it'll cause or promote addiction. The real question is how this site is going to deal with the tremendous pressure of increased traffic to the area, because anyone who thinks people are going to take public transit to this casino is straight-up high.

Maybe by providng no parking, or extremely expensive parking ($10 an hour, $40 overnight for example). If they are willing to pay this much, great, revenue for the city.
Or for those who can't afford it, arrange Casino buses that run every hour/half an hour from a few major centers. They pay a usage fee of $3 or something. Toronto seniors do this to get to Niagara Falls for years.
There is no way the city can encourage gamblers to come by driving directly to Front/John, unless they pay a hefty parking fee.

 

[TOareaFan]

Maybe by providng no parking, or extremely expensive parking ($10 an hour, $40 overnight for example). If they are willing to pay this much, great, revenue for the city.
Or for those who can't afford it, arrange Casino buses that run every hour/half an hour from a few major centers. They pay a usage fee of $3 or something. Toronto seniors do this to get to Niagara Falls for years.
There is no way the city can encourage gamblers to come by driving directly to Front/John, unless they pay a hefty parking fee.

I am a casino agnostic (stole that term...I like it) but the juxtaposition of the bolded terms probably explains why some people can't let go of their ant-casino stances.

 

[TOperson]

yet why don't we ban the consumption of alcohol? or lottery? There are addiction problem too.

I covered this upthread. Yes, our society has permitted other addictive things, but that is not a justification for permitting another. We allow certain pollutants into our environment too, but we don't use that as a rationale for allowing more. Remember how gasoline used to have lead?

 

[TOareaFan]

I covered this upthread. Yes, our society has permitted other addictive things, but that is not a justification for permitting another. We allow certain pollutants into our environment too, but we don't use that as a rationale for allowing more. Remember how gasoline used to have lead?

Until we get all polutants out of the air...I reserve my constitutional right to insulate my home with Asbestos! (I hear it is cheap these days)

Couldn't resist!

That said, there is a difference between that attitude (which I mock) and what the province is doing in Ontario. The greatest gambling addict in Ontario is the Provincial Treasury.

I (and I would guess a few other posters here) can remember where there was virtually no (legal) gambling in this province. If you wanted to wager, you went to one of the few horse tracks, watched the ponies live and wagered.

Then came the 1976 Olympics......and a big lottery (national) to help pay for it...."that was fun".....could we use that to fix some hockey rink roofs?.....bamb...Wintario....then lotteries grew (and the Province's dependance did too)...soon Wintario was not just hockey rinks and baseball diamonds, we were using some of those funds for hospitals and other good stuff..........and it grew...and we introuduced new games/lotteries....and it grew...and then we grew some off track betting in bars....and it grew....and then we needed something to bring the punters back to the track...so we put some slots in there...and it grew and it was fun so why not some casinos...we will have everything that vegas has (but no dice games...the criminal code does not allow that...and we certainly won't allow direct betting on an individual sporting event) and that was fun....and it grew...and now....well we know where we are now...we have a Province so much in need of cash and so hooked on gambling revenue that we are revamping the entire gaming industry in the province...not for social or fun reasons....but to maximize the cashflow to the provincial coffers.

So while we first built casinos in Rama and Windsor and NF because those were areas of economic need.....now we can generate more cash and give the province a bigger fix if we can just put one in Toronto (yes they said "GTA" but they meant Toronto)....those areas of economic need are just going to have to suffer the consequneces of losing business from the GTA because the province needs cash and they think they can get it better this way.

The point is that feeding the provincial addiction is far more important than any societal issues or personal addictions...so anyone opposed to this for those reasons....is just gonna have to learn to live with it.

 

[TOperson]

Until we get all polutants out of the air...I reserve my constitutional right to insulate my home with Asbestos! (I hear it is cheap these days)

That said, there is a difference between that attitude (which I mock) and what the province is doing in Ontario. The greatest gambling addict in Ontario is the Provincial Treasury.
...
The point is that feeding the provincial addiction is far more important than any societal issues or personal addictions...so anyone opposed to this for those reasons....is just gonna have to learn to live with it.

In my first quote on this thread, I said:

"because governments are addicted to gambling too"

But I don't see why we have to live with it. It's our government, our community, our money. Or is this no longer a democracy?

 

[TOareaFan]

In my first quote on this thread, I said:

"because governments are addicted to gambling too"

But I don't see why we have to live with it. It's our government, our community, our money. Or is this no longer a democracy?

No...of course we don't. But the "sin" income that the provincial treasury relies so heavily on (LCBO, OLG, tobacco taxes) contribute so much to our provincial finances that eliminating them would result in (either/both/combination) a significant increase in taxation or a significant decrease in service levels.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/777541/olg-delivers-2-billion-to-the-province

http://www.lcbo.com/aboutlcbo/media_centre/faq.shtml
("Sales in 2011-12 were $4.7 billion and the LCBO delivered a $1.63 billion dividend to the Ontario government. This did not include $415 million in HST* and $352 million in excise taxes and import duties. (When payments to municipalities were included, the total was $2.4 billion. (As of June 2012, these figures were unaudited.")

So the LCBO and the OLG combined contributed over $4B (and in the case of OLG that is planned to grow) in revenue to the province......that is about 4% of the revenue in the province in a budget that is already about $15B in deficit.

 

[Ice_Burn]

Why? With the long history of casinos doing exactly that, why should this discussion be off-limits?

Mostly because it's an easy thing to poke holes in and opens the door for strawman city. If you're really against the casino's downtown location as I am, there's about 100 other reasons why it's inappropriate for the area above and beyond addiction.

 

[TOperson]

Mostly because it's an easy thing to poke holes in and opens the door for strawman city. If you're really against the casino's downtown location as I am, there's about 100 other reasons why it's inappropriate for the area above and beyond addiction.

I don't think you know what "strawman" means. Hint: Strawman arguments DON'T have heaps of real-life examples to back them up.

And if you allow for 100 reasons against the casino, I don't see why addiction shouldn't be one of them. It's certainly a bigger deal than parking inconveniences.

 

[Hanlansboy]

People on both sides need to stop using the argument that it'll cause or promote addiction. The real question is how this site is going to deal with the tremendous pressure of increased traffic to the area, because anyone who thinks people are going to take public transit to this casino is straight-up high.

Imagine this place on the same night that there's a Jay game at the Rogers Centre, and a concert at the ACC. All those tour buses and other cars would make the whole area surrounding the casino completely rammed with traffic, and I have yet to see anything to suggest a solution to alleviate this.

Agreed, addiction, as I've said before, is not the responsibility of the state, nor should it be. But as for pedestrian chaos, I agree. There's just so many large venues in just a few blocks. If the TTC gets the relief extension subway line, it would help, but if not, how are people going to get there? Parking? Good luck! Subways, crammed packed, leaves on foot or helicopte, take your pick (imagine having your own personal helicopter?) no matter who the builder, if a casino is approved for downtown, it should be with a proviso that the developer also pay to improve public access aka transit improvement and increased public parking. I know there's not much chance of either happening, but if you're going to build it, would it be nice if they had a way to come?

 

[Electrify]

Something to keep in mind is that between the 60s and 80s, most major league stadiums were constructed in the suburbs with lots of parking and ample freeway access. In the mid 1980s, this began to change towards building stadiums in city centres with ample transit access. The Skydome was one of the first in this new wave.

Point is that just because casinos tended to be built in suburban locations to meet the needs of the car before does not mean it has to continue.

 

[nfitz]

People on both sides need to stop using the argument that it'll cause or promote addiction.

And yet we know that the Casino issue in Toronto has increased the amount of drunk driving.

Something to keep in mind is that between the 60s and 80s, most major league stadiums were constructed in the suburbs with lots of parking and ample freeway access.

Most? I'm thinking about stadiums/arenas built across the nation during this period, and offhand, I can't think of many built in the suburbs. I'm sure I've forgotten some. Olympic Stadium might be a bit out of downtown, but it's not the suburbs, and it's on a subway line. Rogers Centre is downtown. BC Place is downtown. ACC is downtown. The new Forum in Montreal is downtown. GM Place is downtown. The only thing that jumps to mind as being in suburbia is the Corel Centre in Ottawa - though that is outside the 60s to 80s (as is most of the ice rinks).

 

[TOareaFan]

And yet we know that the Casino issue in Toronto has increased the amount of drunk driving.

Most? I'm thinking about stadiums/arenas built across the nation during this period, and offhand, I can't think of many built in the suburbs. I'm sure I've forgotten some. Olympic Stadium might be a bit out of downtown, but it's not the suburbs, and it's on a subway line. Rogers Centre is downtown. BC Place is downtown. ACC is downtown. The new Forum in Montreal is downtown. GM Place is downtown. The only thing that jumps to mind as being in suburbia is the Corel Centre in Ottawa - though that is outside the 60s to 80s (as is most of the ice rinks).

I think, for the most part, the suburbian stadium phenom was an American thing. I also think it sorta followed American life as people were moving out of city cores into suburban 'hoods during that era. In fact, you could argue that the "resurgant arena/stadium downtown" theme was seen as a way to revive those downtown cores. Cleveland is a good example....the old Cleveland Arena was downtown and built in 1937........it was replaced in 1974 by the Richfield Colliseum which was surrounded by farms......which in turn was replaced by the Gund (now Quicken Loans) Arena in downtown Cleveland in 1994.....the site of the former Colliseum has been returned to nature.

Struggle as I might, I can't think of a similar Canadian story....Ottawa, yes, is not downtown but that seems to be the exception that proves the rule.

In America they also have the fairly unique thing called the NFL.....an 8 times a year event spectacle that can survive out of cores 'cause people seem more than willing to crawl on broken glass (or drive to a huge parking lot to get drunk then drive home again) to attend. Most sports that have more games and are less popular seem to need to be closer to their regions' centres to survive/thrive.