Comments on: Casino Free Castlegar

By: Yard Fresh Eggs

Yard Fresh Eggs — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:01:43 +0000

[...] idea of Urban Chickens to communities in the Kootenays, starting with Castlegar, our home. After a long discussion with a local reader about the proposed gaming centre in Castlegar, I received a comment agreeing with many of the [...]

By: Kira

Kira — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:01:59 +0000

Yes it certainly does.

Before I go, one more thing. I may not agree with everything here, but most I do in a big way. I applaud your efforts for getting the message of peak oil out there….some people (should I say demographic group) can’t grasp the changes to come. On a more local level, I hope that you keep building support for chickens (goats not too sure) – after all, what’s the big deal with 3 hens? Geesh, you can have a pit bull, but not a hen? I heard that Vacncouver was considering chickens couple of weeks ago, not sure how that went down…

By: Mike Thomas

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:50:07 +0000

Thank it s really interesting thesis you’ve linked to – http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/retrieve/690/etd1551.pdf
It does point to the fact that municipalities do hold a lot of power and responsibility in the process of establishing a gambling facility.
Anyway, we’ll see if the developer actually starts work on construction in the Spring or early Summer. If not, it could be a long way off. Again, thanks for the discussion.

By: Kira

Kira — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:36:45 +0000

Good point – I knew I was out there with the religion spin, but I often play the role of devils advocate…
(Although I do remember around the Air India time and the religious violence of the 90’s in Surrey that citizens groups there were mobilizing trying to prevent the establishment of churches of certain religions….)

I’m still not sure where I stand on the gaming centre, but I felt that the conversation here was not balanced.

I agree wholeheartedly with where you were going with your last comment. To rely on gambling revenue for regular operations is too risky, rather it should be put to something else the community needs, like affordable housing partnerships maybe….

http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/retrieve/690/etd1551.pdf

By: Mike Thomas

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 04:02:17 +0000

Well said on many fronts. The government doesn’t make money off religion, but a portion of BC’s budget is from gambling revenue – makes it difficult to be objective about it. We still permit cigarettes to be sold in Pharmacies? Again, tax revenue – even though we know the danger.

The City was presented with an opportunity to bid for the “right” to be the site of a new gaming center in the Kootenays, (Rossland and Trail, as well as possibly Nelson were bidding for the “honour”). There are many factors in a decision such as this, and the City did take all of them into account. The weighting of those pros and cons may not have been to my liking, but I’m not on Council. It is their decision. We, as residents should feel assured that they approach every situation and proposal with an open mind as there are always two sides to the coin. The City had the choice to make not just a financial, but a moral decision, it’s not like the government said, “we demand you have a gaming center”, rather they actively sought the opportunity. Was there a staff or consultant report on the opportunities and risks of the proposal to councilors, or did they rely on BC Lottery and the developer to provide statistics?

Is the City relying on the income in the 2009 budget? If so how much?

Nice to chat, and thanks for your thoughts.

By: Kira

Kira — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:11:39 +0000

One more regarding the social consequences and the role of a city government in passing judgment. Many could argue that religious conflict has caused more deaths and, thus destroyed more families, in the past than gaming centres. So, should communities forbid churches because of this? Of course not. Someone higher up the government ladder has decided the pros of religion out way the cons, as they have casinos. If someone has a personal problem with either one of those decisions, it doesn’t seem to make sense to try to change the world by asking their local city to pass judgment. As I indicated in the previous post, I think it’s location should help mitigate social problems and it will not conflict with other land uses – seems that is the appropriate role for a city.

By: Kira

Kira — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:20:59 +0000

Sure,

- Seems to me that the location will help mitigate social issues, as it is a ‘destination’, rather than a stroll down the street in an area with the most vulnerable.
- You’d think the best location would be near the hotels, but it is probably located in the next best area, as it will not conflict with other land uses.
- Land use changes over time. I agree that ‘destination’ facilities probably will decline in popularity as gas prices rise in the future, but it is not like money is being poured into roads that changes every hundred years or so.
- As a ‘destination’, it will probably attract people from throughout the region, thereby benefiting local business.
- It will provide local employment.
- I assume Castlegar will benefit from the taxes they collect from it.
- You talk a lot about the social impacts of gambling, and that seems to be your biggest concern. But it is legal and therefore not the role of a city to make moral judgments, as you seem to do. Perhaps your beef should be directed to the province or feds?
- Lastly, with respect to your comments on drinking and driving. This seems like the best location, as, with one way out, enforcement will be relatively simple. I don’t buy the view that it’s location will encourage drinking and driving. Any ‘destination’ facility usually generates vehicle traffic. Whether it be a horse racing track in the lower mainland or a hockey arena in Kelowna, both which serve alcohol. The difference is that, with the location of the gaming centre, it would be relatively simple to provide shuttle service.

Like you, I am not a planning expert, and just provide comment – to be taken with a grain of salt.

btw, it is Kira. And my partner is Alex. And no, I did not expect anonymity by using a fake email, as any fool knows a thing or two about IP addresses. However, I do not give out my personal email to just anyone.

By: Mike Thomas

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:11:37 +0000

Thanks for clarifying – did you have a comment you wanted to make about the gaming centre? It seems to have dropped off the radar about town.

By: Kira

Kira — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:07:43 +0000

nothing offensive was intended….I was simply curious about what your planning education and experience leading land use projects was. I figured it must be extensive for you to consider yourself an ‘expert’!

By: Mike Thomas

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:54:34 +0000

Seven years experience in land development and urban design has taught me a thing or two about land use. I agree that this is not equivalent to a masters, that certainly wasn't my intention. However, this experience does give me the right to discuss the appropriate context for various proposals from a position of knowledge rather than, as you seem to assume, speculation. I'm so glad I can have this discussion with someone at somewhere dot com. Next time use your real email address, anonymity is not guaranteed by leaving a fake email. In case you were wondering, rude or offensive comments will be deleted. btw - Is it Kira or Alex?