7 responses so far ↓

• 1 RossK // Apr 6, 2010 at 9:30 am

  Mr. Campbell has a point.

  In fact, the patriarch of what is now Paragon, Mr. William Bennett (current principal Diana Bennett’s father) made no bones about the fact that he was going downmarket, on purpose, when he originally built his Circus Circus empire back in the early ’70′s.

  Another aspect of their turn around strategy is to build capacity fast.

  Very interesting historical document on Mr. Bennett (who is not the ultra-conservative with the gambling problem) can be found here..

  _____
  For anyone interested, my take on the current state of big casino developments and the Paragon turnaround strategy can be found here.

  .

• 2 Rick in Sooke // Apr 6, 2010 at 3:28 pm

  It’s too bad that most of those who commented on Charles Campbell’s piece (and, I suspect, many who will comment on this one) have missed the point. This caino and hotel and stadium roof WILL go ahead because there’s money to be made, particularly by those who are the current government’s favourites. Arguments about morality, right and wrong, collateral damage, poverty, whatever, do not make any difference these days, and haven’t for quite some time. If the economy tanks again and there suddenly is no money to be made, then the moralists will be “granted” a win, and the project will not go ahead. Thirteen years ago, people paid some attention to these things, and so the casino proposals got shot down – or maybe there just wasn’t enough money to be made at the time to force the issue.
  If someone credible (to those who will benefit) can put together a strong business case for a casino that will generate more profits by fleecing the rich, as Campbell suggests, then just watch how quickly this particular casino proposal does a one-eighty.
  In the meantime, I fail to see the point in constantly going over and over how terrible gambling is. Would’t it be more productive to develop strategies to ensure that damages and negative consequences are paid for by those that can afford them?

• 3 Todd Sieling // Apr 6, 2010 at 8:40 pm

  I really can’t see a proposal to build a casino as anything but heartless pigs in the trough. As with so much of life, the Simpsons have it covered with Mr. Burns saying of his casino that he’s found the perfect business model: “people come in, empty their pockets and leave.”

  Great vision, BC Liberals. Great vision.

• 4 Evilfred // Apr 7, 2010 at 8:49 am

  This is nuts. I’m not against casinos per se but there is already the Gateway right there! What Vancouver desperately needs is more medium sized performance venues. With Richards on Richards gone especially. Building one would cost less than a casino, might be considered more moral, and would help alleviate the no-fun city problem. Casinos are so tacky middle America.

  I hope the city doesn’t go along with this plan. Maybe they should pass some bylaws further restricting the functioning of casinos within city limits.

• 5 Mick // Apr 7, 2010 at 4:24 pm

  If you don’t like the casino, don’t go in. If adults are going to gamble, they’re going to gamble. Let’s make sure the building is architecturally pleasing and fits as best it can in the neighbourhood but let’s not kid ourselves that by somehow not building it we’re preventing gambling addiction. That horse left the barn ages ago.

• 6 RossK // Apr 7, 2010 at 8:53 pm

  Mr. Holman has just dropped another bombshell…..

  Turns out that Campbell government insider Mr. T. Richard Turner, the fine fellow that called the Minister for the Marshmallow about the roof before the Casino deal finally closed, actually had a common business interest with Paragon, the Las Vegas pleasure palace builder, way back in 2003 when he was still the Chair of the BC Lottery Corporation.

  .

• 7 Bill Smolick // Apr 8, 2010 at 10:17 pm

  Disgusting.

Leave a Comment