jje1000
Senior Member
Best case scenario would be a casino at Woodbine.
|
|
|
OLG Toronto/GTA casino proposal (where to put it?)
- Thread starter spider
- Start date
TonyV
Senior Member
Most of all, I like the title of this thread about the OLG casino - "where to put it". I'll tell them where to put it.
Today, Michael Gee in the Globe and Mail said it again, casinos are for losers and Toronto's a winner. Think about it for a second.
Today, Michael Gee in the Globe and Mail said it again, casinos are for losers and Toronto's a winner. Think about it for a second.
jaycola
Active Member
If the purpose is to get more money gambling from Ontarians, the Woodbine location is fine. If the purpose is to expand convention facilities, the convention and trade show business and draw tourists to the city, Woodbine will accomplish nothing. I'd rather see it in Vaughan at the end of the Subway line, on the Viva BRT next to the 407 and 400.
jje1000
Senior Member
Mind you that Metroman has already stated that the convention centre portion of the Oxford project is likely entirely self-funded. It's only the possible decking over of the railway that's funded by the casino. So we get a better convention centre regardless of whether of not a casino comes to this city.
canmark
Active Member
RC8
Senior Member
TOareaFan
Superstar
....perhaps the question is better phrased as "is this what some people want for a small part of Toronto".
RC8
Senior Member
More like "this is what some people want for a part of Toronto where they don't live and which is much more productive and sustainable than where they are from".
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
just so Godwin's Law isn't left wanting: "The Circus-Circus is what the whole hep world would be doing on Saturday night if the Nazis had won the war. This is the Sixth Reich." (Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas)
intoronto1125
Active Member
Yea its at the west channel of Ontario Place.
Mithras
Active Member
Quote from RC8 in the Ocford MTCC thread.
It's very hard to ignore non-logical arguments, though - when they are repeated over and over again.
I can't wait 'til the casino is struck down by council so that we can focus on the features of this project that can be a great asset to this community! But while councillors are making up their minds, it's important to tackle the sort of opinions that encourage our councillors to vote against city-building.
See the guy above who asks "where are the stats that there is a disproportionate amount of problem gamblers here?", even though a simple google search would enlighten him. He then asks "why are problem gamblers more important than problem drinkers?" even though no one has suggested that, and problem drinkers are irrelevant to this discussion.
Casino proposing non-logic says:
1.It's not the end of the world, and since I don't live next to it, we must embrace it.
2.We NEED it to pay for things that would in all likeliness pay for themselves anyway... but still!
3.It's immoral to let people die and be abused by the alcohol industry and not by the casino industry. Either we abuse everyone, or no one!
4.Downtown residents are not residents like, you know... the ones where I live.
5.Downtown neighbourhoods are not like, you know... the one where I live.
6.We is gettin' soopertaaallz! And I'm getting a new destination within driving distance
7.Who would raise kids in the city anyway?
8.Smaller casinos more responsibly administered and tightly regulated than the one proposed in Toronto haven't been that bad for other cities. Bigger casinos more similar to the one proposed in Toronto, often run by the same people, where crime is notorious... is anecdotal evidence championed by the left wing media.
9. The government should stay out of our bedrooms... and impose a giant gambling monopoly upon an unwilling neighbourhood.
10. We can subsidise the 'burbs with a casino, and increased crime in productive downtown neighbourhoods that subsidise the 'burbs anyway is just a small price to pay.
I will stop arguing now. I will simply refer back to this post in this thread, and direct people to the OLG thread in Toronto Issues.
Okay, a quick look on google as you suggested yielded this. Ontario spends more than all the other provinces combined on problem gambling awareness, more than all the other provinces combined on problem gambling research and more than double all the other when it came to treatment. Ontario had 0.8% of its gamblers being problem gamblers, lower than every province other than Quebec and 2.6% of gamblers being moderate risk gamblers which was dead centre nationally. I would say then CATEGORICALLY that Ontario DOES NOT have a disproportionate amount of problem gamblers.
1) As for the rest. I do live near it. And work near it. It isn’t the end of the world.
2) Those things (the Oxford MTCC plan) WILL NOT happen without it. Something will happen, but it won’t be ANYTHING like what is proposed now.
3) I disapprove of nanny states. Besides, this is the work of well regulated crown corps.
4) I live downtown, so yes downtown residents are, you know…like the ones near where I live.
5) Ergo, downtown neighborhoods are like the ones I live in. They are however very different than suburban or overwhelmingly residential ones in other portions of the city. Retail, commercial, different hours of activity, traffic and tourists are part of the living experience.
6) The only way we get iconic architecture at that site is with a casino. I wouldn’t drive to get to it. Most people wouldn’t as it is easily accessible by walking and transit as it is very well located for its intended uses.
7) I can’t quite decipher what you’re trying to say, but the casino in both the MTCC and CNE sites aren’t huge. Regardless of what the left wing and right wing media say.
8) I didn’t realize the government was in my bedroom. I hope they don't mind my snoring... The government imposes monopolies on all sin type things. Alcohol, gambling etc… Are you saying we should have multiple casinos downtown to foster competition?
9) I don’t care about subsidizing the burbs. I don’t live there and I think they should get denser to increase the tax base and the use of their infrastructure but I do think that the casino should go where the most positives can be garnered from it, ie where there is already a strong nucleus of tourist amenities, transit, restaurants, hotels, airport, sporting venues, convention centres, retail...
It's very hard to ignore non-logical arguments, though - when they are repeated over and over again.
I can't wait 'til the casino is struck down by council so that we can focus on the features of this project that can be a great asset to this community! But while councillors are making up their minds, it's important to tackle the sort of opinions that encourage our councillors to vote against city-building.
See the guy above who asks "where are the stats that there is a disproportionate amount of problem gamblers here?", even though a simple google search would enlighten him. He then asks "why are problem gamblers more important than problem drinkers?" even though no one has suggested that, and problem drinkers are irrelevant to this discussion.
Casino proposing non-logic says:
1.It's not the end of the world, and since I don't live next to it, we must embrace it.
2.We NEED it to pay for things that would in all likeliness pay for themselves anyway... but still!
3.It's immoral to let people die and be abused by the alcohol industry and not by the casino industry. Either we abuse everyone, or no one!
4.Downtown residents are not residents like, you know... the ones where I live.
5.Downtown neighbourhoods are not like, you know... the one where I live.
6.We is gettin' soopertaaallz! And I'm getting a new destination within driving distance
7.Who would raise kids in the city anyway?
8.Smaller casinos more responsibly administered and tightly regulated than the one proposed in Toronto haven't been that bad for other cities. Bigger casinos more similar to the one proposed in Toronto, often run by the same people, where crime is notorious... is anecdotal evidence championed by the left wing media.
9. The government should stay out of our bedrooms... and impose a giant gambling monopoly upon an unwilling neighbourhood.
10. We can subsidise the 'burbs with a casino, and increased crime in productive downtown neighbourhoods that subsidise the 'burbs anyway is just a small price to pay.
I will stop arguing now. I will simply refer back to this post in this thread, and direct people to the OLG thread in Toronto Issues.
Okay, a quick look on google as you suggested yielded this. Ontario spends more than all the other provinces combined on problem gambling awareness, more than all the other provinces combined on problem gambling research and more than double all the other when it came to treatment. Ontario had 0.8% of its gamblers being problem gamblers, lower than every province other than Quebec and 2.6% of gamblers being moderate risk gamblers which was dead centre nationally. I would say then CATEGORICALLY that Ontario DOES NOT have a disproportionate amount of problem gamblers.
1) As for the rest. I do live near it. And work near it. It isn’t the end of the world.
2) Those things (the Oxford MTCC plan) WILL NOT happen without it. Something will happen, but it won’t be ANYTHING like what is proposed now.
3) I disapprove of nanny states. Besides, this is the work of well regulated crown corps.
4) I live downtown, so yes downtown residents are, you know…like the ones near where I live.
5) Ergo, downtown neighborhoods are like the ones I live in. They are however very different than suburban or overwhelmingly residential ones in other portions of the city. Retail, commercial, different hours of activity, traffic and tourists are part of the living experience.
6) The only way we get iconic architecture at that site is with a casino. I wouldn’t drive to get to it. Most people wouldn’t as it is easily accessible by walking and transit as it is very well located for its intended uses.
7) I can’t quite decipher what you’re trying to say, but the casino in both the MTCC and CNE sites aren’t huge. Regardless of what the left wing and right wing media say.
8) I didn’t realize the government was in my bedroom. I hope they don't mind my snoring... The government imposes monopolies on all sin type things. Alcohol, gambling etc… Are you saying we should have multiple casinos downtown to foster competition?
9) I don’t care about subsidizing the burbs. I don’t live there and I think they should get denser to increase the tax base and the use of their infrastructure but I do think that the casino should go where the most positives can be garnered from it, ie where there is already a strong nucleus of tourist amenities, transit, restaurants, hotels, airport, sporting venues, convention centres, retail...
RC8
Senior Member
Mithras, are you planning on raising a family downtown? Or would you?
Mithras
Active Member
I'm married with a 2.5 year old and another on the way. I grew up in the suburbs and would never go back.
That said, a postage stamp size condo on Front st. isn't the place to raise a family (the issue of condo size and bedrooms is another issue entirely!). Though because Front St. isn't a place to raise a family I think it's all the more reason to put a casino there. There are not a whole lot of kids in the area but lots of vibrant young professionals and empty nesters who go out. This gives them more retail, entertainment and restaurant options. There are still lots of places for families like ours to go to the park etc. In fact, I would love the park over the tracks as would my son.
For the record I feel terrible that the club district is losing its clubs as well. An area can't be all things to all people. Club-land was just that, then you get people moving in there knowing what they are getting themselves into and then trying to NIMBY change it. Not cool.
That said, a postage stamp size condo on Front st. isn't the place to raise a family (the issue of condo size and bedrooms is another issue entirely!). Though because Front St. isn't a place to raise a family I think it's all the more reason to put a casino there. There are not a whole lot of kids in the area but lots of vibrant young professionals and empty nesters who go out. This gives them more retail, entertainment and restaurant options. There are still lots of places for families like ours to go to the park etc. In fact, I would love the park over the tracks as would my son.
For the record I feel terrible that the club district is losing its clubs as well. An area can't be all things to all people. Club-land was just that, then you get people moving in there knowing what they are getting themselves into and then trying to NIMBY change it. Not cool.
TOperson
Active Member
Or the retail, entertainment and restaurant options could be put on Front Street without the casino. Or Front St could be redeveloped for some other purpose. There are all kinds of options, not just a casino.
RC8
Senior Member
That's great to hear, congrats on the one to come! There are hundreds of kids already living in these tiny condos, however, and many more will come once the new school is finally built in Cityplace!
This area is one of the few regions in the city where you can raise a family in a relatively affordable urban setting within walking and cycling distance from most amenities. And right now it is statistically speaking the safest neighbourhood in the city. People who live in these buildings recognise this, and that is why they overwhelmingly oppose the casino proposal. In other countries and cultures small condos are perfect places to raise a family.
I didn't grow up in the suburbs, the city is all I ever knew as home. The self-determination of urban neighbourhoods to determine what forces shape their nature is therefore sacred to me. Even then I didn't originally oppose the casino at first... in fact I rather liked the idea... it wasn't until months of digging up literature and talking to experienced planners and various stake-holders that I decided this was not the smartest choice for this part of town.
People here overwhelmingly support local independent retail, grocery stores, cycling facilities, transit, shopping malls, parking spaces, high-rises, pubs, cultural institutions, schools, statidums, etc. It's a very inclusive community, but its engaged citizens have decided to draw the line on the casino issue, and I believe the city should respect this.
If another community is willing to host the casino, they should be warned of potential issues but I think they should ultimately be allowed to have it.
This area is one of the few regions in the city where you can raise a family in a relatively affordable urban setting within walking and cycling distance from most amenities. And right now it is statistically speaking the safest neighbourhood in the city. People who live in these buildings recognise this, and that is why they overwhelmingly oppose the casino proposal. In other countries and cultures small condos are perfect places to raise a family.
I didn't grow up in the suburbs, the city is all I ever knew as home. The self-determination of urban neighbourhoods to determine what forces shape their nature is therefore sacred to me. Even then I didn't originally oppose the casino at first... in fact I rather liked the idea... it wasn't until months of digging up literature and talking to experienced planners and various stake-holders that I decided this was not the smartest choice for this part of town.
People here overwhelmingly support local independent retail, grocery stores, cycling facilities, transit, shopping malls, parking spaces, high-rises, pubs, cultural institutions, schools, statidums, etc. It's a very inclusive community, but its engaged citizens have decided to draw the line on the casino issue, and I believe the city should respect this.
If another community is willing to host the casino, they should be warned of potential issues but I think they should ultimately be allowed to have it.