Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Big, fat casino downtown likely to provoke “nasty discussion” at council

March 23rd, 2010 · 22 Comments

When I started working the city-hall beat in 1994, I was plunged into furious debates about casinos. The Mike Harcourt NDP government was entertaining a proposal to have a big, destination casino on the waterfront behind Gastown.

The NPA city council of the day took the public opposition to that and ran furiously with it, holding all kinds of public meetings to allow people to rant about the evils of gambling.

Now, here we are, 16 years later, with that Las Vegas-style casino back on the city’s front door. Here’s what the current council has to say about the issue now: No, they don’t expect anything like the same opposition to gambling. But they do think local residents won’t be happy and, at the very least, will be expecting the city to extract some concessions in return for plunking Bellagio down in their midst. But the city has no bargaining chips, as it turns out.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Norman

    Please explain the comment “the city has no bargaining chips”. I believe the rule is still in place requiring local municipal approval? In any case, it can now be demonstrated with the cutbacks in funding to nonprofits that there is little benefit to having a casino anywhere.

  • Joe Just Joe

    I’m not sure on the limitations of the zoning but BC Place has already been preapproved for 700,000sqft of commercial space. So if the Casino were to fit within that size, which it would, then there is limited ablity by the city to get anything in return. The Casino licensing is done provincially and with Edgewater closing, it would just be a transfer of the existing license, so I don’t know if there is an opportunity for the city to do anything there. The only issue I can think of is if there are limited restrictions on what types of businesses could operate within that zoning in which case the city would have something to work with.

  • Frances Bula

    But the province has certain rights on land it owns and the city doesn’t have quite the same powers it does with a private developer to restrict land use. As well, the city already gave away any power it had to bargain for benefits when it made a decision in 2008 that any development profits from that land would be used to pay for the BC Place roof replacement.

  • JP Ratelle

    I recently read on canada.com that in Regina, a group of native elders, had started negotiations with the big band down in Florida to put up the cash for a $1.2 Billion retractable roof stadium, hotel and casino complex – in exchange for the rights to operate said casino from the Saskatchewan government.

    Could Gordon Campbell be taking a cue from Saskatchewan on this one. With his about face on native rights and issues in the province since 2001, maybe he’ll throw everyone a curve ball.

    Let’s see:

    The 4 host nations get to operate the casino:

    Providing:

    A) They make the mortgage payments on the new roof.

    B) They take down the billboards infuriating non-Squamish members.

    That’s just to start.
    Does anyone else want to play this game?
    It could be quite fun!

    Would ANYONE dare oppose an inclusion of the 4 host nations on a plan to build the grandest casino British Columbia has ever seen (as part of Gordon’s legacy or course)?

  • Chopped Liver

    What about the people who live there, shouldn’t they be the ones to have a say?

    There are a lot of families and retired people living in this condos, it is their neighborhood and casinos were not part of the plan when they moved in.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    Casinos, no thanks. Friend worked in one for a while. As bad as his experiences working graveyard shift, or worse, he reported. The employment picture doesn’t seem too attractive.

    Vegas? Worst urbanism ever. Two freeways really, run through town. The interstate behind the casinos, and the main drag right up the middle. People aren’t allowed on the Interstate, but walking along the main drag is a dwarfing experience. There is no connection between the Casinos. It is as if one had regional shopping centers lined up one after the other for about a mile and a half.

    By definition, the Casinos turn inwardly on themselves. The idea is to create this nether world—no night, no day—and never let you out until you’ve been completely wrung dry. That means that they suck the life of any street that they come in contact with.

    When you move out into the residential areas you get a look at the kind of income the Vegas Casinos provide.

    Monaco has the best idea. A site away from the center, but not too remote. A world class operation, but just that: One site, not more.

    Family entertainment? Not for my family.

    Here’s another proposal to vehemently oppose.

  • booge

    This will be the final straw …. I can see a large rusty nail slated to be hammered into the re-election hopes of the liberals.

  • Shane

    Has there been a media expose on the impact of the growth of gambling in the Lower Mainland? I hear that one of the biggest factors in compulsive gambling is proximity to casinos.

    Here – we have “neighbourhood” casinos (sounds like a terrible concept) in the middle of our communities. This is not like Vegas where it is an international destination exlusively for gambling and other excesses.

    I’m no puritan – I love Vegas, but I don’t know if I like how our governments have become rather addicted to ruining the lives of many citizens.

    Stats need to get out in the open, and I haven’t seen much from the media.

  • Peter Ladner

    This is another step in the insidious march of gambling into our lives. What is the benefit to the community from this proposal other than sucking dollars out of mostly vulnerable low-income people, especially compulsive gamblers whose ensuing pains and miseries are very real, even if the surrounding neighbourhood doesn’t notice?

  • Gassy Jack’s Ghost

    “the city already gave away any power it had to bargain for benefits when it made a decision in 2008 that any development profits from that land would be used to pay for the BC Place roof replacement.”

    Isn’t BC Place owned by PavCo, a provincial crown corporation which also owns and operates the 2 convention centres? Why would the City have any responsibility, or right, to negotiate funding and payments for a new roof on BC Place? The City doesn’t own it, why do we have to pay for it (or give up the right to compensation in the form of amenities to pay for it)? The BC Gov site says funding for BC Place roof comes from the Liberals’ “Capital Plan”, there is no mention of the City being involved.

    Can someone please clarify what the deal was? I kind of feel like I’m being swindled here somehow…

  • Bill Lee

    Bargaining chips for a casino?

    I think that people dislike the lotto and casinos if they have been involved or connected to the social problems.

    BC Lotto now hides from view in On-line Lotto picks. And only the “lesser classes” line up for the various tickets in the corner store. Someone might do a Saturday count at the Kerrisdale and South Granville outlets some time.

    But the press doesn’t get on it. There are fewer killings, loan sharking exposed in Richmond, Burnaby, New West or Vancouver.

    And no one know s the odds and the range of ‘incalculable risks’ that the odds represent.
    In 649, what are the odds of winning anything? Few know odds beyond 100 to one.

  • landlord

    The odds? No secret : http://www.bclc.com/cm/gamesense/knowtheodds.htm

    Lee and Ladner should know better. Get off your high horse. The condescension and moral superiority (“vulnerable low-income people”,“lesser classes”) is distasteful. Make your own moral choices and leave it at that.

    If there were no legal gaming, illegal gaming would have a monopoly. Is that what you want?

    The state must eventually legalize and regulate all of the revenue sources which currently sustain criminal enterprises : drugs, prostitution, gambling. Then use the proceeds to treat the problems which result.

  • jimmy olson

    oh my my Landlord hope yo never get elected:
    “The state must eventually legalize and regulate all of the revenue sources which currently sustain criminal enterprises : drugs, prostitution, gambling. Then use the proceeds to treat the problems which result”
    shame…

  • landlord

    Why would I want to be a politician? It’s easier just to buy one.

  • Winston

    Landlord is right. Anyone who thinks you can eradicate social illnesses like drugs, prostitution and gambling is a fool. Far better approach is to regulate and tax and use the proceeds to educate the public and provide treatment to those who fall victim. Our current laws and naivety are responsible for the scale of these problems in our backwards society.

  • Chris Keam

    “Regulate” and “actively encourage as a means of revenue generation” are two very different approaches IMO.

    A third approach might be to work harder at addressing the root problems which result in addictive behaviours and criminal activity.

  • Chris Keam

    “The condescension and moral superiority (“vulnerable low-income people”,“lesser classes”) is distasteful.”

    I didn’t see a reference to ‘lesser classes’. Gambling is often targeted towards low income individuals. To suggest otherwise is truly naive.

    Google ‘Kerrisdale Bingo Parlour’. No results.

    Google Vancouver Bingo Halls for a visual confirmation that wealthy neighbourhoods
    aren’t a prime target for this form of gambling.

    http://tinyurl.com/vanbingo

  • Dave Duchene

    Landlord, that sounds like a fantastic idea, except that you’ll notice that our provincial gaming company, like all “public” gaming companies, works it’s butt off to encourage gambling, not discourage it.

  • spartikus

    “When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill done.”

    -John Maynard Keynes (not really speaking about a literal casino, but you get the point)

    We would also be exponentially increasing our chances of She Who Must Not Be Named opening some sort of show here…and no one wants that.

  • Urbanismo

    If the only game in town is floggin’ luxury condos to off-shore millionaires, then what’s left?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnspC0c1Sws

    Vancouver lost its wealth creators decades ago . . .

  • landlord

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/teachers-buys-uk-lottery-operator/article1512452/

  • Norman

    The argument about providing legal alternatives to illegal activities has been used to justify legalizing pornography, prostitution, alcohol and gambling, not to mention those who would like to see legalized, pardon me, “decriminalized” drugs. It is bogus. In a civilized society we do not have to reduce our principles to the lowest common denominator.