Urbanist Richard Florida thinks a Toronto casino would be an “unmitigated disaster”
With the politicking already underway on the prospect of a swanky Toronto-area casino, we were craving some straight talk on urban gambling dens. Enter imported urban theorist (and trick-or-treating expert) Richard Florida, who bluntly rejected the idea on Metro Morning earlier today. “If you polled virtually every urbanist and everyone who’s studied urban economic development—Conservative, Liberal, NDP, right, left, centre—everyone would agree that casinos, as an economic development tool, are an unmitigated disaster,” Florida said. His rationale: the costs associated with keeping a casino open, like a higher police presence to deal with more crime, far outweigh any of the cash it would generate. Florida also sarcastically described Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation chair Paul Godfrey as “uniquely qualified among all economists who ever studied that issue in the history of the world.” Yikes. Imagine what he’d say about Godfrey’s plan to open a temporary casino while the permanent one is being built. Listen to the entire segment [Metro Morning] »
(Images: Richard Florida, Ed Schipul; casino chip, Sam DeLong)
 Richard Florida, who bluntly rejected the idea on Metro Morning earlier today. “If you polled virtually every urbanist and everyone who’s studied urban economic development—Conservative, Liberal, NDP, right, left, centre—everyone would agree that casinos, as an economic development tool, are an unmitigated disaster,” Florida said. His rationale: the costs associated with keeping a casino open, like a higher police presence to deal with more crime, far outweigh any of the cash it would generate. Florida also sarcastically described Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation chair Paul Godfrey as “uniquely qualified among all economists who ever studied that issue in the history of the world.” Yikes. Imagine what he’d say about Godfrey’s plan to open a temporary casino while the permanent one is being built. Listen to the entire segment [Metro Morning] »
(Images: Richard Florida, Ed Schipul; casino chip, Sam DeLong)){kind=link}
Wondering if R Florida has the numbers to back up his assertions. I don’t think he’s wrong necessarily but would like to know this is based on hard evidence and not some “tail wagging the dog” situation where an economic argument is being developed to fight an aesthetic or urbanism opinion. There’s plenty of. Ass studies here in Canada – Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Halifax …
And by “Ass studies” I mean, of course, case studies. Damn autocorrect.
Forget about the revenue for the Province that a casino in Canada’s biggest, international tourist destination could bring in…what about the simple fact that it would be an enjoyable addition to our already amazing city. Who doesn’t like going to a casino once in a while? Instead of going to a douchey king west club, our local “power players” would surely enjoy ‘dropping their loads’ at a swanky casino in the heart of the city. This number-cruncher has clearly never had a night to remember, something that we can create an provide to people both from Toronto, and our guests. Let’s face it; it’s not like anyone is coming here for a Leafs game any time soon…(yes that hurt as much to write as it does to read.)
-Born and Raised
casino cash ftw
i have problem with a an American university Professor Elitist telling Toronto what to do…Sorry, I question your qualifications and your political motives.
Building casinos is a lot like building sports stadiums: the main beneficiaries are the owners. The jobs are low wage, and problem gambling doubles within a 50-mile radius of the new casino. Read about the proximity effect of casinos.
I like to gamble, and have gambled in at least a dozen states in the U.S. A factor that appears to affect how quickly players will lose is the rate at which the state or city taxes gaming profits. The worst case in the U.S. for gaming taxes is Maryland, which taxes gaming profits at 66%, and Nevada taxes gaming profits at 7%. If a casino operator expects to make a “normal” profit in a high gaming-tax state, it seems reasonable that the house would try to win more money than usual form the customers. This can come from “tighter” slot machines or less favorable rules in blackjack, such as paying only 6:5 for a blackjack.
We’ve also seen a rise in so-called “carnival games”, like three-card poker, Let it Ride, and Caribbean Stud Poker that have a higher house advantage than traditional table games.
The ultimate situation to avoid risk on the part of the state may be the California card rooms, which charge a fee of $1 per player per hand of blackjack. The top bet is $500, but the fee is the same whether one bets $5 or up to $500. Players are offered the chance to “bank” the game, and there are people who “bank” professionally, and they will have $10,000 or so in chips to use to back the bets. A full table will collect about $500 an hour in table fees.