Public polls show majority of Barrie residents don’t want casino downtown

By Bob Bruton, Barrie Examiner January 8, 2013  

Barrie councillors received a staff report Monday detailing four opinion polls showing city residents don’t want a casino as part of a hotel/convention centre in the downtown, but took no action on it.

They didn’t discuss the polls, the report, or the merits of a downtown casino.

“This is in effect a ‘no’ to a casino in Barrie,” said Mayor Jeff Lehman. “Council’s action is not to proceed.”

Council will consider final approval of this inaction next Monday.

A random telephone survey in the city shows 52% of respondents are opposed to a downtown casino, in conjunction with a hotel/convention centre, 83% of those who responded by mail and e-mail are against it, 59% of online feedback is opposed and 92% said no on feedback forms during a meeting last month.

Coun. Michael Prowse and Coun. John Brassard had asked council to determine public opinion on a downtown casino. After seeing the results last week, they said the idea had run its course. Both councillors said this process gave Barrie residents every opportunity to voice their opinions on the downtown casino.

City residents were asked to respond ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question — ‘Barrie is considering a new casino to be operated by a vendor on behalf of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) solely as part of a hotel/convention/conference centre in downtown Barrie. Do you approve of a casino solely as part of a hotel/convention/conference centre in downtown Barrie?’

The city also received letters about the casino issue.

Dr. Charles Gardiner, medical officer of health for the Simcoe County District Health Unit, voiced his opposition.

“The proportion of the population with problem gambling has been found by research to increase with the availability of gambling facilities,” he said.

The Barrie Christian Council, comprising pastors and Christian leaders, is also opposed.

“Casinos promote the windfall mentality marketed by lottery corporations and governments and mitigate against the disciplines of scholarship, hard work, diligence and perseverance, the very values upon which our nation was built,” said president Les Galicinski. “This mentality is destructive to our young people and we should not be encouraging it by putting a casino where high school and college students can easily access gambling.”

The Barrie Downtown Neighbourhood Association is also opposed.

“A casino would be competition for dollars currently being spent in existing bars, hotels and restaurants, and would cause the failure of some of the existing businesses,” said association co-chairman Ben Strudwick.

The Downtown Barrie Business Association (BIA) has said it supports, in principle, a casino as part of a hotel/convention centre in the core — with conditions relating to size, branding, supporting retail, etc.

The city also received a letter Monday from Michael Beckley of Marriott Hotels and Resorts, noting it remains interested in the Barrie area for a hotel development with other uses. He noted if Barrie is selected by the province for a casino or other gaming uses, that could have a favourable impact on the feasibility of a hotel/conference facility.

“Marriott has successful gaming partnerships in Canada and we have had our eye on the Barrie conference/hotel marketplace for some time,” Beckley said.

The OLG, a provincial government agency, wants to hear from municipalities in various parts of the province about their interest level in allowing a private casino operator.

The commission made a presentation to Barrie’s finance and corporate services committee in September about the OLG’s modernization plan.

Another one was made Dec. 13 during a transportation and economic development committee meeting.

A majority response from city residents favouring a casino would not have meant Barrie would be chosen for a site; the OLG would still have to decide if there are vendors interested in operating here. The commission expects to choose its new gaming sites in 2013.

Seeking public input is the first step, and a legal requirement, in a new gaming site being established in a municipality; the city must ask the public what it thinks about having a casino.

Barrie’s public consultation results could have been used by council to help determine whether or not it will pass a resolution supporting a city casino – which is the next step in the OLG’s process. Then would come zoning approval for the property and entering into a host municipal funding agreement with the OLG.

The city continues to seek a development partner to build a hotel/convention/conference centre at Bayfield and Simcoe streets, and a casino could increase interest. Having a hotel/convention centre as part of the city centre is considered a key strategic economic development objective for council.

There are economic benefits to a casino. Georgian Downs contributes about $4 million a year to Innisfil, which lowers taxes and funds strategic city projects with the money. The OLG has 1,000 slot machines at Georgian Downs; operation began in 2001 and it has generated $46.2 million for the Town of Innisfil since then.

But there are also social consequences. The OLG says it contributes more than $40 million annually to Ontario’s problem gambling strategy.

The OLG oversees or directly operates 24 Ontario gaming sites, and during the last seven years has contributed between $1.7 billion and $2 billion annually to the province.

 

By Laurie Watt Barrie Advance  Jan 08, 2013

BARRIE – Barrie won big-time, as it turned down a downtown casino, says a councillor who suggested investigating the idea.

Ward 6 Coun. Michael Prowse – who chairs the city’s finance committee – said he and economic development committee chairperson Coun. John Brassard wanted to bolster investor buy-in for a downtown convention centre.

“We saw (the casino) as an opportunity to improve the business case for a downtown hotel/convention centre,” Prowse told The Advance.

Barrie has repeatedly worked with developers on a plan for a hotel/convention centre that would have frontage on Lakeshore Drive and Bayfield Street and overlook Memorial Square. None have come to fruition.

“Responses (to the casino surveys) seem to indicate that the idea of a casino outside the downtown would have received more support, but that was intentionally not what we asked. Council wanted to explore feedback on the idea of a casino in the downtown as part of a hotel/convention centre.”

Hearing from about 2,000 residents, Barrie sidelined any further discussion of a casino.

“This is effectively a no to a casino in Barrie,” said Mayor Jeff Lehman, as council accepted a report that outlined public disapproval.

Prowse, however, said the outreach, which included a telephone survey as well as an online survey and a public meeting, was “the largest piece of community participation that we have ever undertaken prior to making an important decision for our community.”

A random telephone poll conducted Nov. 22 to Nov. 26 had residents almost equally split, with 52 per cent not supporting the idea of adding a casino to a downtown hotel/convention centre. More women opposed the casino than men – 57 per cent as compared to 50 per cent. Strongest opposition occurred in Wards 3 and 8, both ringing in at 58 per cent against, followed by Ward 2, at 53 per cent.

Mail and email responses were even more stark. Almost 83 per cent of respondents said no to the idea of a casino, with comments.

Online feedback forms had 59.4 per cent opposing the idea, and at an open house on Dec. 13, 92 per cent of feedback forms submitted opposed the plan.

By Adam Martin-Robbins Yorkregion.com Jan 08, 2013 

Vaughan’s casino debate is expected to flare up again later this month, The Citizen has learned.

A city staff review of a controversial casino study commissioned by the City of Toronto is scheduled to be discussed at the Jan. 22 committee of the whole meeting at city hall. It is open to the public.

Council decided to review the Toronto study, prepared by Ernst & Young, following public outcry over a proposal to spend between $25,000 and $30,000 for a consultant to explore the potential impacts of allowing a $1.5 billion entertainment and casino complex in Vaughan.

A number of municipalities are weighing the costs and benefits of hosting such a facility since the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. (OLG) unveiled its plan to “modernize” gambling in the province, which includes a proposal to build a new privately run, publicly regulated casino in the Greater Toronto Area. 

A casino will only be built in a municipality that has passed a resolution expressing a willingness to allow such a facility within its borders, OLG has said.  

To date, Concord/Thornhill North Councillor Sandra Yeung Racco and Regional Councillor Deb Schulte have openly voiced their opposition to hosting a casino in Vaughan.

The city staff review of the Toronto study is meant to help other council members make a decision on the issue. 

But many of the study’s findings have come under fire since it was released in late October.

Most recently, it was found to have inflated the amount of money Toronto would receive in the form of a provincial “hosting fee”. 

The study speculated Toronto could reap as much as $168 million per year, but an OLG spokesperson recently confirmed the amount is actually somewhere between $50 million and $100 million.

The size of the fee would depend on the capital cost of building the casino-resort, OLG spokesperson Tony Bitonti told The Toronto Star.

“If it’s a $2-billion facility, you’re looking at a certain (fee) amount, and if it’s a $3-billion, then you’re looking at a little bit more,” he said, noting that bigger projects also put bigger pressure on municipal roads and other infrastructure.

The study has also been criticized for relying on unaudited statistical data from sources including OLG, which fervently backs casinos, and other big-time casino operators. 

Some critics have pointed out that in calculating the GDP benefits of a casino, the study’s economic impact model does not take into account the effects of substitution — when a casino becomes a “substitute” for existing entertainment venues, essentially taking money from existing businesses.

Thus, opponents say, the study only presents a partial picture of the financial impacts.