News   Jul 12, 2024
 901     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 806     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 334     0 

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

If the existing casinos were already meeting all the potential demand for gambling in the GTA, there would be no casino proposal now. The point of the new casino is expansion - that's the word the OLG actually uses. So yes, it is about attracting new gamblers, and some of them will turn out to be problem gamblers.

I didn't say that.....I said that if I had a gambling compulsion...I would/could find a place to do that now.....If I (as I am) am relatively indifferent I would not go out of my way to gamble but I might go once or twice a year to a convenient casino for a night out with friends.....I am suggesting that whatever the "normal" ratios of problem to casual/controlled gamblers is it would not come into play in this scenario.
 
I didn't say that.....I said that if I had a gambling compulsion...I would/could find a place to do that now.....If I (as I am) am relatively indifferent I would not go out of my way to gamble but I might go once or twice a year to a convenient casino for a night out with friends.....I am suggesting that whatever the "normal" ratios of problem to casual/controlled gamblers is it would not come into play in this scenario.

Some people would be exposed to gambling for the first time by a new downtown casino (that's is the OLG's actual plan). And/or it would be first time they have had such ready access to one. Those factors alone could easily tip some people over to problem gambling.

Before Ontario had casinos, you never ever saw ads for problem gambling hotlines etc. Now they are commonplace. Increased access to casinos ALWAYS means an increase in problem gambling.
 
I didn't say that.....I said that if I had a gambling compulsion...I would/could find a place to do that now.....If I (as I am) am relatively indifferent I would not go out of my way to gamble but I might go once or twice a year to a convenient casino for a night out with friends.....I am suggesting that whatever the "normal" ratios of problem to casual/controlled gamblers is it would not come into play in this scenario.

Actually, TO, I think you're actually saying that we will add to the problem gambler population. New facilities will attract new customers, including some non-gamblers who will become addicted. It's not the current gamblers - casual or problem - that OLG wishes to attract to the new digs. It's newbies, some of whom will get hooked. A new casino will beget new problem gamblers, if it does expand the pool of gamblers, as planned.
 
Actually, TO, I think you're actually saying that we will add to the problem gambler population. New facilities will attract new customers, including some non-gamblers who will become addicted. It's not the current gamblers - casual or problem - that OLG wishes to attract to the new digs. It's newbies, some of whom will get hooked. A new casino will beget new problem gamblers, if it does expand the pool of gamblers, as planned.

Yes, I said that......there will be some...the newly identified "problem gamblers" will not be zero...I said that. But if there is a statistically "normal" percentage of problem gamblers then those in GTA are likely largely (not totally) identified....as a problem gambler will find a way to gamble and there are lots of outlets in/near the GTA for that activity. The casual gambler probably does not go out of their way to gamble.....so those are less served by the current options.

In the area of gambling, I consider myself relatively normal........that is I could take it or leave it. The only time I have ever been in a casino is because I happened to be in a city that there was a casino handy (New Orleans, Regina, Vegas and Niagara)....in no instance did I travel to a "casino" but I was in town for other things and took in a night out with friends/associates......

...I think a casino will identify new problem gamblers but not in the same statistical averages you might see overall.
 
As I understand it, research literature indicates that proximity to large casino greatly increases the chances that non-problem gamblers or non-gamblers will eventually turn to problem gamblers. Proximity to such places also means problem gamblers are more likely to relapse.
 
As I understand it, research literature indicates that proximity to large casino greatly increases the chances that non-problem gamblers or non-gamblers will eventually turn to problem gamblers. Proximity to such places also means problem gamblers are more likely to relapse.

I would love to see that research..not to dispute what you/they say but to understand what the definitions of casino they use and how far away they have to be. Certainly we have gambling in the city already and we have a government constantly running ads reminding us of the very nearby casinos.
 
CP24 and the CityNews Channel kept promoting (generally music) shows in Rama (just north of Orillia) and in Niagara (mostly Fallsview, not Casino Niagara) (and even in Caesars Windsor) as well. Therefore, it is not just the government advertising casinos, "news" channels are as well, and it is partially hampering the message about gambling problems.
 
I would love to see that research..not to dispute what you/they say but to understand what the definitions of casino they use and how far away they have to be. Certainly we have gambling in the city already and we have a government constantly running ads reminding us of the very nearby casinos.

That research is not hard to find. This is just one of many, many books and studies: http://www.casinowatch.org/books_on_gambling/luck_business.html

Do you think the Toronto Board of Health and CAMH et al are just making it up? That no one has ever really looked at the issue?

Thing is, you don't even have to check the research, just look around you. Ontario didn't use to have casinos, and it didn't use to have gambling addiction problems. Now we have both. What does that tell you?
 
Different cities, different outcomes? Or more of the same? Or perhaps the casino proposed in our city will more akin to a traditional sort of casino rather than an integrated resort?

IMG_6151-600x400.jpg


More than a year ago, Revel, the last casino to be built in Atlantic City in nine years, opened its doors to the public. At the time, Revel’s future seemed rosy: Its first weekend saw Beyonce’s triumphant return to the stage after giving birth to her daughter Blue Ivy, and revenue forecasts—albeit based on nothing but conjecture—were positive.

[...]

But in the 12 months since its illustrious debut, Revel has lagged behind, coming in 11th place out of 12 in terms of revenue in a ranking of Atlantic City’s casinos. It has now filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

[...]

A big part of Revel’s downfall can be blamed on the economy. Soon after building on the project began, in 2007, the recession hit hard. Things were looking so bad that in 2010 Morgan Stanley, the project’s initial backer, withdrew financing, resulting in a nearly billion-dollar loss and halting construction of the project.

[...]

Christie placed a large emphasis on Revel as a catalyst for change in Atlantic City. Not only would the casino be in a largely undeveloped district of the city, but it would also be less a place of gambling than a full-blown lifestyle resort, like the hot spots in Las Vegas. As a result, the Revel is monstrous: Its 6.8 million square feet hold 1,898 hotel rooms, 14 restaurants, a 31,000 square-foot spa, multiple shops, two concert venues, two nightclubs, and 130,000 square feet of gambling floor.

But it lacks two key features of most casinos: a gambling floor in which smoking is allowed, and a cheap buffet option for dining. The designers of Revel also broke with typical casino design principles by showcasing views of the ocean, as well as using natural light to illuminate the gambling floors. A typical casino is a hot bed of artificial lighting designed to never change allowing gamblers to forget about time and the natural progression of the day, leading to marathon sessions of betting. These parts of the design, while somewhat humanizing, have proved unsuccessful in the only part of the project that matters at this point: generating revenue.

The state of New Jersey, the financiers of the Revel, and the casino’s architects all took risks on this project. They had hoped the Revel would usher in a new luxury era in Atlantic City. But some habits—and traditions—die hard. In the end, what most AC visitors want is to smoke while gambling, eat cheap buffet food, and forget that there’s an ocean (or any life really) outside the casino.

The Revel is a hulking reminder of big dreams going wrong and gambles not paying out. No amount of spin can change its dismal performance. City planners and state legislators looking to casinos as sure ways of generating revenue should take note of this cautionary tale.


http://www.architizer.com/en_us/blo...asino-was-doomed-from-the-start/#.UYxCe8r-lod
 
Last edited:
Different cities, different outcomes? Or more of the same? Or perhaps the casino proposed in our city will more akin to a traditional sort of casino rather than an integrated resort?




http://www.architizer.com/en_us/blo...asino-was-doomed-from-the-start/#.UYxCe8r-lod
Good grief ... how can New Jersey - the state that banned fried eggs being served sunny-side up because of the salmonella risk of the yolk not being cooked - possibly still be allowing people to smoke in establishments! I'd have thought the liability risk alone from employees with cancer would have terrified them.
 
Reality is, that with the internet, gambling is in people's homes now, so if access is the issue a casino is the least of their worries. They have access to all the sports betting and online poker that they can handle not to mention proline and lottery at any given corner store. Board of Health and CAMH also write alot about smoking cigarettes and alcohol abuse but it hasn't stopped the government from making money off of these vices which also add additional healthcare costs to our system. I don't gamble, I don't think a downtown casino is a good idea, but I definitely don't think it would be the end of civilization as some are making it out to be.
 
Reality is, that with the internet, gambling is in people's homes now, so if access is the issue a casino is the least of their worries. They have access to all the sports betting and online poker that they can handle not to mention proline and lottery at any given corner store. Board of Health and CAMH also write alot about smoking cigarettes and alcohol abuse but it hasn't stopped the government from making money off of these vices which also add additional healthcare costs to our system. I don't gamble, I don't think a downtown casino is a good idea, but I definitely don't think it would be the end of civilization as some are making it out to be.

I think this has been addressed in the research. For some weird reason, the various forms of gambling are more addictive to some than others. So someone might be able to totally ignore online poker or whatever but get hooked on slots very quickly, and vice versa.

I don't think anyone has said a Toronto casino would be the end of civilization, but it would be a disaster for some people.
 
Urbancorp and First Capital running ads opposing the Casino

I have never seen a company actively work against a public initiative through buying newspaper ads. What do you think? This was in Mertro News yesterday And it's made to look like it's very grassroots


ATTACH=CONFIG]13058[/ATTACH]
 

Attachments

  • no casino page 2 metro add8f2ee80-0b4d-44cf-b7f7-cba65766f835.jpg
    no casino page 2 metro add8f2ee80-0b4d-44cf-b7f7-cba65766f835.jpg
    83.6 KB · Views: 235
Per CP24 Twitter Feed - read from bottom up


Ford: "I will not support a casino if it is not in the best interest of Toronto. I said that at the beginning and I'm a man of my word"

Ford cancels special meeting on casino scheduled for Tuesday, says issue will be discussed at the June council meeting instead.

Ford says province has not yet confirmed funding formula re: Toronto casino. "I'm sick and tired of playing games," he says.

Ford said hosting fee would have gone towards supporting transit, revenue towards easing community housing backlog

Ford: If province won't agree to $100 million for hosting fee for casino in Toronto, the deal is dead.

Ford talks about putting a casino in T.O. and his support for it. Says "he's not married to (idea of) casino, I never campaigned on casino."
 
^The fact that they clearly identify themselves (including corporate logos, fer chrissakes!) undercuts any argument that they're astroturfing. I prefer this transparency to groups like Harper's "National Citizens Coalition" that consist of 1, corporate-funded, tubby, middle-aged, Ayn Rand fetishist who lives in his parents' basement.
 

Back
Top