Ouch! But RioCan is right. Weaknesses in the pro-casino pitch are increasingly clear. And it’s up to responsible city councillors to respond with a well-deserved knockout blow.
RioCan, Canada’s largest real estate investment trust, was joined by Allied Properties and Diamond Corp. in opposing a gambling mega-complex proposed for the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. Executives from all three firms signed a letter to the city warning that local infrastructure would be severely stressed by what’s proposed.
The group correctly noted that a traffic nightmare could result on Toronto’s already congested streets. And it concluded that, on balance, the harm done by a downtown mega-casino would outweigh its potential benefits.
Ironically, the city’s public health staff reached the same conclusion in a report being considered by the Toronto Board of Health on Monday. An earlier analysis warned that a casino would increase problem gambling and cause social harm. The latest report looks at the impact of big-time gambling on “community health” — such issues as jobs and neighbourhoods.
It shows a mixed result. A huge downtown gambling complex would indeed create jobs, but probably not as many as casino advocates claim. The authors of the report note that the unemployment rate in Niagara Falls didn’t significantly change after a casino opened there, and the experience of other communities shows that only about half of casino workers actually live in the city where they work.
A casino’s impact on tourism was considered “mildly positive” while its role in aggravating crime was deemed neutral, although with a possibility that offences might increase.
The neighbourhood level is where a casino’s impact would most be felt and here the verdict is all bad. Traffic volumes would increase, snarling movement in the downtown. Air pollution would also rise, along with noise and risk of traffic accidents. Increases in drunk driving have also been linked to a casino’s presence.
Public health staff concluded that “a new casino is likely to have greater adverse health-related impacts than beneficial impacts.”
None of this comes as good news to Godfrey who, in addition to chairing the board at RioCan, heads the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. He tried to downplay the significance of RioCan’s casino opposition, noting he had always encouraged people on either side of this issue to make their views known. Fair enough. But Godfrey’s failure to win support from the company whose board he chairs gives casino opponents a telling argument against him.
As these points mount up, casino foes are gradually dominating the closing rounds of this debate. That’s entirely as it should be: they have, by far, the strongest case.
Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Editorial
No comments:
Post a Comment