Brandon Construction

[rrskylar]

http://www.westerninvestor.com/regio...es/story2.html

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by newflyer

I am assuming that the "us" you are is society ... and the "return" you are refering to is the social services paid for via government profits of siad casinos.

Your agruements would hold more water if these casinos were privately owned, but in Manitoba thats not the case.

As far as the Crystal Casino .. it was a tiny casino on the 7th floor of the Hotel Fort Garry. It could be considered up scale, since it was in the Fort Garry, which was more of a piliot project to see if casino's would work in Manitoba, and yes it failed because rich suburban types didn't want to venture downtown during off hours.

Sure, the government probably makes cash off of these casinos but what are we actually talking about here ? We're talking about money that people want to spend because in the best case scenario, they don't need it. So why do they have to blow it at a casino for the government to get its take ? Seems to me that this money would be re-circulated as disposable income one way or another. Let's say that somebody eschews the casino and buys a television instead...the government still gets its cut of %7. Instead the government sets up places where enough people who already live hand-to-mouth can really hit rock bottom. Those people, no matter how seemingly small their number might be , definitely cost us signifcantly more than they'll ever put back into the government's coffers. Sure, if it wasn't gambling then maybe it would be drugs or booze. The point is ; Why is the government facilitating self-destructive behaviour for , let's say %5 of casino patrons when it could get its cash from all others any other way ? To me this is like saying that "one in twenty people doesn't count...but it's okay, they're just poor and miserable people already anyway." We got along pretty well without casinos before so what changed and what makes them such a great idea now ?

We already know that for a big chunk of the gamblers in this province, it isn't a game. That's why every VLT comes with a pamphlet that lists a hotline to call if gambling is a problem for anybody. The idea being that since every person with a gambling problem is a net drain on the system the government would prefer to invest a a hundred thousand bucks in a hotline than have to pay out $10,000,000 in social programs to deal with the effects of problem gambling.

[newflyer]

While I agree that casinos are not socially beneficial ... the province shows significant financial returns on these facilities, even after paying for gambling treatments. A whole US State was developed off the proceeds of gamling.. and now Manitoba .. Ontario .. Saskatchewan and many other provinces want there piece of the action, as do the natives.

The same arguement could be made for booze ... its not a benefit to society in any way, but still it is demanded by the public and the government is able to make a sizable income off its sale, even while many people abuse this product and require professional help.

The same can also be said for cigerettes and lottery tickets... can't see how people who are on welfare and choose to buy some smokes and lottery tickets are making there lives any better. "Hey dude .. buy your kids some food and clothes.", is what I want to say.

While it would be best that the weakest in society would not be allowed to gamble, smoke or drink .... the fact is you can't penalize all of society for the weakness of a few.. or can you.

I believe in the free rights of the individual, but I will keep these wise arguements in mind the next time I'm in Vegas gambling in billion dollar casions and having a great time.

When the new Brandon Casino opens, I am sure it will be filled mostly by middle income residents from the city. The fact the city desided to not benefit from realized property taxes and the chance to draw more people to an area like the Keystone Centre or downtown, is little more that blind idealism that Brandon can be an island.

[Spocket]

^I understand your point and to some extent I agree with you. Like you , I don't believe in the nanny state either but that doesn't mean I like the idea of the government facilitating the ruin of people for revenue. Booze and smokes are taxed to the hilt and the logic is the same ... the government figures that it spends more dealing with the consequences of the abuse of those products than it gets in revenue from their sale. Any casino on the outskirts of Brandon would be little more than a pariah.

One more thing though : Vegas doesn't make its money off the locals. If you blow your life savings at the Mirage , Vegas doesn't have to pay to keep you clothed and fed. You fly home and it becomes the problem of whatever local government you call your own. Of course, the local government might not give you anything and if that's the case , that's when ideas like robbing a bank start to sound good. It's never "revenue neutral" when an individual hits the bottom and turns to desperate measures to stay alive.

[newflyer]

Yes ... it is very true that Vegas has become a tourist mecca and the many monster hotel casinos stand as evidance, but have no doubt that there are thousands of locals who live, breath and sleep the Vegas lifestyle... to extreme levels.

Endless amounts of gambling, mega latenight clubs, legalized sex trade ... and the 24 hr non-stop lifestyle, which is Las Vegas, is more than only a tourist attraction. It is the life blood of the city, which has earned the title of Sin City and is consumed by many locals to excess. Vegas was one of the fastest growing city's in the US.. and it is the Vegas lifestyle which was drawing them in.