Tewder said:
I'm merely pointing out the inherent mixed nature of downtown, that a casino development would not destabilize this type of area in the way that it would a more traditional neighbourhood. In fact, people choose to live downtown because it is a mixed area, a financial area, an entertainment area and a tourist zone, all in one.
Click to expand...

This is such twisted suburban thinking.

How would the casino negatively impact the established neighbourhoods around Woodbine? How would the casino negatively impact the neighbourhood around Downtown Markham and Mississauga City Centre?

Clearly the negative effects of putting this casino across the street from residences and homes downtown is huge. If you'd walked around Cityplace today you would have seen hundreds of kids, young couples, old couples, all enjoying the good weather sitting by the park, riding their bikes, or walking their dogs. Making the area in and around the casino more dangerous and increasing the number of problem gamblers in the community without any means of controlling the casino would affect these families and people much more than it would affect some car-centric suburb. There's a reason why residents overwhelmingly oppose this casino, but not a shopping centre in the area, and not the supertalls attached to the project. People here aren't even opposed to gambling, they are just educated enough to realise that the benefits of a casino would go elsewhere, and the negative impacts stay right here.

People don't move downtown to be in mixed use entertainment districts. Most of the people in these buildings moved downtown because they don't want to go through the absolutely stupid ritual of driving for hours to get to work and of having to drive long distances to everywhere else too. The vast majority of residents in these buildings have the same aspirations as any other person in any other neighbourhood except they tend to enjoy a higher quality of life due to the closeness of the amenities that everyone else has to travel long distances for.

Increased crime was never part of the deal, this area is incredibly safe. To tell these people that because they chose to live in an environmentally friendly, healthy, convenient, and fiscally responsible way in the city they must put up with higher crime rates as a result of a casino whose earnings will subsidise our unproductive suburbs and bring zero benefits to Cityplace/surrounding residents, you can't blame them/us for thinking that proposition is beyond offensive.
 
I don't understand the absurdity of telling a downtown neighbourhood of residence, that they are not a neighbourhood and even if they are, they have no right to oppose or object to something they don't want in their neighbourhood. And the use of the word "Nimby" as always a bad thing, is probably all the proof one needs to demonstrate that whoever is using the word, has no idea what makes a city great and livable for its residents. Jane Jacobs would be spinning in her grave if read some of these posts (and I think we all could guess her views of the idea that a mega-casino is wise city building, let alone good or even neutral for a neighbourhood).
 
RC8 said:
.

Increased crime was never part of the deal, this area is incredibly safe. To tell these people that because they chose to live in an environmentally friendly, healthy, convenient, and fiscally responsible way in the city they must put up with higher crime rates as a result of a casino whose earnings will subsidise our unproductive suburbs and bring zero benefits to Cityplace/surrounding residents, you can't blame them/us for thinking that proposition is beyond offensive.
Click to expand...

... so let me get this straight, a casino on Front Street would contribute to global warming, encourage suburban sprawl and bring about an onslaught of crime that would make City Place look like the killing fields? Riiiiiiiiight. Anybody else hear a cuckoo clock?


alklay said:
I don't understand the absurdity of telling a downtown neighbourhood of residence, that they are not a neighbourhood and even if they are, they have no right to oppose or object to something they don't want in their neighbourhood. And the use of the word "Nimby" as always a bad thing, is probably all the proof one needs to demonstrate that whoever is using the word, has no idea what makes a city great and livable for its residents. Jane Jacobs would be spinning in her grave if read some of these posts (and I think we all could guess her views of the idea that a mega-casino is wise city building, let alone good or even neutral for a neighbourhood).
Click to expand...

She'd probably not like the proposal altogether, casino or no, so your point's sort of irrelevant.... and yes, 'nimbyism' by definition is bad. The reality is nobody - and I mean nobody - actually wants to live near a casino but one is on its way and the Front Street site, objectively, makes the most sense... as has already been explained here ad nauseum.
 
Hipster Duck said:
What's the difference? People are going in there to gamble, aren't they? Supposedly, the same criminal elements will proliferate because the same activities (ie. gambling) take place inside. Wasn't that the reason why people here are opposing it?

Maybe it's the scale. But the London one looks pretty big to me.
Click to expand...

The difference is in the way they're marketed, and the impact they'll have on the surroundings. A 200-room urbanly-scaled hotel and casino surely must have the same impact as a 2000-room casino resort, right?
 
RC8 said:
Increased crime was never part of the deal, this area is incredibly safe. To tell these people that because they chose to live in an environmentally friendly, healthy, convenient, and fiscally responsible way in the city they must put up with higher crime rates as a result of a casino whose earnings will subsidise our unproductive suburbs and bring zero benefits to Cityplace/surrounding residents, you can't blame them/us for thinking that proposition is beyond offensive.
Click to expand...

So I've read the literature about how casino's drive up crime rates. And almost all the literature shows that it amplifies crime against tourists -- like pick-pocketing, scams, etc. It actually has minimal impact on the resident population in terms of victimization.

That said, does Toronto even have a problem with tourists being targeted by criminals? Does a pick-pocketing culture even exist in Toronto?

In the cities in Europe that these studies looked at, tourists had already been traditionally targeted by pick-pockets. So the casino mainly provided a focal point for criminals looking to target tourists.

Something tells me that Toronto is somewhat more immune to this problem in the sense we're not like Europe: we don't have a well-ingrained criminal culture that's grown up around targeting tourists.

And even if it did, the studies show that immediate residents are only marginally affected.

Also, the spike in crimes against tourists is most pronounced immediately after the opening of the casino and recedes as time goes on. Obviously because casino security and police react and focus their attention on the problem.

Then again, I haven't seen anyone's crocodile tears for the potential tourist victimization in this thread or others. It's all been about how local residents are going to have to endure a more dangerous environment due to increased crime. The evidence that this actually happens to immediate residents in the area of a casino is slim to none, as almost *all* the crime the stats associate with casinos is tourist-related.
 
Last edited:
jje1000 said:
The difference is in the way they're marketed, and the impact they'll have on the surroundings. A 200-room urbanly-scaled hotel and casino surely must have the same impact as a 2000-room casino resort, right?
Click to expand...

Mind you, there is a 1500 room hotel just down the road, and the impact on its' surroundings is relatively minimal. It's the Royal York.

AoD
 
Come on, no one is suggesting that the hotel itself will have a negative impact of any sort. Surely you realise that.

Brockm,

In Melbourne there's been kidnappings, car-jackings, abductions, hundreds of assaults, sexual assaults, etc. Not to mention the increased presence of organised crime. Same in Vancouver.

You propose the people of this neighbourhood put up with an unwanted casino and associated crime in exchange of what, exactly? People in this part of downtown already disproportionately subsidise the rest of the city by paying higher property taxes and relying on less infrastructure than virtually any other Torontonian (40% of people walk or bike to work, 30% take non-subsidised transit).
 
Last edited:
RC8 said:
In Melbourne there's been kidnappings, car-jackings, abductions, hundreds of assaults, sexual assaults, etc. Not to mention the increased presence of organised crime. Same in Vancouver.
Click to expand...

I dont know whats worst:eek:..Meanwhine the LCBO just keeps on opening more and more stores:confused:
• Approximately 1,200 deaths are attributable to alcohol use each year in the Toronto

• Alcohol use is the third leading lifestyle-related cause of death in Toronto.

• More than 20.000 hospitalizations and more than 60,000 emergency room visits due to alcohol use occur every year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In reference to a liquor license application at City Place I will cite Ramako in the Parade thread:


Ramako said:
"As this establishment is to be located in the base of a residential condominium building, there is some concern that it may cause noise and other disturbance to residents in the area and the condominium in which it is located. This application for a liquor licence is not in the public interest unless certain conditions, addressing the concerns of the community, are attached to the licence."

CityPlace seems to have more in common with the suburbs than the downtown.
Click to expand...


So apparently area residents want to banish liquor too. My word, what a delicate and vulnerable bunch they are here... and what an odd choice to make for such a curmudgeonly group to move downtown yet want to live so isolated in their glass towers. No group of nimbys they, indeed!
 
brockm said:
That said, does Toronto even have a problem with tourists being targeted by criminals? Does a pick-pocketing culture even exist in Toronto?

In the cities in Europe that these studies looked at, tourists had already been traditionally targeted by pick-pockets. So the casino mainly provided a focal point for criminals looking to target tourists.

Something tells me that Toronto is somewhat more immune to this problem in the sense we're not like Europe: we don't have a well-ingrained criminal culture that's grown up around targeting tourists.
Click to expand...

We don't have a pick-pocket culture *yet* but I can see that changing and it will have nothing to do with construction of a casino.

In the last few years we have seen a certain group of nomadic people arriving in Canada in record numbers as refugee claimants (the claims are usually rejected but that just forces them underground). These nomads are infamous in Europe for their pick-pocket proclivities. I find it ironic that the Councillors that are claiming that a casino will cause an increase in crime are the very same Councillors who voted to make Toronto a "sanctuary city", i.e. to make Toronto a haven for many people who have a propensity to commit crimes.
 
Last edited:
Automation Gallery said:
I dont know whats worst:eek:..Meanwhine the LCBO just keeps on opening more and more stores:confused:

• Approximately 1,200 deaths are attributable to alcohol use each year in the Toronto

• Alcohol use is the third leading lifestyle-related cause of death in Toronto.

• More than 20.000 hospitalizations and more than 60,000 emergency room visits due to alcohol use occur every year.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing that we should massively promote alcohol consumption in order to fund public transit. As usual your point is incoherent.

I drink regularly and gamble occasionally, and I would never be so irresponsible as to suggest we should push it onto the unwilling in any way.

No one is opposing gambling per se here, but rather gambling in the current configuration. If you wanted to build the largest night-club in the world with the cheapest booze in Ontario and with an eye on maximising profits, the outroar would be equivalent to what we've got right now and rightly so.

Tewder,

Your comments are ironic and more typical of a suburbanite than almost anyone else's in this thread.
 
I think his point is there is considerable social disruption created by alcohol yet with all the Licquor stores we have - and more to come - society hasn't fallen into utter disarray - nor has there been any calls for a reduction in the number of liquor stores or stopping their expansion. Based on his numbers, can a casino be much worse? Or as bad?

It's a valid point. Society tends to approve of what it wants more so than what it needs.

Simply because we can put a casino downtown doesn't mean we necessarily should.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top