Toronto Union Park | 303.26m | 58s | Oxford Properties | Pelli Clarke Pelli

[TonyV]

If there is demand for a big casino, we should build one. I don't gamble and rarely drink, but the 'nanny state' mentality is getting a bit tiring. It's astounding that in 2013 we still have people who believe they have a right to dictate to the greater society whether we can have a casino. The government/bureaucracy in this country is out of control and they need to get out of people's lives.

I never vote Conservative, but it's things like this that would make me change my mind.

I am practically opposed to these proposals at this point in time. My stance has nothing to do with nanny-state (which we definitely have). My opposition is rooted in the fact that OLG will come in and swoop up the proceeds and the Toronto region will get almost nothing from it. We are a wealthy city but somehow we can't afford to build good transit anymore, because of the Ontario attitude toward us (witness the opposition to "sweetheart deals" that the lesser Ontario cities are voicing right now). If we get the lion's share of the big $$$ proceeds from a casino for transit expansion then sign me up, but otherwise, forget it. And pretty much that's that.

 

[Grimace]

I never vote Conservative, but it's things like this that would make me change my mind.

So, you think there should be a casino, and the liberal government is pushing for a casino, and some people object to the casino, so you would vote conservative? I think I'm missing a step in this logic.

 

[TOareaFan]

I am practically opposed to these proposals at this point in time. My stance has nothing to do with nanny-state (which we definitely have). My opposition is rooted in the fact that OLG will come in and swoop up the proceeds and the Toronto region will get almost nothing from it. We are a wealthy city but somehow we can't afford to build good transit anymore, because of the Ontario attitude toward us (witness the opposition to "sweetheart deals" that the lesser Ontario cities are voicing right now). If we get the lion's share of the big $$$ proceeds from a casino for transit expansion then sign me up, but otherwise, forget it. And pretty much that's that.

I am not sure I understand.

The "model" for casinos in Ontario is pretty well established. Owned by the OLG, managed by a private sector partner and situated in a municipality. The municipality gets a hosting fee and the private sector partner gets a fee for performance.

I think what the other mayors were objecting to was the notion that the province/olg would pay Toronto a special fee that was different than other hosting fees to entice the city to say yes. I believe the premier has now said "no" to that notion and Toronto will get the same hosting fee as the rest.

What is to be decided for Toronto is whether they see value in that.

 

[UrbanAffair]

If there is demand for a big casino, we should build one. I don't gamble and rarely drink, but the 'nanny state' mentality is getting a bit tiring.

It's astounding that in 2013 we still have people who believe they have a right to dictate to the greater society whether we can have a casino. The government/bureaucracy in this country is out of control and they need to get out of people's lives. I never vote Conservative, but it's things like this that would make me change my mind.

Sounds like you're coming from a libertarian postion to me. I understand what you're saying regarding free will, and agree people should be allowed to go to casino's all they want. That doesn't mean we should just let them set up where they want and give them free reign. No one is dictating that you can't have a casino, some people are saying simply they don't want a casino in this city. The alternate to your argument is "I can't beleive that people believe they have the right to impose a casino on us when we don't want one." I disagree about this being a nanny state also, there are plenty of areas of our society where people fall through the cracks and suffer because of it and there are few or not enough supports governmentally. As well it also shouldn't be a question between COMPLETE governmental control over our lives (which i think is non-existant tbh) vs the wild west where anything goes and there is no regulation at all. Im sure the many who slip in to an addictive lifestyle and end up without house/home/their family, and insane amounts of debt might disagree that the govenent should get out of their lives. That sounds like pure libertarian survival of the fittest nonsense, correct me if thats not what you are suggesting.
There is a middle ground to all this, and there is nothing wrong with people being concerned about other people who gamble too much and wanting the government or the casino to take direct responsibility to help these people. If anything that certainly makes our society stronger that people care and want the government to be involved to ensure people are taken care of. The alternative is much much worse.

If there are strong programs INSURED, along with a committment to a strong infrastructure program by the casino operators themselves, I think I would be more open to it. As it stands now, Toronto is doing well without a casino, and the positives don't outweigh the negatives in my view. (Including but not limited to the strong case backed by studies that there is net job loss overall when a casino comes in)
Also don't we have the highest consumer debt compared to most other western countries, inc the US? Perhaps having another option to increase this isn't the best thing for us as a whole. Just a thought.

 

[bmiller]

Agree 100%

 

[TonyV]

I am not sure I understand.

The "model" for casinos in Ontario is pretty well established. Owned by the OLG, managed by a private sector partner and situated in a municipality. The municipality gets a hosting fee and the private sector partner gets a fee for performance.

I think what the other mayors were objecting to was the notion that the province/olg would pay Toronto a special fee that was different than other hosting fees to entice the city to say yes. I believe the premier has now said "no" to that notion and Toronto will get the same hosting fee as the rest.

What is to be decided for Toronto is whether they see value in that.

Yup, I'm saying we should buck the existing "model" for casinos in Ontario and I take that stance shamelessly. We've got a pent-up need for expanded transit in Toronto, and I don't see any solution to funding streams (although lots of debate). But unfortunately, with a casino, OLG will scoop up the revenues, and we won't see the benefits in Toronto that we should see. I seriously don't care about the other Ontario municipalities crying foul over the special hosting fees that had been proposed. They don't have subways and other expensive infrastructure to build that this massive wealth-generating city has. It's the same old game.

To clarify, I don't care about gambling and the morality/lack of it.. not my issue.

EDIT: further clarification -- to sum it up, if we're going with casinos, let there be some local benefit, and lots of it, more than the previously proposed hosting fees. I'm less interested in building rec centres in the various outposts than I am in seeing lots of transit expansion around the big smoke.

 

[adeel]

not that anyone really knows, but estimates for hosting fees seem to range around 50Mil to 200Mil (personally I'm guessing closer to 100Mil)

Any idea how much the province stands to gain from a casino in Toronto?

If you consider the 100M, plus some proportion of the provinces take coming back to the city in some form, that could be enough to build a km of lrt/hrt/subway etc..within the city proper?

 

[freshcutgrass]

not that anyone really knows, but estimates for hosting fees seem to range around 50Mil to 200Mil (personally I'm guessing closer to 100Mil)

You know...that's the problem surrounding every aspect of this whole casino business....lots of speculation, hype, implied promises, hollow "estimates", and various other forms of BS. And from everyone involved, including the government.

Everything but a straight answer.

The REALITY is....Niagara Falls gets $3 million for it's 2 casinos. The gap between 3 million and 100 million is just a little too big to pass my smell test.

If the province were to guarantee Toronto a minimum of $100 million in annual fee revenue, and only after a project approved by a city panel of experts to assure the design/location was one that passed strict guidelines designed to not have a negative impact on the city......I might be tempted to consider it. A hundred million is a nice start to get the transit funds rolling, without upsetting the ultra conservatives this city apparently is rife with.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well said freshcutgrass. They are confident enough to sink in this much effort into lobbying but no one can't even come up with an ironclad low-end figure? Get real.

AoD

 

[Lenser]

I suspect that's because the more realistic figures would be but a fraction of what the hype machine has been glibly promising.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Piece on Sands approach - from the Globe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...pproach-to-toronto-casino-bid/article9979376/

AoD

 

[Automation Gallery]

Piece on Sands approach - from the Globe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...pproach-to-toronto-casino-bid/article9979376/
AoD

Interesting that Toronto is falling behind in convention business

Mr. Whitaker said each year Toronto is visited by about 175,000 delegates who spend approximately $350-million. He said an expanded convention centre would give Toronto the ability to go after 400 conventions that are too large for the existing facility.

“Toronto can’t stand still,†he said.

Mr. Mundell said a revamped facility would put the city back in the top tier of convention centres in North America.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Interesting that Toronto is falling behind in convention business

Mr. Whitaker said each year Toronto is visited by about 175,000 delegates who spend approximately $350-million. He said an expanded convention centre would give Toronto the ability to go after 400 conventions that are too large for the existing facility.

“Toronto can’t stand still,” he said.

Mr. Mundell said a revamped facility would put the city back in the top tier of convention centres in North America.

I don't disagree with any of the convention centre revamping talk. But, that should be an economic case on its own, right? Why is the carbuncle of a casino attached to the face of the renovation considered (a) a beauty spot and (b) so necessary to the project that they would pull the plug without it?

 

[TOareaFan]

I don't disagree with any of the convention centre revamping talk. But, that should be an economic case on its own, right? Why is the carbuncle of a casino attached to the face of the renovation considered (a) a beauty spot and (b) so necessary to the project that they would pull the plug without it?

Another approach to that question might be to wonder why, prior to the casino debate/discussion, there were no plans put forward to expand our convention facilities? After all, those unattainable 400 events have probably been around for a while? Perhaps there is some sort of symbiotic relationship between entertainment/gaming facilities and expanded convention facilities? Maybe it is as simple as having a gaming facility, in conjunction with expanded convention facilities, makes the whole "city package" look more appealing to the organizers of the conventions....I don't know.

The casino has become this hot button of controversy (and I am totally indifferent towards gambling) that I am just looking forward to getting beyond....that said, I do find the discussion of hosting fees interesting. Not sure Toronto should get any more than any municipality that hosts.....it is just a fee for hosting......also not sure that any other industry pays hosting fees at all. The city either accepts gambling (and the jobs, attractions, negatives that come with it) or they don't.....the amount of hosting fees is just a side issue. People who say "no if the hosting fee is $20 million but yes if it is $100 million".....just remind of the old joke:

Man to woman: Would you sleep with me for one million dollars?
Woman: Sure.
Man: How about for ten dollars?
Woman: What do you think I am?
Man: We've already established what you are. All we're doing is bargaining about price.

 

[TonyV]

...
People who say "no if the hosting fee is $20 million but yes if it is $100 million".....just remind of the old joke:

Man to woman: Would you sleep with me for one million dollars?
Woman: Sure.
Man: How about for ten dollars?
Woman: What do you think I am?
Man: We've already established what you are. All we're doing is bargaining about price.

You may have me in mind. I've already posted that I'd whore out if casino hosting yielded us much $$$ for transit construction. But I am expensive, I say it should be much more than that 100M figure, so call me a pricey whore. Now, back to principals. I am totally against OLG coming in here an taking massive money out of our jurisdiction and not giving back anything especially with extreme needs in transit updating.

Obviously I have no moral stance against gambling.