OLG Toronto/GTA casino proposal (where to put it?)

[jaycola]

City Of Toronto Casino ReportLinks to the report are located at the bottom.

The attached report was presented to City Council in November. It outlines estimates for economic benefit to the city of both a stand alone casino and integrated resort in a downtown (C1 zone) location and at Woodbine(C2 zone). It is this report which form the backbone for future public consultations.

I have highlighted few points from the report on economic impact, health and social impacts and conclusions.

Economic Impact

C1 Zone

The analysis indicates that an integrated entertainment complex located within the Toronto portion of the C1 Zone would generate between $1.9 billion and $2.4 billion in construction expenditures and 6,800 to 8,500 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) construction related jobs over a three-year period.
Based on an estimate that 36.5 percent of the total gaming and non-gaming revenue generated by this type of development through ongoing operations is net new spending in Toronto, an integrated entertainment complex in the C1 zone would generate net annual GDP of about $640 million and result in between 5,850 and 7,300 net new jobs. Certain elements added to a casino, such as new convention space, could benefit local businesses and the city more broadly. It is within City Council's discretion to specify the amenities or limitations that should be attached to any new casino in Toronto.
A standalone casino within the C1 zone, without significant hotel, retail and entertainment amenities attached would generate between $0.8 and $1.1 billion in construction expenditures, and between 2,900 and 3,800 construction and related jobs over a three-year period.
Ongoing operations at a standalone casino, based on an estimate that 30 percent of total revenue is net new spending in Toronto, would generate net annual GDP of $315 million and between 2,700 and 3,600 net new jobs. Without associated amenities, casino patrons could seek hotels and other services in the surrounding area.

C2 Zone
An integrated entertainment complex in the Toronto portion of the C2 zone would generate between $1 billion and $1.3 billion in construction expenditures and 3,600 to 4,400 FTE construction related jobs over a three-year period.
Ongoing operations at an integrated complex, again based on an estimate that 36.5 percent of total revenue is net new spending in Toronto, would generate net annual GDP of $495 million and between 4,400 and 5,100 net new jobs.
A standalone casino at Woodbine is not expected to require significant additional construction given the existing facility, but would generate net annual GDP of $270 million and between 2,100 and 2,700 net new jobs.

Health and social impacts

Health and Social Impacts

The Medical Officer of Health (MOH) has prepared a technical report on the public health impacts of gambling and of expanded access to gaming venues. The key findings are summarized herein. The MOH's report concludes that increasing access to gambling through any means (including a casino) is associated with an increase in the prevalence of problem gambling which presently affects 0.2% of the population. Consequently, a casino located anywhere in the GTA will likely increase health risks for Toronto residents and nearby communities.

The City must weigh the importance of being in a position to manage the various impacts noted in this report.

If a casino is located in the C1 zone but outside Toronto, as is possible through the OLG process, the City would have less ability to shape the development proposal and would not participate in any revenue sharing. In addition, a casino located outside Toronto (i.e. in Mississauga, Markham or Richmond Hill) would divert $150 million to $224 million of gaming revenue away from Woodbine. This would impact local jobs and reduce revenue to the City. Toronto residents and businesses would however still be subject to broader impacts associated with problem gambling, increased traffic and competition for discretionary entertainment expenditures given that many Toronto residents would travel to a casino in a neighbouring municipality.

Conclusion

Together with the attached Ernst & Young Consultant Report, and the technical report by the Medical Officer of Health that will be considered at the November 19th meeting of the Board of Health, this report provides the basis to engage the public in a discussion about what elements a gaming venue would need to have, or to exclude, to provide an overall gain for the city. Public consultation will be an important part of the decision making process. This report recommends that the Executive Committee authorize the City Manager to conduct public consultation to seek input from Torontonians on the matter of establishing a casino in Toronto.

While some would rather not discuss the economic implications, they are certainly not minor by my measure.
A downtown integrated resort would create an additional 2000-3000 jobs with a total value of $650 Million to the local workforce, an additional billion $ in construction costs, and somewhere between $130-$400 million in hosting fees, Land leases and property taxes.

The Medical Officer of Health estimates that problem gambling affects just 2 out of every thousand local residents. They may suffer some social costs as a result of easy access to the casino but how much less will be the cost if the Casino is built in Vaughan at the end of the Subway extension? Toronto will still have the social costs to deal with without the benefit of the revenues. All the revenues will go to the hosting municipality with zero benefit to Toronto.

When discussions are held and the facts presented without the hysterics, ad-hom attacks and unsupported claims, I think city councilors will be able to make the right decision, which ever way the vote goes.

 

[diminutive]

^

I think this really emphasizes that there are two questions to be addressed here.

First, do the benefits of a casino in the GTA outweigh the socioeconomic costs of problem gambling and such.

Second, if we decide that benefits do outweigh costs, where best to locate the casino?

If we decide to have a casino, I'd rather it be as integrated as possible into other facilities (hotels, convention centers, retail) and the city at large. Sticking a casino out in Markham or the CNE just seems like a terrible idea.

 

[TOperson]

City Of Toronto Casino ReportLinks to the report are located at the bottom.

The attached report was presented to City Council in November. It outlines estimates for economic benefit to the city of both a stand alone casino and integrated resort in a downtown (C1 zone) location and at Woodbine(C2 zone). It is this report which form the backbone for future public consultations.

I have highlighted few points from the report on economic impact, health and social impacts and conclusions.

Economic Impact


Health and social impacts





While some would rather not discuss the economic implications, they are certainly not minor by my measure.
A downtown integrated resort would create an additional 2000-3000 jobs with a total value of $650 Million to the local workforce, an additional billion $ in construction costs, and somewhere between $130-$400 million in hosting fees, Land leases and property taxes.

The Medical Officer of Health estimates that problem gambling affects just 2 out of every thousand local residents. They may suffer some social costs as a result of easy access to the casino but how much less will be the cost if the Casino is built in Vaughan at the end of the Subway extension? Toronto will still have the social costs to deal with without the benefit of the revenues. All the revenues will go to the hosting municipality with zero benefit to Toronto.

When discussions are held and the facts presented without the hysterics, ad-hom attacks and unsupported claims, I think city councilors will be able to make the right decision, which ever way the vote goes.

That excerpt is pretty weak as an economic analysis. Does the report get into the all the opportunity costs, or the myriad other ways jobs could be created? Or that $640M is really not a lot of money in the context of the whole Toronto economy? It's not like a casino is only economic development strategy possible, or even the best (casinos have failed as econ dev strategies in lots of other places). Casino jobs don't really seem that great - mostly low-skill, low-wage, lots of shift work, which have implications for family life and health. And didn't consultants themselves say they were guessing many of their figures due to lack of info?

And you can't seriously quote that $400M hosting fee figure. It was ridiculed when it was released. Let's move on.

 

[jaycola]

That excerpt is pretty weak as an economic analysis. Does the report get into the all the opportunity costs, or the myriad other ways jobs could be created? Or that $640M is really not a lot of money in the context of the whole Toronto economy? It's not like a casino is only economic development strategy possible, or even the best (casinos have failed as econ dev strategies in lots of other places). Casino jobs don't really seem that great - mostly low-skill, low-wage, lots of shift work, which have implications for family life and health. And didn't consultants themselves say they were guessing many of their figures due to lack of info?

And you can't seriously quote that $400M hosting fee figure. It was ridiculed when it was released. Let's move on.

The information provided is according to the report, commissioned by the City of Toronto that is to be the basis for these discussions. If you choose to discount the cities own findings, find some other means to make your point. As yet, you have not so let's "move on".

The $400 million in revenues to the city was the highest and included Land lease/sale of $250 million.
The total annual input (GDP) to the Resort Casino in Toronto is estimated at $1.75 Billion. The $640 million you quoted is just resort/casino net revenues and does not include contract workers, goods and trades. This project cold bring (according to the report that the City of Toronto will be using) 16,000-20,000 full time jobs. I know there are many on this forum that would oppose the deal if it would net the city $500 million annually so in the end lets just say millions in the city coffers and be satisfied it will make money.

The average income quoted in the report for full time staff was in fact $45,000. The average income for individual Toronto residents is $38,000 so I would not consider these low wage opportunities.

While gambling addiction may be a social cost to a small minority of GTA residents (the report quotes the number 2 per 1000), a job is a direct benifit to an individual. Maybe they have to work shift work but it's better than unemployment.The report does not admittedly go into opportunity costs, nor does it deal with spin off opportunities created as a result of this project. Maybe the report you desire should include both of these in the interests of balanced discussion. There aren't a long list of developers lining up right now to build anything else in Toronto at this time. This is the only opportunity of this scale staring us in the face. If there are other options out there (a new planetarium was mentioned I recall) for something of this scale, please put them forward for discussion.

I would like to see some of the opponents to the casino come up with something constructive for a change if this project comes to approval. Let us know
what you would do to make this a positive for the city in attracting new trade and tourism.

As an earlier report I linked to stated, if a Casino is an entertainment offering within a city that has a diverse economy and other entertainment/cultural options, it could be a positive for the community.

 

[TOperson]

The information provided is according to the report, commissioned by the City of Toronto that is to be the basis for these discussions. If you choose to discount the cities own findings, find some other means to make your point. As yet, you have not so let's "move on".

The $400 million in revenues to the city was the highest and included Land lease/sale of $250 million.
The total annual input (GDP) to the Resort Casino in Toronto is estimated at $1.75 Billion. The $640 million you quoted is just resort/casino net revenues and does not include contract workers, goods and trades. This project cold bring (according to the report that the City of Toronto will be using) 16,000-20,000 full time jobs. I know there are many on this forum that would oppose the deal if it would net the city $500 million annually so in the end lets just say millions in the city coffers and be satisfied it will make money.

The average income quoted in the report for full time staff was in fact $45,000. The average income for individual Toronto residents is $38,000 so I would not consider these low wage opportunities.

While gambling addiction may be a social cost to a small minority of GTA residents (the report quotes the number 2 per 1000), a job is a direct benifit to an individual. Maybe they have to work shift work but it's better than unemployment.The report does not admittedly go into opportunity costs, nor does it deal with spin off opportunities created as a result of this project. Maybe the report you desire should include both of these in the interests of balanced discussion. There aren't a long list of developers lining up right now to build anything else in Toronto at this time. This is the only opportunity of this scale staring us in the face. If there are other options out there (a new planetarium was mentioned I recall) for something of this scale, please put them forward for discussion.

I would like to see some of the opponents to the casino come up with something constructive for a change if this project comes to approval. Let us know
what you would do to make this a positive for the city in attracting new trade and tourism.

As an earlier report I linked to stated, if a Casino is an entertainment offering within a city that has a diverse economy and other entertainment/cultural options, it could be a positive for the community.

1) Consultants find what the client wants them to find, if they want to keep getting work. Even with that bias, the E&Y report acknowledges that its findings are largely speculative. So basically the report is full of palatable guesses.

2) $45K isn't much in an expensive city like Toronto. You can't raise a family on it. It's not even really enough for a single person to live a typically "middle-class" lifestyle. So, not much of a justification. Plus there are the shift work aspects. And who says it's ONLY a casino job or no job at all? False choice fallacy.

3) 2 per 1000 gambling addicts is 5000 just in Toronto alone. Since gambling addicts usually have spouses & kids like other people, that's easily 15000 people experiencing serious negative impacts. I'm not sure there is any amount of money going to city coffers that would justify putting 15000 people at risk.

4) Just because some big-time casino operators put forward a proposal doesn't mean another large-scale tourism project must be proposed RIGHT NOW as an alternative. There are all kinds of ways to grow and diversify a city's economy, both large and small. Supposedly our gridlock problem is costing billions in productivity, why not work on that? For just one example.

5) "There aren't a long list of developers lining up right now to build anything else in Toronto at this time." Uh, there are how many cranes up around the city right now?

6) Toronto has gotten this far without a casino, so clearly it isn't necessary, for anything.

 

[RC8]

The MOH's report concludes that increasing access to gambling through any means (including a casino) is associated with an increase in the prevalence of problem gambling which presently affects 0.2% of the population. Consequently, a casino located anywhere in the GTA will likely increase health risks for Toronto residents and nearby communities.

It is estimated that 1.2%1- 3.4%2 of Ontarians are affected by moderate and severe problem gambling.

http://www.problemgambling.ca/EN/Ab...Gambling/Pages/FactsAboutProblemGambling.aspx

The OLG took in about $1.9 billion last year in gambling revenue. Some experts say that about 30 per cent of that revenue was generated by problem gamblers.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/01/05/is_olg_failing_problem_gamblers.html

In other words, less than 4% of Ontarians - problem gamblers - might be contributing up to 30% of casino revenues at the moment. And we want to expand this system?

It's blatantly obvious that the OLG want to hook up the urban demographic with gambling because they presently don't gamble enough. It's also true that they want to attract tourists (and money launderers) and whatnot, but they are not stupid and they know that most of their income will come from troubled locals.

How's this for constructive discourse... if you want to build a casino in condo-land, don't pretend you are not targeting condo-dwellers.

Casino proposers claim they want tourist's money, but when you ask them what they think about putting their casino in Woodbine, literally a FIVE MINUTE DRIVE, as close as you can possibly get, to Toronto's Pearson International Airport, they come up with this:

“Woodbine is just away from everything . . . I don’t think you could do what we’re talking about doing at Woodbine. I don’t think it’s sustainable,” said Alan Feldman, senior vice-president of public affairs at MGM Resorts International, in a Tuesday interview.
“Of the major players that build large-scale resorts, I don’t think you’d find any difference of opinion,” Feldman said.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...no_resort_wont_work_at_woodbine_mgm_says.html

In Las Vegas, where non-locals are the genuine target, casinos fight it out with one another for a spot close to the airport. In theory you could walk across the street from the Luxor and enter airport property. Apparently this is a pretty big consideration when out-of-towners are really your objective.

But don't worry, with the money from the casino we'll keep subsidising all the areas of the GTA that, unlike downtown Toronto, keep leaking jobs due to their inability to keep up with the times.

 

[canmark]

Toronto Star: Windsor’s casino an important job creator as high unemployment persists

By 1999, tourism to the area had increased by 200 per cent, to a record nine million visitors per year. Meanwhile, 80 per cent of casino patrons came from the U.S., according to Gordon Orr, CEO of Tourism Windsor Essex Pelee Island.

But everything that made the casino soar soon pulled it down. The slide began with 9/11, which snarled traffic at the tunnel and bridge, and continued as the dollar gained in value, and the number of manufacturing jobs in the Windsor area declined by 15,000 between 2000 and 2012.

When legislation banned smoking in the casino and passport requirements kicked in, Michigan had the highest proportion of smokers in the U.S. — and the lowest proportion of passport holders.

“It was like, OK, this couldn’t be any worse for us,” Orr said. “Individually, they’re not that big of a hit, but collectively they’re a knockout punch.”

As area tourism sunk to pre-casino levels, the number of visitors to the gleaming white and emerald hotel tower and gaming complex plummeted too, from more than 6.7 million in 2000 to 3.6 million in 2012, according to the OLG.

 

[ducati0000]

Best place is Woodbine...that area is no man land right now and the amount of space they have would be perfect.Downtown would be a disaster with the current road system we have..its no brainer.....

 

[jje1000]

It's blatantly obvious that the OLG want to hook up the urban demographic with gambling because they presently don't gamble enough. It's also true that they want to attract tourists (and money launderers) and whatnot, but they are not stupid and they know that most of their income will come from troubled locals.

How's this for constructive discourse... if you want to build a casino in condo-land, don't pretend you are not targeting condo-dwellers.

Precisely this. Casino owners want new repeat customers- they want the most productive parts of Toronto hooked up and sending their wages to other parts of Ontario and corporate headquarters south of the border. People are falling too easily to slick renders and promises of a 'new tourist attraction'.

And from the Toronto Star link above:

Behind the counter in the surviving convenience store late last month, she said she’s grateful to the casino for creating “all those jobs that never (previously) existed,” because “as long as they have stable jobs … we get business from those people.”

Jerry Ferrari, who owns G & G Jewellery, one of few downtown businesses that have endured the exodus to shopping malls and suburban outlet stores, thought the casino would bring more shoppers.

Instead it siphoned off the money formerly spent by locals on diamonds and gold, he said.

His excitement was also tempered by stories he heard about people becoming addicted to gambling and losing their homes.

“It’s hurt a lot of people,” he said.

Of course, instead of restaurants and jewellery stores surviving, the only things we get are convenience stores and presumably pawnbrokers.

Almost all the action is contained on the sprawling gaming floor, where gamblers — mainly seniors — occupy clusters of blinking and ringing slot machines.

And this returns us to the fact that casinos are inevitably inward looking for the most part.

Rebranded in 2008 as Caesars Windsor, which operates the OLG-owned facility independently, the gambling hall initially capitalized on the weak Canadian dollar (valued at about 70 cents U.S. at the time) and the fact it was the only gambling hall for miles around.

Of course, the casino in Toronto can't capitalize on these features. And why would Americans and the Chinese come to gamble when they have far superior and established casinos in Las Vegas and Macau?

Wages are higher for the 3,000 workers at the casino, of course, but do we really need a casino downtown? The area's been doing fine so far, and a casino really does nothing to add to the area. Why not one at Woodbine, which is surrounded by people clamoring for jobs, and as RC8 has stated, is right beside Pearson?

 

[adma]

Regarding the "urban demographic", it's probably also an "image thing"--that is, the promoters are aware that in our days of OLG Slots all over the Ontario heartland, gambling's increasingly typecast as something for seniors and backwoods Cletuses, however "hip" they try to make the trappings. (Same problem as Fox News, come to think of it.)

 

[TOperson]

Regarding the "urban demographic", it's probably also an "image thing"--that is, the promoters are aware that in our days of OLG Slots all over the Ontario heartland, gambling's increasingly typecast as something for seniors and backwoods Cletuses, however "hip" they try to make the trappings. (Same problem as Fox News, come to think of it.)

This. Also, I'm guessing they want to hook in young people, get them to make it part of their recreation/entertainment habits, and ideally get 40-50 years of repeat business from them. All the casinos' old customers are going to die off. They need fresh meat!

 

[gabe]

Toronto casino debate heats up online as MGM unveils new website.

MGM Toronto http://www.mgmcf.com/

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...ats_up_online_as_mgm_unveils_new_website.html

 

[adma]

This. Also, I'm guessing they want to hook in young people, get them to make it part of their recreation/entertainment habits, and ideally get 40-50 years of repeat business from them. All the casinos' old customers are going to die off. They need fresh meat!

And conversely re a downtown location, I'm supposing they'd be seeking a more, uh, "civilized" class of young people than they'd get from Woodbine and its proximity to whatever suburban ghetto/drug/money-laundering culture...

 

[TOperson]

And conversely re a downtown location, I'm supposing they'd be seeking a more, uh, "civilized" class of young people than they'd get from Woodbine and its proximity to whatever suburban ghetto/drug/money-laundering culture...

Certainly a higher-income group of young people, probably with better income prospects over the long term.

 

[jje1000]

How to Make Gambling Less Addictive
Casinos could take action against problem gambling—but do they have too much to lose?
By David Demchuk • Photos by Andrew Louis


With all the talk of a Toronto casino—whether to have one, where to put it, how much it would cost, how much revenue it would generate, and what its effect on the city would be—Torontoist sat down with Ann, a recovering compulsive gambler. She told us how she went from bingo to Facebook games to slot machines, what pushed her over the edge into full-fledged addiction, and what she had to do to stop. As we found out, Ann’s casino roller coaster ride was brief but devastating, plunging her $40,000 into debt before she finally sought counselling, put herself on the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG)’s self-exclusion list, and joined a problem gamblers’ peer support group.

When we asked her what casinos could do to mitigate problem gambling or help keep addicts from betting beyond their means, she laughed. “Why should they? They’re in the business of making money, not helping people. Do fast food places have dietitians standing at their counters warning you about what’s in your burger?” Despite her skepticism, we talked through a number of possible actions that casinos could take to reduce gambling addiction, including some that have been implemented in other places where problem gambling has become a significant issue. Ann’s view: such measures could probably help, but “I wouldn’t bet on them ever being implemented. And apparently I’ll bet on anything.”

Encourage more social and casual play
Casinos should create smaller lounge-like rooms with more interaction among players to encourage a younger crowd to visit, while disrupting the “zone” that compulsive gamblers try to sustain as part of their addiction. They should eliminate snack and drink service at tables and machines, forcing players to take periodic breaks. And they should institute brief cool-down periods for machines after several hours of continuous play.

Treat big wins differently
Currently, big slot machine winners remain on the floor next to their winning machines, ringing and flashing and wailing, for over an hour while the win is certified. This draws an enormous amount of attention and makes problem gamblers even more hungry to win. Casinos should remove big winners from the floor to a private waiting area and silence their machines promptly; provide mandatory on-site counseling for wins greater than $10,000; pay out large jackpots by cheque instead of cash so that they cannot be immediately spent on the premises; place a $5,000 cap on single-machine wins to lower the enticement for compulsive gamblers; enforce a maximum number of plays per day, or a maximum dollar amount, particularly for any individual playing progressive slots.

Eliminate deceptive practices
As the Gambling Research Lab at the University of Waterloo notes, Ontario approves multiple identical-looking versions of the same game with payback percentages varying from 85 to 98 per cent. Ontario regulations allow manufacturers to create “near misses” such as two jackpot symbols on the payline and another just above the payline. And, on newer touch-screen video slot machines with multiple-line wagers, approximately 60 per cent of the “winning” spins result in “wins” that are less than the initial wager, triggering winning sounds and winning graphics but resulting in a loss for the player. These blatantly unfair tactics have a much greater impact on problem gamblers than on casual gamblers, and should be outlawed.

Ensure frequent players can afford their losses
To guarantee that all gamblers play within their means, set mandatory bank transfer limits for individual player cards. (Norwegian law, for example, limits bank transfers to $70 per day or $385 per month from an individual’s bank account to their gambling card.) Casinos should run credit and financial checks on players eligible for rewards and VIP programs, and disqualify those who cannot realistically afford the playing level they’ve achieved. And OLG should reach out to problem gamblers identified through this process, and refer them to counseling.

Locate casinos away from residential and heavily populated areas
When Ann was first struggling to break free from her gambling addiction, she would often get into her car, drive up her street and turn onto the highway, then spend the next 20 or 30 kilometres arguing with herself before successfully forcing herself to turn around and head back home. “Surfing the urge” is what Ann called it: distracting, delaying, impeding herself when the impulse to gamble overtook her. What would have happened if the casino had been downtown across from her office? “The only way I could get away was to stay away. You can’t do that if it’s across the street. I would have been there all the time. Lunch hours, after work. Before work. Instead of work. I would not have been able to stop myself.”

Increase funding and promotion for addiction and counseling resources
Responsible Gaming Resource Centres are located on-site in casinos across Ontario, and provide players with information on safer gambling practices as well as assistance and local referrals for help with gambling-related problems. However, the assistance they provide is limited, given that their primary role is to connect problem gamblers with local community services. Meanwhile, addiction and counseling agencies throughout the province are struggling with increased client loads and funding challenges. If the Ontario government wants to bolster its budget with revenues from new casino projects, and casinos want to earn their money off the backs of problem gamblers, then they must be willing to pay the price to assist their most vulnerable players.

http://torontoist.com/2013/02/how-to-make-gambling-less-addictive/

Interesting fifth note that applies directly to the Oxford proposal, which I find to be the most damaging location of the three. Again, casino operators are attempting to latch onto the new condo dwellers living downtown and create a new group of gamblers who have easy access 24-7.