This development, including the casino is as inevitable as the Gehry/Mirvish project. We can debate until we're blue in the face, but in 10 years time, both will be on our skyline. If I'm wrong, I probably shouldn't be gambling anyway! ;)
 
Last edited:
I don't find Vaughn's argument persuasive at all. It reminds me more of the kind of arguments made my temperance movements campaigning for prohibition, only I think a stronger case could be made for banning alcohol than banning gambling. By the way, sin taxes are not some kind of modern experiment or fringe revenue grab. Taxes on alcohol and lotteries and gambling have always been a staple of government revenue generation in North America that pre-date concepts like income tax.

I think Vaughan is just looking for his "hero" issue, his Spadina expressway moment. Gambling is a normal (all-be-it stupid) human activity. Regulate and tax the hell out of it if you want, say for example limit the maximum size of a gaming site etc if you are worried about traffic congestion. I DON'T support a casino at this site but I am opposed to the notion of running away from the issue with a puritanical ban on gambling venues.

P.S. I find comments that project the notion that the city is too good for "905ers" who want to come here for entertainment as terribly elitist. If there are businesses who recognize that market segment and want to target them I support it, wish them success, and appreciate the business activity they bring to the central city.

P.P.S. scrapergeek, I bet ;), that while development on the Gehry/Mirvish project and this site will occur, what is built will not be anything like the proposals we have seen and will have to wait for the next development cycle in 10 years.
 
The congestion argument seems to favour this location, since even a huge casino would really be a drop in the bucket in such a busy area. If anything, it would balance the area out since the casino would likely have evening and weekend peaks when the office towers are empty. It certainly won't bring more people than the office towers do every morning.

I'm not wild about "Woodbridge basement-dweller" references that obviously single out certain ethnic groups, something that we constantly see in Entertainment District debates. I don't think stereotypes like that would be acceptable in other circumstances.
 
Last edited:
000 said:
If the province are serious about revenue why would they let MGM or Las Vegas Sands operate it? As crappy as the Montreal casino is at least the Quebec gets 100% of the profit and can re-invest it into the local economy.. If all we're going to get is taxes on the profit and taxes on the land, no thank you ma'am.
Click to expand...

There's good reason OLG should never be allowed to operate a casino. An operator whose sole focus is on running casinos as profitably as possible will probably make OLG more money than they could possibly do on their own. And it'd only make sense for OLG to get into the operating business if it took over all the casinos in Ontario to maximize efficiency (ex. centralizing security monitoring), which I don't see happening.

dt_toronto_geek said:
That said, a fund should be established by the OLG to help those who may have, or may develop gambling problems due to casinos located near them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what such a fund would be used for? Surely not cash payments to problem gamblers. OLG does already have a hotline and free counselling is available. camh also has in residential treatment programs. I'm not sure what more you could do.
 
unimaginative:

Plus the site is quite accessible by transit (or even on foot), unlike the other suggested sites within the city (much less in the GTA). If there is a location that can handle crowds well, this is it.

AoD
 
If you want to keep the poor/unemployed locals out they can try to put an entry levy, in Singapore it's ~CA$1600 per year or ~CA$80 per visit
 
Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
There's good reason OLG should never be allowed to operate a casino. An operator whose sole focus is on running casinos as profitably as possible will probably make OLG more money than they could possibly do on their own. .
Click to expand...

I agree, we'll probably see OLG unionize and pay themselves as generously as the LCBO monopoly does. If Toronto rejects the Casino, we should also be denied our share of the programs these (tax) revenues provide...hypocracy.
 
In his argument against a Casino Adam Vaughan claims that MGM is losing money "hand over fist" "right now" in Las Vegas. Facts completely contradict this. Recent financials for MGM Resorts show $3 BILLION in profit on revenue of $7.8 BILLION. In recent years MGM did lose a fortune in Las Vegas on the CityCenter project but that is not a Casino. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Resorts_International

Vaughan tries to make the argument that a Casino at this location will cannibalize everything around it. The fact is the Metro Convention Centre , as it now stands , does not attract that many mega conventions each year. If a spectacular mega resort were to be built over-top of a revamped and expanded convention centre we could attract many more of the mega conventions , i.e. conventions that bring in 20,000 delegates.
 
The strip has been struggling in recent years due to the recession. lets face it, people don't take expensive trips to vegas when they cant afford their mortgage payments.
 
we should let a huge gambling company set up, then funnel millions of dollars from lower class people's pockets directly into their CEO's coffers... anyone with me?
 
People only have so much disposable income, a bad night at the casino could cancel out a year of an average couple's budget for eating out

MGM is way over-leveraged and very sensitive to a downturn in the economy and further shocks in the credit system. They are starving for cash, selling off assets and are just scraping by from a modest recovery on the strip.
 
Last edited:
Since when does society have a right to tell people where they can and can not spend their money?

Do we tell overweight people that they cant eat McDonalds every night because it might cut into their "bad night at the casino" fund?

Not saying we dont care/shouldnt help people with gambling problems, but you dont close McDonalds because people are getting fat
 
000 said:
People only have so much disposable income, a bad night at the casino could cancel out a year of an average couple's budget for eating out
Click to expand...

And who's fault is that? Oh, right... it's the casino's fault because they are forcing people to go and gamble.

I do not gamble, nor would I gamble if there was a casino downtown. I must confess that I have traveled to the Blue Heron for the late-night buffet, but that's it. Infact, I know people that gamble (take trips to Detroit, Niagara, Atlantic City). These people are not dead beats, nor are they bankrupt. They are people that are hard working, have children but go out once and a while to spend some money. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. But they know how much to spend and know when to stop. Those people that lost everything at a casino can only blame themselves.

I personally don't mind a casino downtown. For anyone that has walked by the Metro Convention Centre, it's dreary at best. There is nothing at street level. Casino's bring more than gambling to a city, they bring entertainment, restaurants and so forth. Of course, Adam Vaughn doesn't want a casino because that means fun, which he is against. Fun police Vaughn has already destroyed clubland, and he's not stopping there.
 
000 said:
People only have so much disposable income, a bad night at the casino could cancel out a year of an average couple's budget for eating out

MGM is way over-leveraged and very sensitive to a downturn in the economy and further shocks in the credit system. They are starving for cash, selling off assets and are just scraping by from a modest recovery on the strip.
Click to expand...

So which is it? Stealing from the poor and making money hand-over-fist, or barely being able to scrap by? I'm getting confused.

I don't get why people are focusing on any one casino operator? Haven't even decided whether to allow a casino, let alone who will run it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top