Richmond needs a full service casino

Opponents to allowing expanded gaming in Richmond are well organized and extremely vocal. However, I would suggest the volume of protest is grossly disproportionate to the numbers involved.

Might I suggest council obtain creditable confirmation of the numbers involved. Perhaps this overwhelming concern for the moral standards of other people will lead this group to pledge and indemnify the community for the total of forfeited gaming dollars.

This should not exceed a few thousand dollars per year, per person. Personally, I would then cease my objections to their shrill protests.

Casinos are legal. Why is the whole issue treated as if it were an agreement to contract some dreadful plague?

The benefits accruing to the municipalities of Burnaby and New Westminster are massively larger than that in Richmond. (ie-$5,884,648 to Burnaby versus $1,920,000 to Richmond) Further note should be taken of the probable departure of Richmond's present casino, thus reducing Richmond's share to zero.

A large number of the patrons of the casinos appear to originate in Richmond, but their contributions are made to other municipalities.

The previous councils appear to have been fiscally inept, expending our reserves upon the municipal "Taj Mahal," a monument to monetary madness.

I ask how many fire stations could have been erected for the outlay on this monster?

Are the current council members willing to follow in the path of the previous incumbents? Are they willing to forgo an annual rebate of $5 million (more or less)? And if this path is chosen, does council honestly feel that the four per cent of problem gamblers now resident in Richmond will magically mend their ways and join the protest group?

If council truly deliberates these questions, I feel the answer becomes evident. We must bring in a full service casino to help maintain our city, and consign to the dustbin the proposed four-per-cent-plus annual increase in taxes that we have been advised to expect in perpetuity.

Time to re-evaluate our councillors

Now is the time when we should re-evaluate all councillors running for office this November.

Who is advocating running our city on funds being exacted from those who can least afford it? I mean those unfortunate people who are addicts.

Do we run our city on the backs of people who have no control over their addiction, what the hell is happening to elected people who are supposed to be working for the good of the community?

Gambling is gambling no matter what name you put on it, and there are two types of people who gamble-those who can place a bet, lose and walk away from it, and those who cannot walk away because they are constantly trying in vain to make up for their losses.

Why has this even come back for debate? We have previously told council how we felt about this.

We have the Great Canadian Casino for those who want to spend their weekly paycheque.

Why do we need slot machines that are mindlessly addictive? Is it to mess up even more families' lives?

In my opinion running a city on the backs of addicts and their families is obscene.

Anyone who advocates it does not deserve your vote.

Social costs must also be taken into consideration.

Too bad some of our councillors seem to be unaware of this.

We've already said 'no'

As a youth, I'm wary for what the future holds, especially when those in leadership in our community are considering expanded gambling.

Maybe I'm just na•ve, but is government really just as fickle as it seems? In 1997, the issue of expanded gambling was put to rest and now, only four years later, it is back on the table. What has changed?

City council is just like a young child. It keeps pushing the issue until it eventually gets what it wants. Obviously, there is a lot of resistance towards expanded gambling in Richmond. The people have already given a definite and resounding 'no' on this issue.

I am proud Richmond is a place with excellent facilities and a low crime rate. What does council want Richmond to become? The joke among my friends is that Surrey was created to keep the 6 o'clock news interesting.

Expanded gambling has no place in Richmond and I don't want to have future generations grow up in a place that accepts gambling, an activity that is morally wrong.

It is all well and good to say that revenue from casinos benefit the community by providing extra funding for schools and community facilities. However, any extra money that is generated for Richmond will go directly back into the community-but not to help the children and those programs that really need financing. Instead, the extra money will be necessary to combat an increased crime rate that will surely result.

There is only so much money to go around

There is much we do not know about gambling because we lack the data, research and studies.

But one thing we do know-those who can least afford it spend a disproportionately large part of their income on gambling.

When government preys on the poor on my behalf, it makes me feel like a pimp. I prefer a tax increase.

Also, the argument in favour of expanded gambling is full of holes. For example, the Great Canadian Casino claims it creates 60 jobs. They want us to think these are brand new jobs that would not otherwise exist. Nonsense!

There is only so much money to go around. Money spent on gambling might otherwise be used for theatre, or golf, or feeding the kids.

Similarly, the claim that the city will get $6 million more in revenue is bogus. How much of that amount would come to the city anyway via increased activity in other forms of recreation? We don't know.

The staff report makes no mention of it. The most pertinent facts are missing.

Why place a tax on the poor, court more crime, and increased marital and family stress, addictions, bankruptcies, and lower job productivity when the benefits are so dubious?

Gaming pro...

Re: expanded gaming proposal for Richmond.

I think it's a good idea to have slot machines in Richmond as it helps people to get jobs and government to have more money to spend.

...and con

What is the motive of having gambling? Money.

No other reason can take this place.

How many councillors want gambling beside their homes?

This is selfish, money oriented, and only good to the owners of casinos and the people involved in this business. It is wrong.

The big gamble

Our company has operated a community casino at 8440 Bridgeport Rd. in Richmond for more than 15 years and our corporate office, which employs more than 60 full-time personnel, is also located in Richmond.

Since 1987 charitable organizations have raised millions of dollars through our Richmond casino.

We are a responsible member of the Richmond business community and have worked closely with police and government.

Richmond RCMP reported no increase with regards to crime associated with our current facility. Our company supports a program developed to spot problem gaming and offer assistance via counseling and hotline numbers to people who show symptoms.

Great Canadian Casinos Inc. currently operates a "table games only" facility that is too antiquated for today's modern gaming standards. We proposed to build a full service entertainment facility with slots, table games, restaurants, and other key components including a live entertainment and dinner theatre so that guests may chose from a wide array of entertainment options.

At the May 13 Richmond council meeting, a speaker against gaming expansion was quoted as saying that in Alberta, the casinos there are only allowed 100 slot machines except during Stampede, which allows 250. The facts are far different; Alberta Casinos are allowed as many slot machines as the market will bear per location (Casino Yellowhead in Edmonton currently operates 700 slot machines).

It is a fact that a very small minority of the entire population can be classified as problem gamblers. That includes legalized forms such as casinos, horse racing, lotteries, bingos and raffles.

A recent customer satisfaction survey conducted by the B.C. Lottery Corporation conducted at the Richmond casino site showed the number one request was the addition of slot machines to the gaming mix. We are asking for new games that will compliment our facility.

The Washington State Tourism Office of Trade and Economic Development reported that 102,018 people from B.C. visited casinos in Washington State in 2000 spending millions of dollars. Every day Washington Casino operators provide two 55-passenger coach line buses that pick up Richmond residents from Lansdowne Mall and travel to Washington State.

Richmond is a vibrant burgeoning city that has seen tremendous growth over that past decade. We ask the citizens of Richmond to keep an open mind with regards to the question before council and understand that regulated gaming is part of the fabric of B.C. We as a company are asking for a full service casino and entertainment facility that will compete with other jurisdictions and offer safe, fun, and responsible gaming for the residents of Richmond, the Lower Mainland, and the lucrative tourism market.

We strongly feel that the City of Richmond, the provincial government and the countless charitable organizations will benefit from the revenue derived from slot machines and the consumer will benefit from the entertainment value received.

Tourism will also benefit from a full service casino through the added revenues from bus tours, groups, and added people who will make Richmond and the entertainment facility a destination. People who wish to participate in legalized gaming request slots as they provide unique form of entertainment for a very small cost.

Higher taxes would be a safer bet

The award winning city of Richmond is one of the most picturesque and well-managed communities for families.

It boasts 1,200 acres of park land, running tracks and playing field, plus theater, art gallery and museums. Its cultural heritage draws numerous tourists. It has received more than 40 awards in recent years and is the third largest film production area in North America.

We have the fourth lowest residential property tax in the Lower Mainland. This, despite our having such a high standard of living and access to 500 city services.

Our city is facing a financial crisis and is seeking ways to continue supporting the many services and community organizations. As responsible citizens we need to encourage our city council to increase our taxes.

Taxes are a normal part of life in Canada. We cannot seek to continue to enjoy such a high standard of living without giving back to the city in which we live. Richmond is not a poor city and we are told we own more cars per household than other cities. Some houses are lavish and huge. Yet there is a great outcry when taxes are even mentioned.

There has to be a greater balance between our standard of living and the amount of taxes we pay for our quality of life.

City council is advocating 300 slot machines (a different version of the dreaded video lottery terminals) for Richmond to seek to reduce taxes. But by allowing more gambling, we are inviting higher social costs.

As gambling relates to individuals, the poor are disproportionally represented-those who can least afford it. At a provincial level the province with the highest per capita in gambling is Nova Scotia. One of the habitual "have not" provinces.

It is ironic that in a province that has had the Nanaimo bingo scandal and currently has a former premier on trial with respect to gaming house licenses, we are being offered the chance to step deeper into the mire.

If every household in Richmond (approximately 50,000 households) increased their taxes by $75, it would equal the amount to be gained through the proposed gambling, without sacrificing social costs. Providing this is the main concern of our city council.

In the past, city council has made short-term decisions with long-term repercussions, for Richmond residents. Council members serve for a limited time, but their decisions can last a lifetime.

We need responsible council members who will protect the welfare of the citizens. We also need residents who are willing to give back to the city which gives us so much.

Not worth the cost

As someone who has been involved in the social service sector as an executive director and as a board member, the funding of social service programs through gambling revenues is a very familiar issue.

Some of the organizations that I have been involved with have refused to apply for gambling revenues on the grounds that the small amount of money allocated to charity pales in comparison to the destruction that gambling causes in many families. Others decide that, while gambling is morally wrong, the shortage of funds for charitable organizations compels them to take it. Either way, it is never an easy decision for an organization to make.

Increasingly organizations feeding the hungry, organizing amateur sport, counseling the addicted, building affordable housing, providing support to families, etc., are being forced to rely on gambling revenues. This will be aggravated when the impact of the Liberal cuts is felt in many organizations supporting families living in poverty or requiring counseling.

Many school parents advisory councils rely on gambling revenues as their main source of funding-councils who apply get $40 per student from the B.C. Lottery Corporation. This increasing reliance on gambling revenues to meet the needs in our community and schools is an indication of the values we place on these services-precious little.

As someone reminded me this week, how can we tell our youth that gambling is wrong when their playground, their soccer balls, their textbooks have come from gambling revenues. Only a small portion of gambling revenues goes towards charitable causes, with the bulk of the profit going to the owners of the casino. Shouldn't we be funding the services that are needed in our community through other means rather than through the heartache many families suffer when gambling becomes an addiction, losses cause bankruptcy and in some cases suicides?

Councillors, please do not justify expanded gambling by pacifying the community with the possibility of increased funding for community services. Gambling is wrong-whatever ways the profits from it are used.

Moral outlook

Hurray for Coun. Sue Halsey-Brandt ("Gambling is back on the table," May 9) for expressing the wishes of many as far as gambling in Richmond is concerned.

If the city council does not have a moral outlook who then will help to protect our city?

Let's get rolling

After four years, my response to expanded gaming is still a definite yes. I'm sick and tired of being nickled and dimed to death into our already small retirement allowance by a cash-strapped city hall.

If we decide not to have a full service casino in Richmond, there is no guarantee that one won't spring up on Sea Island by the native band.

Social problems know no boundary. Crimes can be committed here by those who lost in gambling in another city. Worse yet, we will be tricked into believing that since there is no gambling in the city, we can remain a bedroom community where crime won't touch us.

Richmond is a dead city after dark-too many regulations and no place to bring visitors to. Come on, let's get the town rolling.

Keep expanded gaming off the table

Here we go again.

All of us were hoping that the issue of expanded gambling in Richmond had been laid to in 1997. However, it doesn't seem to be the case.

Why are the citizens of this wonderful community being subjected to revisiting this controversial issue again? It is rather unfortunate that our city council and staff are even considering this possibility knowing that less than five years ago, a vast majority was opposed to such a move.

In 1997, the citizens of Richmond had sent a very clear message on this subject.

It appears that the situation in this regard hasn't changed much since then.

One can empathize with Richmond city council in its search for additional funding for the city. However, such funding should not be at any cost. Certainly, it should not be from expanded gambling. Other than more money to the city coffers, one can hardly think of any benefit to the city.

However, on the flip side, the disadvantages of expanded gambling are too numerous to mention. Unprecedented increase in crime, more police officers, extra pressure on social services, more dysfunctional families, increased juvenile delinquency and above all, a breeding ground for organized crime are just some of the fallout from such a move.

Hopefully, after weighing all of the pros and cons, our worthy city councilor will decide to re-affirm this community's policy of no expanded gambling.