OLG Toronto/GTA casino proposal (where to put it?)

[MetroMan]

Wynne said the OLG must treat every city equally but she didn't say that the private sector had to. If MGM or Sands or Caesars are prepared to sweeten the pot, then Toronto could come out with a lot of cash. OLG could give Toronto $20M a year according to the current funding formula but the casino operator which has a huge incentive to locate in Toronto could work out a hosting deal.

There are other ways around this too. The Province can attach a major infrastructure project to accepting the casino which the Province would fund from those monies so that while indirectly, they would still go to Toronto. Say a waterfront LRT which could be justified to deal with the expected increase in transit demand.

This is too big a business opportunity for the operators and too big a windfall for the Province for the casino in Toronto to just go away. I don't think this is dead yet.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Wynne said the OLG must treat every city equally but she didn't say that the private sector had to. If MGM or Sands or Caesars are prepared to sweeten the pot, then Toronto could come out with a lot of cash. OLG could give Toronto $20M a year according to the current funding formula but the casino operator which has a huge incentive to locate in Toronto could work out a hosting deal.

There are other ways around this too. The Province can attach a major infrastructure project to accepting the casino which the Province would fund from those monies so that while indirectly, they would still go to Toronto. Say a waterfront LRT which could be justified to deal with the expected increase in transit demand.

This is too big a business opportunity for the operators and too big a windfall for the Province for the casino in Toronto to just go away. I don't think this is dead yet.

I think you're grasping at straws. OLG runs gambling in Ontario. They will not allow a side deal with the city. That's their cash, and they want it.

 

[themarc]

Leave the Casino's for Niagara and put a Maglev under the lake - the Casino would end up being a 10 minute ride away while the real estate market in Niagara would explode!

 

[Automation Gallery]

while the real estate market in Niagara would explode!

Except please a few here, what would that really do for Toronto

 

[nfitz]

... just proves to us just how stupid this woman is!

I've never seen any suggestion anywhere that Kathleen Wynne is stupid. Everything I've seen suggests that she's quite intelligent.

Surely her push to make sure Toronto gets the same formula as any other city is very smart. It both make sure that she's seen in the rest of the province as beating up on Toronto, helping her in the polls.. And guarantees that Toronto doesn't get a casino, which would help her locally in the polls.

 

[Landscape design ftw]

Casino is just bad idea all around, This city has some class right now "SOME" being the primary word here, a casino is anything but classy, assuming this isn't going to be a Monaco style casino only for millionaires. This city is based on high quality family and middle income living with low crime rate and beautiful parks.

 

[waterloowarrior]

The current formula doesn't treat Toronto fairly and funds small towns/cities disproportionately ... compare to Gananoque's casino- which earns about 3.5 million in the new formula and is getting around 5.1%

Meanwhile if Toronto casino gets $1.4 billion in revenue

5.25% on the 1st $65 million of net slot revenue ( = $3.4 million)
3.0% on the next $135 million of net slot revenue ( = $4.05 million)
2.5% on the next $300 million of net slot revenue (= $7.5 million)
0.5% on any remaining net slot revenue. ($4.5 million)

Toronto gets $19.45 million which is 1.4%, while Gan/Leeds* gets $3.5 million and 5.1%. It's in Toronto's best interest if everyone is getting the same deal, i.e. a flat rate
(*comparing the base fee - Gan splits its revenue with the surrounding rural Township since it's just outside Town limits)

 

[TonyV]

I've never seen any suggestion anywhere that Kathleen Wynne is stupid. Everything I've seen suggests that she's quite intelligent.

Surely her push to make sure Toronto gets the same formula as any other city is very smart. It both make sure that she's seen in the rest of the province as beating up on Toronto, helping her in the polls.. And guarantees that Toronto doesn't get a casino, which would help her locally in the polls.

Thanks. I thoroughly agree, Wynne is brilliant.

 

[TonyV]

David MacFarlane (now in The Star) says it best for me.

Casinos are negative. They're for losers. MacFarlane says it best -- how about exercises in positivity.

http://www.thestar.com/entertainmen...m_for_more_than_just_a_casino_macfarlane.html

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Oh look, now we know what the subway extension was for:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...dded-as-possible-casino-site/article10159812/

AoD

 

[jaycola]

While I would still favour a Downtown Casino, having it on the subway makes sense so why not add this site?
It's close to Canada's Wonderland and Vaughan Mills, near the 400 and on the 407's new Bud Rapid Transitway providing access for all the Markam gamblers. This would be a pale example and a much scaled down proposal but this site is probably better than the other second tier locations (Markham, Mississauga, Woodbine).

The striking thing is if they build it here, all of the hosting fees, property taxes, construction dollars and jobs will go to Vaughan and yet, because of the easy subway access, Toronto will still have the social costs to deal with. Looks like for Toronto, building it here is a lose lose option.

 

[RC8]

...and building it in Toronto is even more of a lose/lose option.

All in all, it's disturbing to see how Ontario continues to milk Toronto to subsidise all the unproductive towns in the province.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Star:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...val_and_at_least_100m_a_year_report_says.html

City Report (from the Apr 15-16 Executive Committee Meeting)

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.EX30.1

AoD

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

^Wow, that report presents an embarrassingly twisted reading of poll results and a number of conditions that have previously been declared as non-starters by OLG/the province. On the whole, the analysis reads as if it was mandated with the following instructions: "Please draft a report that recommends continuing to pursue a casino in some way despite the opposition of the public and the available evidence". Even after stacking the deck, the staff "recommendation" is that council should decide whether it wants a casino or not. Also, the report's source of economic impact calculations is unstated.

A few of the more entertaining aspects:

1. The "highlights of key findings" on the poll results (50-42% opposed in the Environics survey and 71-25% opposed in the public consultation feedback form) aren't even discussed in terms of their respective overall results. Instead, the discussion goes straight into the breakdown of poll results as between the former metro municipalities. Here's what the report's authors saw fit to highlight, rather than discussing why the overall results were against a casino:

• support for a casino is greater in the areas outside of the former City of Toronto
• 44% of those who support a casino cited job creation
• 58% of residents disagreed when asked if they would rather have the City raise property taxes to generate revenue than approve the establishment of a new casino

2. Some highlights from among the list of conditions the report recommends attaching to any council approval:

• The proponent will be responsible for funding transportation and other infrastructure it requires related to any casino development.
• The OLG must require the selected proponent(s) of an IEC (includes casino, convention centre and hotel), to execute and to implement a Toronto Casino Social Contract. Elements include harm mitigation strategies, social procurement opportunities, community use of space agreements for appropriate uses, and measuring and monitoring systems.
• OLG would include the Toronto C1 lands in its procurement process subject to entering into an agreement with the City. This agreement would ensure that the OLG include City conditions in its procurement process, which it will submit to the Minister of Finance for approval. An additional report by the City Manager would assess the results of the OLG procurement process and how City conditions will be met by the OLG and the proponent. If conditions have not been met to the satisfaction of Council, it could request that the Minister of Finance not agree to the business case for the proposed casino. Under the regulation as currently drafted, Ministerial agreement is required.
• Toronto should receive a hosting fee from gaming revenues that is equivalent to the total share the Province receives, but no less than an annual minimum of $100 million (adjusted annually to inflation).

 

[PinkLucy]

I wondered about that too ... or is it a way to say "we'll only take it if you give us ABC", knowing full well that ABC won't be forthcoming -- so it keeps the pro-Casino crowd happy that they didn't dismiss it out of hand, but it also keeps the no-Casino crowd happy because the conditions have already been dismissed ... or is it just shoddy work from the get-go?