News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.2K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 873     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.7K     0 

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

Mammo's back, offering a novel reason for a Toronto casino--to keep our gambling addicts closer to home.

True to form however, Mammoliti, who is notorious for making unorthodox policy proposals, couldn’t avoid making remarks that are guaranteed to raise eyebrows. He claimed that a downtown casino could help the city fight gambling addictions by bringing the afflicted “closer to us.”

“I say this to you, that those addicts that are out there… are further away from us now because we don’t know who they are,” he said. “They’re gambling in Niagara, they’re gambling in Barrie, and they’re away from the city of Toronto. I think that with the right approach, we can bring those addicts closer to us and find a mechanism to help them sooner than later.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think that statement (however lame as an argument for a casino) is probably the most logical point Mammoliti has ever made. If you truly wanted to combat gambling addiction monitoring local use of a gaming facility would be one of the best ways. Accept a) no one is going to do that and b) privacy and other such legislation would never allow that kind of information and monitoring to occur.
 
LOL:D...Funny cause these are the same councillors that are going to fight the Billy Bishop airport runway expansion

Left's anti-casino stance all about snobbery

They were at executive committee Monday whispering amongst themselves, jumping up and down, sending tweets, making rude comments, and laughing uproariously at those who want to invest in Toronto with a casino.

A tag team of Leftist Snobs/Arrogant Know-it-Alls/Obstructionists/Kindegarten Kiddies on council -- Adam Vaughan, Gord Perks, Joe Mihevc, Janet Davis, Shelley Carroll, Mike Layton and Sarah Doucette -- couldn't wait to land into anyone who dared support a casino resort development for the investment dollars it will bring into the city.

Vaughan, clutching sweatily to reports he's used to make outrageous allegations about MGM's ties to the mob, questioned the three gentlemen from MGM and Cadillac Fairview -- who've proposed a casino resort development at Exhibition Place -- as if they were hostile witnesses.

Their answers, as reasonable as they were, didn't matter, mind you.

It was all about the show and spreading the myths for the Tag Team, who were too busy looking at their smartphones, smirking at the presenters, talking to like-minded leftist bureaucrats and walking disruptively back and forth.

Carroll made herself busy, in between loudly declaring what she thought of some of the answers that didn't suit her, passing around cookies.

When they finished their delicious game of beating up on the casino investors and supporters, the Tag Team (except for Sister Doucette) disappeared from the room.

It was really quite remarkable, actually, considering the Tag Team are supposed to be good friends of the union brothers and sisters -- and John Mandarino, representing the Labourers International Union of North America, was up to speak.

But throughout his three-minute talk about how a casino resort development in Toronto would bring all kinds of construction and hospitality jobs and spin-off work on roads and transit systems to the city, Vaughan, Perks, Carroll, Layton and Mihevc were AWOL.
More......http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/15/lefts-anti-casino-stance-all-about-snobbery
 
Automation Gallery said:
LOL:D...Funny cause these are the same councillors that are going to fight the Billy Bishop airport runway expansion
Click to expand...

Wow, SAL is a crappy writer! But, beyond that, what're you trying to get at, AG? Being anti-casino and anti-airport expansion would be... consistent, no? Are you trying to intimate something else?
 
Perhaps SAL just haven't talked to the right type of "the right" - the God-fearing, morality police loving ones. Got to love how
this has been painted as a "left-right" issue. I am really quite curious how many of those who are pro would stay in that stance if the facility is relocated to their ward.

AoD
 
Automation Gallery said:
LOL:D...Funny cause these are the same councillors that are going to fight the Billy Bishop airport runway expansion

Left's anti-casino stance all about snobbery

They were at executive committee Monday whispering amongst themselves, jumping up and down, sending tweets, making rude comments, and laughing uproariously at those who want to invest in Toronto with a casino.

A tag team of Leftist Snobs/Arrogant Know-it-Alls/Obstructionists/Kindegarten Kiddies on council -- Adam Vaughan, Gord Perks, Joe Mihevc, Janet Davis, Shelley Carroll, Mike Layton and Sarah Doucette -- couldn't wait to land into anyone who dared support a casino resort development for the investment dollars it will bring into the city.

Vaughan, clutching sweatily to reports he's used to make outrageous allegations about MGM's ties to the mob, questioned the three gentlemen from MGM and Cadillac Fairview -- who've proposed a casino resort development at Exhibition Place -- as if they were hostile witnesses.

Their answers, as reasonable as they were, didn't matter, mind you.

It was all about the show and spreading the myths for the Tag Team, who were too busy looking at their smartphones, smirking at the presenters, talking to like-minded leftist bureaucrats and walking disruptively back and forth.

Carroll made herself busy, in between loudly declaring what she thought of some of the answers that didn't suit her, passing around cookies.

When they finished their delicious game of beating up on the casino investors and supporters, the Tag Team (except for Sister Doucette) disappeared from the room.

It was really quite remarkable, actually, considering the Tag Team are supposed to be good friends of the union brothers and sisters -- and John Mandarino, representing the Labourers International Union of North America, was up to speak.

But throughout his three-minute talk about how a casino resort development in Toronto would bring all kinds of construction and hospitality jobs and spin-off work on roads and transit systems to the city, Vaughan, Perks, Carroll, Layton and Mihevc were AWOL.
More......http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/15/lefts-anti-casino-stance-all-about-snobbery
Click to expand...

What a useless, badly written article. What is the point of it? That some council members have values that that go beyond money? Is that a bad thing or is money the only thing that matters in this city? Not everybody can be bought out by a few bucks.
 
What I wonder about is if city council rejects a Casino for downtown - as now appears likely - what is stopping the province from building a Casino at Ontario Place? This is Provincial land and as far as I am aware the Province does not need approval from the city to build on its own land ( I could be wrong).

Of course Queen's Park would have liked to have agreement from the city but they couldn't have counted on so many idiot Councillors voting against it. I think public sentiment is in favor of a Casino so there were be no political downside for the province going against the city.
 
I don't think public sentiment is in favour -- the results of the city-commissioned survey showed that.
 
Peepers said:
What I wonder about is if city council rejects a Casino for downtown - as now appears likely - what is stopping the province from building a Casino at Ontario Place? This is Provincial land and as far as I am aware the Province does not need approval from the city to build on its own land ( I could be wrong).

Of course Queen's Park would have liked to have agreement from the city but they couldn't have counted on so many idiot Councillors voting against it. I think public sentiment is in favor of a Casino so there were be no political downside for the province going against the city.
Click to expand...

For one, it would be a pretty serious back tracking on a previous promise to not impose a Casino on any municipality that did not want one. I know that governments reverse decisions all the time but that sort of reversal would put the Liberals in a tough spot in Toronto at the next election when their NDP and Tory opponents could say "they promised to respect the city's wishes, then when they did not get the decision they wanted, they forced a casino on you."

I think the Province/OLG are being honest when they say that they will not force a casino on Toronto if Toronto says it does not want one....but I don't think they will then look to Ontario Place....they will look to find a location in the 905 with good access to Toronto.
 
No that would be the Portlands. For 2008 the Molson Amphitheatre was the proposed site for weightlifting however.

I think the best place would be where the failed woodbine live development was supposed to be built. It will rejuvenate a part of the city that needs the help.
 
intoronto1125 said:
No that would be the Portlands. For 2008 the Molson Amphitheatre was the proposed site for weightlifting however.

I think the best place would be where the failed woodbine live development was supposed to be built. It will rejuvenate a part of the city that needs the help.
Click to expand...

That may be true but each of the casino companies have said (and it may be posturing) that their interest in the Rexdale area is very limited and that, certainly, they would not be interested in a full scale "resort/destination" type casino of the sort they are pitching for downtown.
 
I was only making a joke with my 2024 Olympic fantasy although it would be nice minus the cost. Id take transit over Olympics any day.
 
I don't really understand the mechanics of how the casino file is being handled other than the non-sensical yes or no vote that will be under consideration at council; However, since the No camp will clearly win at council how about this compromise:

-Council says no to a casino in Toronto but makes an amendment that allows for the Woodbine Lands to be exempt

-This way Ford can still possibly get his casino while some other councillors can still say they saved downtown or Toronto or whatever, and a few centrist or rationalist councillors can accept this as Woodbine is effectively already a big-box gambling facility

-An argument can also be made that Woodbine would be "saved" from a suburban casino across the municipal border line. The proposition of Toronto saying no to a casino on moral grounds while the province builds one just across said border line that will impact Toronto residents regardless, and the irony that Toronto already has a big box gambling facility that just isn't called a casino, can all be brought into harmony.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top