I must say my gentle support was also spurred on by some of the opposition. As one opponent said on CBC this morning, her opposition began because non-profits were not getting the money that had been promised by the province. Rick Cluff quite rightly said in response, “well isn’t that a provincial matter, rather than a municipal issue?” Yes, she said, but she subsequently had concerns about gambling addictions, the size of the building, etc. etc.
So I am not broken hearted that the project has been rejected. There were many other aspects about it that troubled me, that I have previously set out on on various blogs. However, I think it is worthwhile to speculate on what might happen next, both in terms of the future of this site, and where a major destination casino might land.
With respect to the latter, the Fourth Horeseman wrote on Frances Bula's blog: “stop listening to Michael Geller’s alarmist screed, please.”
I assume this is a reference to the fact that I did on one occasion report on CKNW that I had heard others suggest that a casino might locate on the Squamish lands at the South End of the Burrard Street Bridge. I emphasized that I had no first hand knowledge that the Squamish Nation was even considering this, but added that Casinos often locate on native lands elsewhere.
Ironically, this might be a greater possibility now, because of two recent decisions….one, Council has rejected an expanded casino downtown; and two, the Squamish Nation band members have rejected changes to their land code that would have made it easier and more financially attractive to develop condominiums on their lands.
Personally, if the casino is going to relocate to another site, I think there’s a greater likelihood of a major casino now being developed in Surrey, perhaps on the lands adjacent to King George SkyTrain Station. I say this since a major mixed use project including a casino was contemplated in the past for this site. It could happen….
Now as for the BC Place site, I’m troubled by another statement by the Fourth Horseman on France's blog:
“that David Podmore said, as he has said for the last few weeks, that not expanding the casino will not affect the improvements at BC Place and that taxpayers will “not be stuck with the cost”.
Which is a significant departure from what was first said.”
What I heard David say was that the BC Place roof and other improvements would not be impacted by a rejection of the casino. Well this should be obvious to all, since the works are underway and cannot be stopped.
But I am confused by “taxpayers will not be stuck with the cost”.
The cost of the BC Place improvements will not be paid for by increased beer and hot dog sales. It was hoped that the sale and lease of the adjacent lands would be a major contributor to the cost. While the casino was only contributing a portion of the total cost, the amount was not insignificant.
Council and staff have said emphatically that they do not want to see more condos on this site. Instead, they prefer commercial activities that will create jobs. I agree with this position. But I am a bit stumped when it comes to what might be alternative uses.
Yesterday I was called by CTV who asked me about the future of this property. Might we see a major shopping centre? No, I said…pointing to the nearby International Village as an example of a failed major retail undertaking. What about hotels? Well, new hotels in Vancouver are not generally viable without some form of ‘subsidy’. Condominiums are the best way to subsidize a hotel, but we don’t want condos here.
An expanded casino might have subsidized two hotels, but I doubt whether we’ll see two hotels without the expanded casino. I do think hotel may be a viable use in the future, noting there is a hotel next to Rogers Stadium in Toronto. But it is a bit of a longshot, without some supporting uses.
So, unless there are sufficient development revenues, one way or another, taxpayers will be ‘stuck’ with the cost of the BC Place improvements….they may not be just Vancouver city taxpayers, but they will be taxpayers…that’s where the province and Pavco get their money!
A final observation. Earlier this year on CKNW, Frances Bula, Jim Green and I generally concluded that the casino expansion was a ‘done deal’. On two occasions we discussed it, an neither conversation generated any phone calls…so the topic was dropped.
A week later, I got a message from Pete McMartin asking me if I had heard anything about opposition to the casino. I told him that I was aware that Sean Bickerton and his False Creek neighbours had been opposed to the casino for some time, and were trying to organize something, but he noted this was ‘old news’.
Howevever, I am told that Bickerton brought on Judy Rudin who brought on Peter Ladner and Bing Thom. Sandy Garassimo was also actively drumming up opposition and soon many, many others started to sign on and the opposition gained momentum. Like the old Arlo Guthrie song, it morphed into a movement, and once it got going, it couldn’t be stopped. As I watched this happening, I was reminded of a book I read during the last municipal election….Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everyone: The Power of Organizing without an Organization.
It’s all about how social media are changing the way society operates. And the rejection of this casino is a perfect example. Now I can’t wait to see what will be the next big issue or cause to be driven by social media.
POSTSCRIPT: After writing these comments, I listened to the Mayor speaking to Simi Sara on CKNW's Bill Good Show, and listening carefully to his words, I think the province will be back with a revised, smaller casino proposal for the BC Place lands. That's right. It may not go to Surrey, or Squamish Lands. It's not so much what he said, but what he didn't say.
So here's my prediction. Having won accolades for opposing casino expansion, the Mayor and Council WILL ultimately approve a relocation of the Edgewater Casino to the BC Place site. Will it be expanded? Well maybe, just a little bit, but not enough to cause another furor. But it will be designed so that it can be expanded at some time in the future, when the dust has settled. Let's see if I am right.