Posted Feb 14, 2013, 4:29 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,729
|
|
The Spectator’s View: Flamborough-only decision too restrictive
(Hamilton Spectator, Howard Elliott, Feb 14 2013)
In a few hours, barring a surprise development at the last minute, Hamilton city council will probably vote to be a willing host for a casino, but only if it’s at Flamboro Downs, the existing home of slot machines.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, council said at the very outset of the casino discussion/debate that Flamborough is its preferred location. But whether or not it is wise to put such heavy restrictions on the location of a casino within the Hamilton gaming zone is another matter entirely.
There are other options. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation has made it clear council is currently only being asked to express interest in new OLG operations in the zone. If council says yes with no conditions, a request for proposals would go out, and OLG would shortlist and select a winner. The winner would operate Flamboro for some period of time — three years is bandied about as likely — before submitting a second proposal for new and presumably expanded gaming capacity.
But that proposal would still have to meet the approval of the parties involved, including the city and OLG itself. Hamilton could say yes, but it could also say no. OLG is clear that it will not impose a casino on a community that does not want it, so the city decision would determine whether the proposal goes forward or dies.
Council could also say yes to hosting a casino, but not downtown. That would mean OLG would call for proposals with that condition attached, and proponents would have to respect that restriction. Kingston recently did something similar.
So, why restrict OLG’s call for proposals only to Flamborough? The Hamilton gaming zone is very large. Is council quite positive there is no other piece of real estate that could be a viable home for a new casino and would not have the negative impacts that so concern downtown councillors and residents?
There is a very good chance Flamborough is not a viable site, from a business perspective. The cost of providing adequate water and sewer services is massive. Would the city have to foot any of that bill? The site is also on provincial green belt land, so it would require special permission from Queen’s Park for any expansion. Losing green space to gain a casino complex is not going to be an easy sell.
Council is leaving the door open to other sites only if it can be convinced by potential operators that Flamboro Downs is not viable. Fair enough. We expect potential operators will make that case and it will be interesting to see council’s reaction.
Our view is that council should be less restrictive, especially since it still has the ability to say no later. That would bring more potential operators out in the open, as compared to Flamborough, which is bound to be less appealing overall.
And keep in mind there’s an election in a year-and-a-half and OLG estimates it will take longer than that to develop and approve a new casino.
So a referendum question on a casino could be included on election ballots for minimal incremental cost, giving council much improved ability to measure public opposition and support overall, and for specific locations as well.
All that may still happen. But it would be a more complex and arduous process if council makes the most restrictive choice on the table.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
|
Prev
Linear Mode
