Let’s make a deal on gambling in Nickel City

There’s little room for grey in Sudbury’s great casino debate, where opinions tend to be set in stone and open minds are hard to find.

Instrument of ruin or path to prosperity? Just another entertainment option, or a relentless vacuum, sucking money from pockets of the less fortunate? You can make the argument either way.

While volumes have been written on the topic of casinos, few studies have been backed by hard data. And case studies tend to come with caveats.

For example, the casino industry had a major positive economic impact in New Orleans, but that was after Hurricane Katrina. The casino in Windsor is struggling, but that’s at least, in part, because Detroit has opened its own facility right across the border.

And Detroit’s casino had a positive economic impact in that city, although things were so bad before, you could argue any economic activity was bound to improve things. Whether you support or oppose Sudbury’s casino development, there are stats and case studies to support your point of view.

Complicating matters in Ontario is that the casino-building program announced in May 2012 is coming at the expense of the province’s horse-racing industry, which has relied on a share of gambling revenue from slots facilities at racetracks to survive.

Understandably, the industry has mobilized opposition, mounting a campaign to convince Ontarians the province should leave well enough alone.

More recently, new Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne has been signing deals with Ontario racetracks, providing them transitional funding to allow them to continue operating.

While talks are ongoing, no deal is yet in place for the Sudbury Downs racetrack in Chelmsford.

Muddying the waters even more is Wynne’s minority government status. Should the Liberals fall at Queen Park, there’s a real chance the entire process could be put on hold until after a provincial election.

Depending on who comes to power, there could be more delays or even a halt to the entire process.

Driving the casino modernization program is the same pressure that led Bob Rae’s NDP government to introduce the original slots program in the early 1990s: revenue, or, more exactly, the government’s desire for more revenue without raising taxes.

At the time, Rae was in charge of a government trying to manoeuvre through a deep recession. Billions in debt, then finance minister Floyd Laughren introduced the slots program, outraging many in his own party.

Today, the province again sees casinos as a means of boosting revenue. The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. estimates that, once complete, its modernization program will add as much as $1.3 billion in new provincial revenue.

It also expects the program will add 2,300 net new jobs and 4,000 jobs in the service sector.

Cities will also get a larger share, increasing to 5.25 per cent of the first $65 million of net gambling revenue; three per cent of the next $135 million; 2.5 per cent on the next $300 million; and, 0.5 per cent of all remaining revenue.

In Sudbury, there are hopes a casino developer will foot part — or all — of the bill for some amenities that have been languishing on the city’s wish list for years: a convention centre, an arts centre, even a new OHL arena.

Critics say anyone who thinks the private sector will build any of those amenities for the privilege of running a casino is dreaming. But at least one company bidding on the project — Caesars Entertainment – said if they come to Sudbury, building amenities will be part of the deal.

But to some, any potential positive masks an ugly reality. Many Ontarians still see gambling as dirty money that relies on taking from the poor and addicted. If it’s built downtown, where it would be accessible to more people, there are worries problem gambling would spike.

A 24-hour facility could increase policing costs and there are worries about the impact on crime rates, property values and nearby businesses.

The converse argument goes that most people are not problem gamblers and enjoy it as a form of entertainment.

They will spend their money somewhere — online, at under-the-table establishments, at bingos, on scratch tickets, lotteries, etc. Better to harness that revenue for hospitals and municipal services than allowing it to go to companies with Cayman Island addresses, the argument goes.

With the OLG expecting to choose a bidder by the end of the year, Northern Life is going to attempt to bring a level of clarity to the debate, to go beyond the rhetoric and opinion and try and give a better picture of what we can expect if a major casino is built somewhere in the city.

In a three-part series, we’ll look at the economic and social arguments, for and against, and see what sort of impact the experts say a casino will likely have on the Nickel Capital.

Stay tuned. You can bet it’s going to get interesting.