Frances Bula header image 2

BC Place renos don’t depend on casino money

March 15th, 2011 · 68 Comments

That’s the word from PavCo CEO Warren Buckley, as he spelled out for me exactly how the $563-million renos are being financed for BC Place. My story is just one small effort to isolate some of the actual facts in the pile-up of information and misinformation debris that has been accumulating around this project.

There are still so many other pieces to sort out, which even the public hearings aren’t helping with that much as various speakers come with their version of reality.

Staff are trying to clarify on the 1001 questions as they arise. This memo got sent out recently. as part of that effort.

Things we still don’t know:

– What are the number of problem gamblers in the province? (We know the likelihood, but not the actual caseload so far.)

– Will Paragon really just pack up its bags and go if it doesn’t get an expansion? Paragon announced that, contrary to what an earlier media report said, Paragon can’t extend its lease at the Plaza of Nations past 2013. That makes you think they’ll close. But others say it’s hard to imagine that they will give up a lucrative casino licence that is managing to make them money at its current size.

– What is the real likely revenue for a larger casino and how much of that is actually new revenue, as opposed to current levels of gambling just resorting them?

– How long would it take to bring in that $100 million a year from new international visitors that Paragon talks about?

and, last but not least,

– How did this whole deal come about? That’s what baffles most of us. When I talked to Warren Buckley today, he wasn’t able to recall exactly when he learned that Paragon wanted to triple the size of its casino. Everyone had known since 2006 that Paragon was going to have to move the Edgewater. Both the city and landlord had made it clear it needed to move by 2013.

I saw the casino placed next to BC Place on an architect’s plan for the area in May 2008, when the premier announced the Vancouver Art Gallery would move to the area. But I didn’t think much about it. It seemed like it was just the casino I knew, but moved across the street.

Mr. Buckley thinks that he didn’t really have a sense of Paragon’s much larger plans until the request for expressions of interest came in, although Paragon had obviously been expressing an interest in moving for some time before that. But he had been out of the country working elsewhere just prior to that, so I’m not sure he’s the best person to nail this one for me.

Maybe we’ll find out in the next 100 hours of public hearings.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Peter Ladner

    Wow. First the casino was essential for paying for the roof that was already being built. Now it’s not.

    Then PavCo said they absolutely had to have it. Then they said they’d regroup and try something else if they didn’t get it.

    First Paragon said they couldn’t stay where they were. Then their landlord said they could. Then the landlord, in a release from PavCo’s PR people, said they couldn’t.

    Paragon said they’d been working on this since 2007. Now Mr. Buckley can’t recall when this half-billion-dollar project landed in his life. Maybe Richard Turner knows.

    First BCLC CEO Michael Graydon is rumoured to be compensated for swinging public opinion in favour of gambling. Then he couldn’t say how many of the key customers in his $2.something-billion operation have gambling addiction problems.

    First municipalities were getting 16.6% of destination casino revenues. Then they were getting 10%.

    First the arts and charities were getting a third of the cut. Now they’re getting less than they did in 1995 while BCLC revenues have tripled since then.

    The VPD say crime isn’t an issue– nothing like the nightclubs. Then senior retired RCMP officers line up to say this is a gang magnet.

    Paragon is sailing along with healthy profits (around $150k gross net per night, as near as I can figure). Now they say at that rate they’ll have to shut down if they can’t expand, putting single mums with cancer out of work.

    Whodunnit?

  • George

    Thanks for this article Frances, and as Peter so eloquently puts it… who done it…

    I’m sorry I mean no disrespect to the workers, but ….stop the drama, facts please!!

  • Joseph Jones

    As a “business,” Paragon has not demonstrated a lot of aptitude for risk assessment. Maybe they thought they were playing a fixed game?

  • mezzanine

    Mr. Ladner,

    If anything, IMO Mr. Podmore has been consistent with the land lease and funding for the casino:

    “If [the whole project] isn’t approved, then we will have to figure out what are the other options for those lands. A big source of revenue for the stadium was the land lease payments from these lands.”

    Podmore said the city has already signalled it doesn’t want more highrise residential development in the area, leaving PavCo with limited options for land it has earmarked to generate repayment of a $510-million provincial loan for the roof.” [1]

    Dollars for donuts the CoV will zone for condos if paragon falls thru.

    …….

    And edgewater casino closing in its current format is if anything, a certainty.

    “[spokesperson] Gee-Wing acknowledged Canadian Metropolitan has a rezoning application in the works for a major development on its property at the Plaza of Nations.

    The proposal calls for at least a half-dozen residential highrises, a practice rink for the Vancouver Canucks, a community space and an outdoor performance area.

    When the Courier asked Gee-Wing if Canadian Metropolitan could extend Paragon’s lease for at least two more years beyond 2013, and phase in the redevelopment around Edgewater, he replied, “I’m pretty confident we could, but we haven’t gotten to those areas of development yet in terms of timetable.” [2]
    …..
    And as I’ve said before, casino revenue nowadays is more becoming general revenue, for the province and the city.

    “Coquitlam’s Boulevard Casino, which has over 1,000 slot machines and 60 gambling tables, puts about $9 million a year in the city’s coffers, the mayor said.

    “That pays for a lot of services in Coquitlam,” Stewart said. “Here I am, not particularly a gambling advocate, and yet if there are going to be casinos and some communities are going to get the revenue, then I do want Coquitlam to get its share of those revenues.”” [3]

    IMO, Burnaby and richmond will apply for the gaming quota if paragon falls thru.

  • mezzanine

    1 http://www.globaltvbc.com/Funding+Place+roof+dependant+casino/4347543/story.html
    2 http://www.vancourier.com/Casino+company+Vancouver+landlord+odds+over+lease+extension/4438613/story.html
    3 http://www.straight.com/article-377486/vancouver/politicos-fear-casino-impact

  • mezzanine

    oops again, i suppose edgewater closing is not a certainty; they have other designs for the site and they don’t plan for it to be there in the mid to long term, though.

    [needs sleep..]

  • The Fourth Horseman

    Mezzanine,

    See, you DO get it. It’s a moveable feast. First this, then that, then, umm, this again.

    Looks like you have your own case of “paragonitis”. I recommend: bed rest, 1,500 slot machines and a call to your taxpayer in the morning.

  • S Garossino

    Mezzanine–fess up, you have a day job with PavCo, don’t you?

  • mezzanine

    @ Fourth, still need sleep, i don’t think i have pargonitis, but maybe a bad case of lotto fever. :-S

    @ S. Garossino.

    I don’t work for BCLC or PavCo.

    But I have 3 rhetorical situations for you:. Let’s say the paragon proposal fails, and the landlord decides to close edgewater.

    1) Would you be opposed to the equal amount (not an increase, but the same) of gambling activity to hastings park, the only other casino within CoV?

    2) Would you be opposed to the equal amount being moved to a new facility? where would you put that new facility in the CoV?

    3) Vancouver decides not pursue further gaming. But richmond/burnaby get the extra activity with some debate, but with a general concensus from citizens. Would you be opposed to that? Bear in mind these casinos in particular are close and easy to access from the CoV.

    I can agree with some concerns (aiming for a high level of urban fit/neighbourhood amenities, expansion of programs for problem gamblers, ongoing legislation and enforcement for money laundering). I can also see why as a non-gambler there are some merits to the casino.

  • Roger Kemble

    BC Place renos don’t depend on casino money

    That’s the word from PavCo CEO Warren Buckley . . .

    To paraphrase PavCo chair Mr. David Podmore some days ago: We need the revenue from the new casino to pay for the new roof on the stadium.

    As a long time acolyte to a discredited premier what say you now Mr. Podmore?

  • Ian

    Frances, I’m told there were drawings of the BC Place redevelopment circulating at city hall prior to the RFP that included a casino as well as a new VAG in close proximity. Have you heard the same thing?

  • Joe Just Joe

    There was a great article in this weeks BIV about this very subject. It corrects some of the misinformation being spread.
    I’m not a supporter of Casinos in general but at the same time I can’t find reason for me to fight this proposal. I have a hard time believing that the opponents would not be fighting this even if it was really just a move, and not an expansion as well.
    Ideally we would’ve had an office/hotel developer outbid Paragon for the site, but that didn’t happen, and residential on the site wouldn’t be in the citys interest either.

  • Just Curious

    I think what confuses me most is why the expansion of an existing gambling facility is causing this uproar. If we as a community (CoV and beyond) are so concerned about gambling addiction, why is this issue coming to rise now? Why is online gambling (the mecca for people suffering from addiction) free from scorn?

    I don’t gamble, nor am I an advocate necessarily. But I do question the motivations at play here with regard to the opposition. Where were these groups when online gambling sprang up? This sounds a lot more like NIMBYism than true concern.

  • Dan Cooper

    Re: “- What are the number of problem gamblers in the province? (We know the likelihood, but not the actual caseload so far.)”

    If caseload means the number of people in treatment, I would not see that as the key figure. Rather, it’s the total number or percentage of the populace who are addicted that needs to be tracked, and even more to the point the ones among them who are not in treatment, either because they have not tried to access it or it is not available/insufficient.

  • Dan Cooper

    @JJJ 7:53 am:

    Of course, there’s nothing intrinsically positive about the highest bid, and one doesn’t have to accept a bid if it is impractical or brings negative consequences. If a mushroom grower (think horse manure; lots of horse manure!) had bid more than the casino operators for the site, it wouldn’t have made it somehow morally necessary to put their plant there. Actually, I see this as like the Olympic Village situation; the city – it seems – might have done better to have accepted a lower bid that was better suited to the site. It’s too late to change that history, but the BC Place land can still be repurposed.

  • S Garossino

    Hi Mezz, I was just having a little fun with the accidental back and forth changes in your posts. Didn’t mean to actually suggest anything…

    The VNV Coalition opposes the expansion of gambling in Vancouver. That pretty much says it. Location etc are all secondary issues that depend on actual proposals being made by applicants.

    Everything is speculative until an actual proposal is made, with plans, etc.

    Research pretty consistently says that densely populated residential neighbourhoods are poor sites for casinos. You just don’t see them. That’s why the suburban casinos are not sited in residential neighbourhoods at all, let alone ones with density.

    Richmond and Burnaby both have well developed facilities that meet the demands of their communities. Have not heard any suggestion the communities want more capacity than they have now.

  • Ian

    Frances,
    According to a January 2008 council report, Judy Rogers met with Pavco late in 2007. PavCo asked the City Manager to convene a special process to deal with zoning and other issues associated with the redevelopment of the BC Place lands.

    PavCo agreed to pay half the cost of the process and it began work in march 2008 under the direction of Michael Gordon and an oversight committee comprised of all the staff big wigs. Gordon and others met with PavCo and all associated parties.

    When Gordon reported out in September, his report recommended a rezoning that permitted a permanent casino use on the lands – reversing City policy on the casino which called for a temporary location in the NEFC.

    The real question is who asked for that casino zoning and why was it inserted into the ODP 6 months ahead of PavCo’s “open” Request for expressions of interest.”

  • Ron

    The word “need” is relative – there are always options, and it should be read that way.

    Read that PavCo “needs” the money from the casino in the same way that the Vancouver School Board “needs” more money from the Province.

    There are always preferences and alternatives.

  • Morven

    Ian # 17

    Fascinating.

    Brings up the question of what is the role of senior public servants.

    Is it to advise the elected representatives on the plus and minus of a proposed policy or is it to act closely with the developer to craft a suitable proposal.

    I get irritated, and this is just my view, when I see city staff involved at far too early a stage in the planning process when there are many otherwise experienced and qualified independent planners/architects to do the ground work.

    And they still expect the ordinary citizen to be comfortable with the planning process.

    The answer is no.
    -30-

  • Bill McCreery

    Good point Morven 19.

    I am very uncomfortable with the City taking fees from private developers. It puts the City into an untenable conflict of interest. One of many fixes required.

  • Ashokraj

    If Michael Gordon reported a rezoning of the NEFC ODP in September 2008 to allow for a major casino on the property, why was this not brought forward for public discussion, given the fractious and heated history of casinos in Vancouver?

    Is Peter Ladner correct in saying that this point was only inserted in an Appendix to a motion, and there was no notice to Council of the point?

    If this is the case, this looks like a very serious problem inside the planning department.

    Additionally, given the reliance that Podmore placed on this tiny point, it also looks as if PavCo somehow thought that this slender process was sufficient for them to go ahead with a half billion dollar redevelopment.

    What’s going on?

  • Ashokraj

    @ Ian: Who were the staff “bigwigs” who participated in the process with PavCo? Did any councillors participate? What does the record show about notice to council?

    Did council get played by staff here? Where are those staffers today?

    Questions, more questions.

  • S Garossino

    Good grief! Can PavCo please get its basic story straight and its facts right?

    In this week’s issue of Business in Vancouver, PavCo CEO Warren Buckley says about our claims that:

    “At 110,000 square feet, the casino is about the size of a single football field, not two, as some opponents keep repeating.”

    The FACTS: According to the page 9 of the planning report, the proposed casino gaming floor will be not greater than 114,000 sq ft. View here: http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110118/documents/p4.pdf

    An NFL football field is 57,600 sq ft. 114,000 sq. ft is 1.98 NFL football fields. I confess to rounding 1.98 up to 2. Wherever time and space have permitted, I have ALWAYS described this as 2 NFL football fields.

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_area_of_a_football_field

    Memo to PavCo: Stop accusing your opponents of spreading misinformation. We have worked overtime to be as accurate as possible in all our statements, and have double- and triple-checked all our numbers before making public statements.

    Try it sometime.

  • Ian

    I’m going from memory here. The senior staff cmt was detailed in rogers’ report to council in january 2008. It included for example brent macgregor who went on to work for pavco on paragon’s bid. Hmmm.

    Ive been told by city hallers that dobell may have had a hand in this when he was on contract to both city hall and the premiers office. That’s how the art gallery ended up in the same paragraph as the casino zoning.

    While the casino rezoning was an addendum to the report it was also spelled out in the body of the report. It would have been difficult to miss.

    To be fair to councillor ladner, the controversial point at the time was the npas gift of dlcs and amenity costs to the province. The city didnt even put up a fight. It was if the city manager and mayor sullivan were bargaining for the premier’s office, not vancouver taxpayers. This was why vision and cope voted against the whole package.

    Another point of interest: pavco specifically asked to have the report completed and voted on prior to the 2008 civic election.

  • Frances Bula

    Trying to respond to some of the comments here:

    I am a bit concerned about people trying to build elaborate conspiracy theories out of what is sometimes just bad and incomplete reporting. (Not pointing any fingers. I’m as guilty as everyone else. Never paid any attention to the casino in the October rezoning, even though there were many mentions of it.)

    It’s not that some funny things didn’t happen here. The most egregious misdemeanour I see on the record so far was when Premier Gordon Campbell announced a massive new entertainment complex and casino at BC Place in March 2010, as though it was a done deal and there were no rezoning processes to go through at the city.

    But some of what I see here is people adding two plus two and coming up with 173. Yes, Paragon knew as of 2006 that it had to find another site. Yes, PavCo started having meetings with the city in 2007 about developing the land around the stadium in order to pay for renovations. Yes, I saw drawings in May 2008 that showed the casino next to BC Place.

    But none of that is criminal. The city has had a policy for over 20 years designating the area around BC Place as an entertainment zone. The casino was seen as part of that. In fact, other casinos were shut down in the city and Edgewater was allowed to open in 2004 because the BC Place area was seen as a more appropriate place.

    The casino was a temporary use — but only for the Plaza of Nations venue, not for the whole Northeast False Creek area. Warren Buckley doesn’t know exactly when Paragon started talking about tripling the size of the casino BECAUSE HE HAD A JOB IN SINGAPORE until January 2008 and so wasn’t on the scene in the early days of the PavCo redevelopment discussions — not because he’s being evasive. He did make it clear in our interview that, of course, Paragon had expressed an interest in bidding on the land for a casino/hotel project. And Buckley said that Paragon was told that, while that was interesting, they’d have to go through the bid process like everyone else and take their chances.

    Finally, people have to realize that what sometimes seems like contradictions are just different reporters asking different questions and coming up with different angles for the story. I asked Podmore, two weeks ago, and Buckley, this week, about the actual financing structure for the stadium. Both told me the same thing — the casino lease payments were intended to cover about half of the loan payments on the $150-million construction loan from the province. They both said the other part of the loan payments would come from naming and sponsorship rights, along with new revenue because the stadium would get used more days in a year.

    So what about the stories from elsewhere with Podmore saying the stadium depends on the casino? Well, that also could be true in a larger sense. BC Place doesn’t depend on the casino for immediate financing because a lot of money has been committed from the province. But that money is just our current tax dollars being promised. It’s also true to say the future casino revenue would help replace those spent tax dollars.

    Does that mean there were no hopeful discussions among the province, Paragon, and BC Lottery Corporation before March 2010 about a three-times-as-big casino? I doubt it. The province has to want this casino a lot — it’s an extra $100 to $200 million a year in revenue. The city also made this a promising proposition. NOT because it included a casino in the October 2008 rezoning. No one commented on that at the time because it was presumed to be the same casino that was already there. No, the city gave the Paragon proposal an edge because planners said they wanted job space, not just condos, in that area as part of a long-term plan to ensure that the downtown doesn’t become just a residential resort.

    Okay, the Colbert Report is almost over now, so it’s time to quit. Happy to provide any additional information I have from old notebooks in answer to your questions.

  • Deacon Blue

    Yeah. And the Pope ain’t Catholic.

    Provincial government revenue is behind this, the Gateway tower at the foot of Cambie, and the bizarre idea floated a year or two ago to turn the closed lunatic asylum in Coquitlam into a tower zone.

  • George

    Frances…
    the more I think I understand about this issue, the more confused I become… getting headache trying to keep it straight…

    @Deacon Blue… 26
    “bizarre idea floated a year or two ago to turn the closed lunatic asylum in Coquitlam into a tower zone.”

    don’t know if I’d phrase it that way, but…

    isn’t that idea still on the table ?

    The senior residents from Riverview with the most severe cases of dementia are being relocated to the top originally 3 floors of Youville seniors residence I believe on Cambie.. families of current senior residents protested and the project was scaled back to 2 floors…sadly 2 floors of residents were displaced… all for the Real Estate…

  • S Garossino

    I haven’t noticed anyone suggesting criminality here, or if they have we have no evidence of it, from what can be seen. But what seems to be missing is transparency. This process is surprisingly murky.

    The inclusion of a casino in the NEFC ODP, via an appendix, only arises as a concern because of the weight David Podmore placed on it in his submission to Council. I was surprised to hear him rely on it as some sort of clear green light. Apart from everything else, PavCo and Paragon would have known very early on in the 2009 bid process that the Gaming Control Act governs casino expansions, and its provisions are paramount over municipal development plans.

    The expansion application is not and has never been ancillary to rezoning. It is a separate process governed by the Gaming Control Act and Regulations, and all parties would have known this in 2009 at the latest.

    So the conduct of all the participants–not just the sitting Premier–is odd. Everyone knew this process had to happen, and they proceeded in a way that characterized it as (and still talk about it as if it is) a rezoning application.

    That in itself is disingenuous.

    Then we have City planning staff pointing to the ODP appendix as having significance to them. At the same time they disavow an obligation to take into account the lengthy and involved 3 year public consultation process that the City had undertaken in the 90’s.

    Councils cannot bind future Councils, it was said by planning staff, and each application should be judged on its own merits.

    If that is so, why should Council now consider itself bound by the 2008 ODP Appendix?

    There are many unanswered questions, and it is not only people on this board who have them.

    Given the fractious history this issue has in Vancouver and BC politics, a policy shift of this magnitude should have a much clearer process and regulatory provenance.

  • Jo-Anne Pringle

    @Deacon Blue – I don’t want to take this thread off topic – but Deacon, part of your post caught my eye. Where/how is provincial gov’t revenue behind Gateway at the foot of Cambie?

  • mezzanine

    @ S Garossino:

    “The inclusion of a casino in the NEFC ODP, via an appendix, only arises as a concern because of the weight David Podmore placed on it in his submission to Council.”

    If anything, Ms. Bula reviews that in #27:

    “The city has had a policy for over 20 years designating the area around BC Place as an entertainment zone. The casino was seen as part of that. In fact, other casinos were shut down in the city and Edgewater was allowed to open in 2004 because the BC Place area was seen as a more appropriate place.

    The casino was a temporary use — but only for the Plaza of Nations venue, not for the whole Northeast False Creek area. ”

    …..

    As an aside, I wouldn’t be surprised if lay people found it hard to glean info from reports like these. The process we are having now ideally would have happened much earlier. But be clear – what is the criticism with the process and what is the criticism about the actual proposal? We saw this with the Hornby bike lanes.

  • Max

    @ mezzazine #30

    I understand through another blog, that the proposed new Telus building have not gone through the zoning process at this point, yet, they have been announced as a done deal.

    Supposedly the city sold a parking lot at Georgia and Richards to help accomodate this new project – the amount and surrounding dealings have yet to be disclosed.

  • boohoo

    On a somewhat related note, Council sent back to staff Concord’s proposal for two towers in NEFC until they pony up the park space they promised 20+ years ago.

    http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Vancouver+halts+False+Creek+condo+plans/4452269/story.html

  • Bill McCreery

    Thank you Frances and others. Your information and perspective is instructive.

    I’m not sure the ‘now you don’t, now you see it’ thread is that significant. What is significant from what Peter Ladner and others say, is: what determines what a “major casino” is. In the context of 2007 – 2008 most people would have thought that the Edgewater Casino was a “major casino”. In the context of that time it was. and, for that matter still is.

    The current Paragon PROPOSAL is an even bigger, 2 1/2 times bigger, “major casino”.

    Another side to this matter are the potential alternate uses. Yet more residential condo towers next to a major sports facility is not the brightest idea in the book. One would think even hotel patrons would want a little peace and quiet for their $250 a night, unless of course they’re in the casino until 4am.

    Other possibilities might include:

    1) a combination of base and towers offices – the VisionCritical block is across the street; the CBD needs space for office use (the problem might be timing for Pavco because office developers may not need this location for some time, but should expediency be the planning determinant?);

    2) why not put the proposed practice rink on this site tied into the Stadium, maybe with some offices uses as well + other related sports training facilities, etc.; do a land swap with the Plaza of Nations developer and put whatever (residential/ office, etc) further away from the stadium with better water views, etc.;

    3) is there some government or institutional use that can be a good fit with the Stadium – a physical education / sports training facility?

    What’s missing here, among several things, is that too many people are to close to their own interests. This includes the City. Everybody needs to step back, take a deep breather or two and come at this important bit of geography with more flexible mindsets and fresh eyes.

  • The Fourth Horseman

    Mezz,

    There is criticism with both process and proposal.

    Process has not been followed.

    Proposal (the expanded casino itself) is not looked favourably on by a majority of Vancouverites.

    That a “new” casino—not looked upon favourably by a majority of Vancouverites was even included by the City as acceptable use is a beggaring of the process.

    Seems clear to me.

  • Deacon Blue

    @ George #27

    Since the Reagan and Thatcher decade, we have been “housing” mental illness in our streets.

    You know—Smaller Government—except when it comes to gambling.

    What are your “Lucky Numbers”?

    @ Joanne #29

    I believe the question was asked on this blog as to what the ownership was on that parcel of land. I may be wrong, but the reply I remember is that is was the province.

    “Another side to this matter are the potential alternate uses. Yet more residential condo towers next to a major sports facility is not the brightest idea in the book.”

    McCreery 33

    I dunno Bill. Seems to me that the wall construction that is meant to keep out the foul smells and pollution, as well as the noise, from Pacific Boulevard traffic will prove up to the test to drown out the next Rolling Stones concert, or the cheering crowds at Grey Cup 2011.

    Downtown is a hip “mixed use, hi-density zone”. People that don’t want that should shop somewhere else.

    “That a “new” casino—not looked upon favourably by a majority of Vancouverites—was even included by the City as [an] acceptable use is a beggaring of the process.”

    The Fourth #34

    Yes, hat-in-hand Horseman and preferably on bended knee.

  • The Fourth Horseman

    Frances,

    Having a difficult time with this statement:

    ‘No, the city gave the Paragon proposal an edge because planners said they wanted job space, not just condos, in that area as part of a long-term plan to ensure that the downtown doesn’t become just a residential resort.’

    But they were Ok with a “resort” of some type down there, apparently? OK to so-so wages in hotels and casinos? Why didn’t they encourage some office towers/complex or more tech space where the Microsoft’s of the world would have adeuate space in a city that boasts no business parks?

    We already have lots of hotels and restaurants in this city—those are the first kinds of businesses to feel the pain when there isn’t enough of a diversified economy–and dicretionary income—to be had.

    What we don’t have in Vancouber is good space for the jobs of the future.

  • The Fourth Horseman

    Hmmm, maybe “Vancouber” not a typo?

    Rhymes with “goober”.

  • Ian

    “The most egregious misdemeanour I see on the record so far was when Premier Gordon Campbell announced a massive new entertainment complex and casino at BC Place in March 2010, as though it was a done deal and there were no rezoning processes to go through at the city.”

    Frances, with due respect I think you’re viewing this issue from the wrong angle and this sentence illustrates why.

    In March 2010, the casino was a done deal. The province has the legislative authority to build regardless of the city’s approval. They would have had to ride out a storm but they had the ability. That all changed as the political dynamic at the provincial level changed through 2010.

    So the real issue isn’t what the province did to the city. It’s what the province did to due process and taxpayers.

    That means it matters that, despite what the CEO and Chair told you by way of background, the Premier and the Minister told citizens something different – the new roof would be paid for through leases and development rights. Or at least that’s what they said at the announcement and in the Legislature.

    And it matters what happened in the period between January 2008 and March 2009 when the Request for Expressions of Interest went out. That’s the period when Paragon was working to get “the edge” as you put it that made the RFEI meaningless.

    To put a finer point on it, you can’t, in your words, give the Paragon proposal “an edge” in 2008 and consider the Request for Proposal process “fair” in 2009.

    And we have to remember that “edge” came in a process that was requested by, and partially paid for by PavCo.

    The other day you quoted Scott Menke as saying they began their work with the city to get a casino on the BC Place lands 4 years ago. That puts Paragon right in the middle of the rezoning process with Pavco.

    Lastly, I think its a little disingenuous to give the 2008 casino re-zoning a pass because the area is an entertainment zone as if that’s a carte blanche for any kind of entertainment. So sex shops would have escaped attention too?

    Whatever you think “entertainment” means, at the time it didn’t mean a permanent casino presence. The re-zoning was a policy change that gave Paragon a leg up – if it wasn’t why bother doing it in the first place?

  • PeterG

    The only reason that we are all having this discussion is that Campbell has (almost) left the building. If he were still around, the casino would be sailing merrily along. Now, some of our elected representatives are discovering that , yes, they really do have a backbone and maybe it’s now safe to peek from under the covers.

  • The Fourth Horseman

    @Ian #38.

    Two thumbs up.

  • Sean

    What? No conspiracy theories about how these machinations are all part of a master plan by Vision to divert attention from the bike lanes before the upcoming civic elections?

  • Ron

    WRT the size of the casino –

    At 114,000 sq ft – that still substantially smaller than the new Holt Renfrew at Pacific Centre. which is 137,000 sq ft.

    At which do you think people drop more cash?

    http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=c87bf747-cf1c-44c9-a8dd-23ba517b9a0f

    Football fields are not enclosed structures and should not be used to compare. It’s equivalent to a condo sales centre removing the ceiling on its display suite to make a space feel much bigger than it actually is.

  • Ron

    WRT the City dentying rezonig to force Concord Pacific to build the park at NEFC –

    The park is going to be the repository for contaminated soil from NEFC – the same way that both Andy Livingstone Park and David Lam Park are repositories for contaminated soil. Contaminated soil is stored in situ (on site) under plastic liners and monitored.

    Concord’s current course of action appears to be based on the sequence of building the park once the last project is being built (i.e. once all of the contaminated sol is excavated.) That makes sense from Concord’s perspective since it keeps costs down.

    However, there are alternatives.

    If the park is to be built now, then all of the contaminated sols from all of the sites at NEFC can be excavated now, placed under the park site, and then developed when the demand warrants.

    That would result in the same situation that was seen with International Village about 10 years ago – remember the “duck ponds” at International Village after excavation but before all of the sites were developed?

    The main downside would be the loss of those spaces in the interim (while they are open pits) – i.e. the current location of the Concord display centre and some of the surface parking closer to Pacific Boulevard. The upside would be the delivery of the park.

    No doubt the exercise would be costlier to Concord, so hopefully they would have the same amount of money to devote to the community amenity contribution – i.e. the NEFC dragon boat facilities to be located at the park.

  • S Garossino

    @Ian: This business about the province having the ability to build regardless of the city’s approval is a bit of a red herring. I only bring this up because so many people repeat this point without understanding the real legislative underpinnings here.

    The truth is the province has no power to over-ride the city here–they MUST have local host approval for an expansion or relocation of the casino, and this is mandated by the Gaming Control Act and its regulations.

    It is the Gaming Control Act–specifically s. 19(1)(a), which requires that the local host government or affected first nation approve the development or relocation of any gaming facility.

    The rules setting out the nature of the compulsory public consultation process that local host governments undertake pursuant to the Act, can be found in the Gaming Control Regs.

    The public hearing process we are engaged in is two-fold–it is both a municipal land use rezoning application AND a public hearing pursuant to provincial gaming legislation respecting the expansion and relocation of Edgewater Casino.

    Further, one other point being raised in the hearing by Councillors is moot–ie, the question as to whether members of the public would oppose the simple relocation of the casino. Section 10 (a) of the Gaming Control regs governs public hearings, and prescribes that adequate community input entails publication of the particulars of any proposed change. Meaning that if PavCo and Paragon want a relocation only, they have to come back with a detailed project proposal that the public can review.

    Nothing anyone says today about a theoretical move meets the standard for “adequate community input” as set out in the legislation. A detailed proposal has to be submitted. Meaning PavCo and Paragon have to re-start the process with a new application. Probably one of the many reasons they are saying this is an all or nothing deal.

    They know more than anyone that it is.

    The Province has no power to over-ride or by-pass local host approval unless it convenes and changes the legislation to permit this.

    This is a fine point, but it does make a difference, and to my mind explains some of the positioning being taken by PavCo and Paragon as the process advances.

  • mezzanine

    @Fourth at #36,

    I’m not the expert to say that process was followed, as max at #33 pointed out other examples.

    Of course proponents of the casino could have made more effort to be explicit.

    and the proposal?

    “[the] Proposal (the expanded casino itself) is not looked favourably on by a majority of Vancouverites.”

    IMO It would be accurate to say there is a strong opposition from community groups; i am unsure if there has been any polling done by the city to say that the majority of people oppose it. If you have any info otherwise, please correct me.

    And let’s say if you do poll people and the majority do not support gambling, would they make or not make compromises if it meant tax increases or limits to future growth in programs?

    It would be interesting to see what sort of conusltation burnaby did prior to them opening the expanded grand villa in ~ 2008.

  • Ian

    @sgarrison, you forget Bill 75, The Significant Projects Streamlining Act, which gives the provincial government the ability to override any municipal or PROVINCIAL law constraining any project the government deems “a significant project”. The government can, by following the procedures outlined in the act, override the provisions you noted in the Gaming Control Act.

  • Morry

    Frances: you are pulling our leg are you not?
    I am a bit concerned about people trying to build elaborate conspiracy theories out of what is sometimes just bad and incomplete reporting.

    Read Peter Ladner’s comments again…. it is not about a conspiracy … it’s about being led by the nose.

  • Morry

    forgot to add this link:
    Pavco can’t get its story straight
    http://bit.ly/f3QdAI

  • Frances Bula

    @Morry. No, I’m not. People are mixing up good questions about bad process with other pieces of stuff that are just poorly communicated information or incomplete news reporting. I see this all the time: A person is quoted in one medium saying one thing, another medium saying another. Everyone jumps on it, saying, “Oh, he’s shifty. He’s changing his story.” But all the reporters know that it’s just that different reporters asked different questions and were pursuing different stories. All I’m saying is, Don’t get sucked into attacks that are built on nothing. Focus on the real problems.

  • Frances Bula

    @Ian. I’m not sure I follow everything you’re driving at but I’ll try to respond to what I do understand. I think you’re totally wrong to think that mention of a casino got slipped in to the 2008 report. Everyone knew there was a casino already in that area. No one thought it was particularly newsworthy that it was going to stay in that area. It’s silly of you to suggest that anyone gave the entertainment zone “a pass” that would allow anything and everything, including sex shops. The uses were listed. Sex shops are very regulated in Vancouver and there would have been an uproar if they were included.

    What is unclear for all of us, when we look at that September 2008 report, is whether a) city planners and b) the province and Paragon knew at that time that there was a casino three times the size of the current one being planned.

    There are three possible scenarios.

    One. The province, Paragon, the compliant NPA councillors and the wicked city planners all knew exactly what was being planned and the report included the mention of the casino as an approved use in a deliberately deceptive way. In this theory, all those parties knew the casino was going to ask to expand massively but they counted on the public assuming that “casino” in the report just meant a casino of a similar size to the one that already existed. The city planners were possibly hypnotized by Ken “Dr. Evil” Dobell.

    Number two. The planners were dupes and had no idea what the province and Paragon were planning. (Ditto for councillors.) They put “casino” in the October 2008 report because the city had always envisioned having an entertainment zone, and a parking lot next to a stadium with no waterfront access seemed like a good place for it. But they didn’t know that anyone was thinking of tripling the size. But PavCo and Paragon knew and were relying on getting this city okay as a kind of Trojan horse. (Of course, one small problem: the city would still have to agree to a tripling of the capacity, so it’s not like they were home free.)

    Number three. The planners put in casino because that is what had always been envisioned for the area. The city had decided, in a controversial decision, to bow to the winds of change in 2004 and have a casino in that area, so no biggie if it’s included in the official plan. Neither PavCo nor Paragon had come to any decisions by then. But, over the next 16 months, as PavCo and Paragon talk (it’s not illegal to have discussions, btw), the two sides come to the conclusion that a big casino could help support a big stadium renovation and a big stadium renovation would help support a stadium.

    Does that mean the bid was rigged? Well, in the sense that PavCo and Paragon knew that there were all kinds of conditions that made it hard for others to bid on the development. Residential developers would be at a disadvantage because city planners had said over and over that they wanted job space in that area. If PavCo had given the bid to Concord, they ran into the possibility that city planners and ultimately council would say that a Concord residential development didn’t meet the objectives for the area.

    No other casino developers would be likely to bid because Paragon holds the only city casino licence there is, with no others available.

    The only other option would have been a developer willing to build a large amount of office space — that would have met city requirements. Was there someone like that? Would an office developer have been at a disadvantage because the province/PavCo would have seen offices as a much poorer return than a large casino? That’s what we don’t know. I note that the Aquilinis currently have a redevelopment application sign up next to Rogers Arena for an office building, so there is some interest in building office space down there.

    I really think it’s misleading to go around saying to people that a casino use was snuck into the area. It was there. Everyone was used to it. No one was particularly complaining. It’s the size of the proposed new casino and who knew what when the 2008 report was passed that are the uncertainties.