• connect to chml
    Search
    News
    Hamilton Weather
    More

Local News
Local | National | World | Business | Entertainment | Sports

Council says Flamboro is our site unless not viable
Ken Mann
2/14/2013

Hamilton politicians have approved a compromise motion regarding any casino that may be in the city's future.

The motion confirms that the city is a "willing host" for a gaming facility, while adding that it prefers the Flamboro Downs site.

The motion leaves the downtown on the table, only if a request for proposals determines that the Flamboro site is not viable.  

Flamborough Councillor Robert Pasuta is hoping for the best as far as the existing gaming site is concerned, noting that it is "the heart of our community out there."

The motion was approved unanimously, despite the concerns of Councillor Brian McHattie who describes himself as "less charitable".

McHattie says offering up downtown as a second option if we get to that point, leaves the idea of a casino in the core "on the table".

Councillor Jason Farr says there has to be someone who will look at the books as far as Flamboro Downs is concerned, and say "wow, this place makes 120 million dollars annually".

City staff have also made it clear that the Greenbelt will be an "impediment" to anyone hoping to expand the footprint at Flamboro Downs.  

Ted McMeekin, the area's Liberal M-P-P, chimed in with a similar warning stressing that he's not aware of the government rezoning any portion of the Greenbelt since it came into existence.
 
About 15 minutes prior to the start of Thursday's meeting at City Hall, Councillor Farr also held a news conference to read from a statement from Global Spectrum/Live Nation.

The new private operator of Hamilton Place and Copps Coliseum says that if a casino were located downtown, it would seek contractual relief for the subsidy reduction guaranteed to the city over five years claiming that such an entertainment complex would "directly compete" with its venues.

That claim is disputed by the group behind the proposed 200 million dollar Rockhammer entertainment complex.

P-J Mercanti of Carmens says the 200 seat "live music lounge" that they are suggesting would in no way conflict with Copps or Hamilton Place.

 «  Return to previous page
 »  Send to a friend
Subscribe to channel

Leave a comment:

showing all comments · Subscribe to comments
Comment Like
  • 22
  1. MariaR_6861 posted on 02/14/2013 08:52 PM
    Oh, what a mess. Everyone is trying to protect something. Politics are never clean.
    Politics are never to the truth. It is definitely not for me. I am a person who likes to bargain with in a reason with the truth and then have something modified if it is all possible to win the point.
  2. PatS_0567 posted on 02/15/2013 09:07 AM
    Hamilton city council is the winner of the stupidest city council award.
    1. MariaR_6861 posted on 02/15/2013 08:38 PM
      @PatS_0567 I am in agreements with PatS_0567 statement. They are descendents of the Hill Billies.
  3. Richard posted on 02/15/2013 10:42 AM
    Staduim chaos all over again. Voters, I hope you are taking notes.
  4. PJ posted on 02/15/2013 12:35 PM
    What does "prefers" really mean ? How would Flamborough be considered "not viable" ?

    Downtown should be the ONLY option. Business will continue to feed business in the core, and grow.
    "Leaders" of Hamiltion, please start thinking long term and from a business perspective. At the very least, listen to the people you are representing.

    (still) Frustrated in Ancaster
  5. Rich posted on 02/15/2013 01:07 PM
    Toronto has Rob Ford. We have the whole city council. What a joke!
    1. MariaR_6861 posted on 02/15/2013 08:46 PM
      @Rich Rich
      Rob Ford got lucky. He really does matter much as one. But, our city council, as a whole is a right off. They need to wake up to the new world.
      They need to get energized. Everything is moving with the speed of lights
      around us, but our city council is moving with the speed of a turtle.
  6. NickT posted on 02/15/2013 01:52 PM
    You do know that it was revealed yesterday that the Flamboro location is 2nd only to Woodbine in profitability. In fact, we get more money for the city from Flamboro than Niagara Falls gets from its casinos. Why would anyone in their right mind argue against being highly profitable, only to take a gamble on a location (downtown) that has no proven financial grounds? Have you all lost your mind? You're arguing against yourselves – talking about $$$ and jobs while we have a success story RIGHT NOW. Before debating my points, please please please watch the video from council yesterday. It's an education.
    1. Rich posted on 02/15/2013 02:14 PM
      @NickT Profitable? Did they mention that Flamboro is subsidized by the government? Once the government pulls its funding, lets see how profitable it will become.
    2. NickT posted on 02/15/2013 02:27 PM
      @Rich I've never heard of that. If it is true that it is subsidized, wouldn't that make this even less likely that it would be successful here? What makes you think that an unsubsidized casino would be more successful than an unsubsidized one? I'm curious to how you find profitability in a casino here while we're surrounded by them. In this economy, Las Vegas has seen a sharp drop in gambling. What makes you think we're going to somehow top the gambling capital of the world? Love to hear this. Also, the only subsidy that I see at risk is the risk of losing the one Global Spectrum/Live Nation is giving the city.
    3. Rich posted on 02/15/2013 02:37 PM
      @NickT I would rather have a private firm running the operation rather than government.

      Why not give it a try. If it floats then it floats and if it sinks then it sinks.

      I never said that we will top the gambling capital of the world. Why do you put write things down and assume that I wrote them? Instead of having an intelligent conversation, you are stating things that have not been said. You would make a great politician for Hamilton.
    4. NickT posted on 02/15/2013 02:46 PM
      @Rich Think you misinterpreted. I didn't mean we would be better than Las Vegas, just that you seem to think we have the "secret" to success and the gambling capital doesn't...which I believe you do think, otherwise you're not evaluating all of the parameters.

      The "YES" side seems to think that the "NO" side wants the status quo, or just doesn't like flashing lights, or something.

      It's observation. Look around you. Brantford, Seneca, Niagara Falls. Here's some photographic proof for you to say is "irrelevant" or "different".

      http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=146238

      Enjoy fighting facts. I'll keep posting evidence, photos and articles that demonstrate real-life proof of what to expect.
    5. Rich posted on 02/15/2013 02:57 PM
      @NickT Post all the facts that you want. I am not going to stop you.

      But if someone comes in and offers to invest $200 million dollar development in this community and it costs me nothing, I am not going to stop them. Again, if it floats than it floats and if it sinks it sinks.

      if it does float, then you will have economic spin-off with the surrounding area. There is a good liklehood that Spectrum/Live Nation and the Mercantis can work together to make Hamilton a destination place. Why not give it s shot?
    6. NickT posted on 02/15/2013 03:11 PM
      @Rich Maybe you didn't bother to view those photos. If you did, you'd get the response to your "why not give it a shot" question. The blast zone around a casino kills small business. So you're trading 200 million investment for years and years of city building, by people who put their own money out and invested in downtown I guess you may be fine with that...but I'm not. And so far, not one single "YES" casino person has provided me with an example city of comparable size with other casinos within the studied 120km area. Not one. Every successful example has either been in a world-class city, or is the only casino in the area. That's why I won't "give it a shot". If the evidence pointed in the other direction (like when you get an NHL team, for example), I'd be with you. Since its not, you're just going on blind, touchy-feely, warm and happy faith.
    7. Rich posted on 02/15/2013 03:23 PM
      @NickT Oh OK. So Niagara has a casino, Brantford has a casino and there is also Seneca Casino. Does that mean that we should ignore someone that is willing to invest in this city and say to them that it will not fly because there are other casinos in the area? Interesting point...........

      I guess my mother was right. You can't argue with a moron
    8. NickT posted on 02/15/2013 04:26 PM
      @Rich Way to argue against my points. Instead, bob and weave around them with a cheap shot. Exactly what I expect. Your argument sputtered out in a fit of hostility and nonsense.

      You don't like that there is physical, undeniable, local and proven results to your utopia of private investment.
  7. NickT posted on 02/15/2013 01:56 PM
    PJ, thinking long-term means...actually thinking long term. It was disclosed that Toronto, Kitchener-Waterloo, Mississauga are up for getting a casino. You really think it's long term to get a casino when we're gonna be surrounded by them? Again, you've all lost your minds. Why don't we have casinos everywhere! Screw having an identity.
    1. Rich posted on 02/15/2013 02:22 PM
      @NickT Yes, Why not have a casino especially if it is private money that is funding the project. Why should other cities build them and get the benefit while we sit on our hands.

      Status quo is all Hamilton is good for. Anything new and/or exciting and people come out droves with the negative aspect. Look at Mr. Fasrr coming out and saying that Spectrum/Live Nation was against the casino downtown, but when you look at the question he posed to Spectrum/Live Nation it was biased and wrought with falsehoods.
    2. NickT posted on 02/15/2013 02:31 PM
      @Rich Bottom line: They see the casino as a competitor. Whatever nonsense that happened surrounding that fact may help your case, but they still see the casino as a threat. That has been formally stated.

      If you've actually walked around downtown and put yourself in the community, you'd know there isn't a status quo. Things are moving in the right direction. Your argument doesn't make sense. You're saying that downtown isn't progressing, but at the same time you think HardRock would be willing to put a casino into a dead downtown? I want to know what you're smoking. Admittingly, I don't have a care one way or the other for HardRock, but I do know they wouldn't bother with Hamilton if it is as rough as you claim it is downtown.
    3. Rich posted on 02/15/2013 02:39 PM
      @NickT When did I say it was a rough downtown, please show me? Again your seeing things that are not there.
  8. Carl D posted on 02/15/2013 03:18 PM
    I think the point to consider is the OLG's desire to move away from racetracks. So, the viability part of councils' decision gives them wiggle room when they learn that private investment will not consider Flamboro Downs. But by that time it may be too late and Hamilton will be passed over for another community. Thus losing all the current monies we receive and and future dollars.
  9. MariaR_6861 posted on 02/16/2013 10:25 AM
    Our city council is jelly fish.
showing all comments