Steps Taken to Move Gaming Centre Matter to Public Hearing

Monday, August 28, 2006 08:55 PM

Prince George City Council has approved first two readings of some text ammendments to the bylaws pertaining to gaming in the City, and in doing so has cleared the way to have a public hearing on the proposal to develop a gaming centre on Quebec Street between 6th and 7th Avenues.

The changes would designate a "major" gaming centre as one that has no more than 400 slot machines, and 15 tables. A "minor" gaming centre would have 660 Bingo seats and no more than 100 slot machines.

The gaming centre plan calls for a parkade under the facility, which the City is responsible for building. How much that will cost, and the source of the funds have not yet been clearly identified. Councilor Debora Munoz pressed to get answers and details as well as details on the costs for demolition and environmental clean up. City Manager George Paul says he believes $70,000 has been set aside for clean up but said all that information wil be available to the public before the public hearing.

Munoz also wants the current tenants (United Way and Alcoholics Anonymous) to have at least 6 months to find a new home before there are plans to bulldoze the existing buildings. City Manager George Paul says they have been working with the United Way and 6 months may not be necessary as some alternate sites have already been identified.

In supporting the changes to the text ammendment, some Councilors said they think this will be a positive move for the downtown.

Councilor Sherry Sethen worries that by agreeing to move the by-law forward, there will be a public perception that Council is heading into a public hearing with approval already on their minds. City Manager George Paul says this is no different than any other bylaw, Council has to approve moving it forward in order for the matter to go to public hearing.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, August 28, 2006 08:55 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: REALIST on August 28 2006 10:35 PM

At the public hearing I plan to ask that no further action be taken until the completion of the police investigation into improper campaign contributions are made public. This will not be swept under the table. I hope our mayor does not make any promises to anyone until this critical legal issue is addressed. We have seen enough poor leadership on his part to make a lawsuit a very real possibility.

Posted by: owl on August 28 2006 11:38 PM

"The gaming centre plan calls for a parkade under the facility, which the City is responsible for building."

The gaming centre might call for a parkade underneath the building, but why is the City responsible for the cost of building it?

I realize the City is responsible for providing adequate parking in the CBD, but to provide public parking below a building without a controlled entry is something new in this city. Parkades are not the safest place in the world. Underground parkades are even less safe. I do not think the city should get invovled with decreasing public safety downtown.

If the City is providing parking specifically for this building, then what other buildings will the City be providing parking for? What are the guidelines for saying that they will provide parking for this building but not for that building?

Does this lead to the REALIST's question?

Posted by: Gofaster on August 29 2006 6:32 AM

There ws no doubt it would pass and
It will be built.
not that I want to see it but then I am of no real value to the politicians unless they want more money.... or maybe my vote....and the latter ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: diplomat on August 29 2006 7:06 AM

Owl, you got there first! I was going to ask the same questions about the parkade...why do I as a Prince George citizen have to pay for it and not the owner of the new Casino facility?

I think we should petition for a referendum, to be included in the next municipal elections.

Until then: everybody take a deep breath, this is NOT an emergency, we already have a large casino in town.

Croft Road is a goat trail (although it is used as a bus route) and the $ 750,000 to repair Cameron Street Bridge could not be found anywhere, but according to Mr. Paul the City has a "reserve" to pay for the new parkade, "no problem."

Wow.

Posted by: Gofaster on August 29 2006 9:26 AM

intersting that money talks, actually yells real loud....

Posted by: trusted on August 29 2006 10:31 AM

Does the comment by Mr. Paul not make you pay attention to the fact the establishment of the "gaming center" is a foregone conclusion?
ALL information will be available to the public prior to the public hearing.
The plans have obviously been worked on extensively.
Why bother going through the formality of the "public" hearing?
It is a "done" deal, believe it or not-and only the very foolish think it can be stopped.
The actions that take place at Prince George city hall possibly lie on the side of being corrupt.
Who will all the shareholders be in this company that will be formed to establish this gaming center?
Why is the city so willing to provide the parking for what will be a privately owned business?
What will the pay off be?
Rest assured-it will not be to the residents of this city-not the average Joe!
Wanna' bet?

Posted by: owl on August 29 2006 10:50 AM

I'll kick in one mroe thing about the information being available for the public hearing.

I think there should be sufficient time given for those in the community who wish to review the information and have questions about it repsonded to prior to the public hearing.

It is completely unfair for Administration to have the information, including background information used to create the "public" information package, much before the general public has.

But we all know democracy is not about fairness at all. It is about who can play the game best. Those who get paid for playing the game will win mot of the time for some strange reason against those who have to earn their living plus want to play the game.

Posted by: owl on August 29 2006 10:51 AM

See, I do not even have the time to check of typos!

;-)

Posted by: owl on August 29 2006 10:51 AM

*LOL*

Posted by: Chester on August 29 2006 9:02 PM

Not only are our city fathers condoning the expansion of gambling in this city, they are actually offering to contribute to the funding of the necessary parking these establishments require.

Does anyone recall the reason Mr. Major didn't consider building his casino in the vacant parking lot by the RCMP building? The reason I heard was that he wasn't willing to spend the money to provide the necessary parking that had to go with it.

So, what's different this time? How about every business asking city hall to provide parking for their clients and customers?

I cannot support expanding gambling facilities or more drinking establishments in this city. The problems we face are more than we can manage already. What is everyone thinking? Chester

Posted by: trusted on August 30 2006 10:12 AM

It is not "what is everyone thinking" Chester!
The ones in control are definitely thinking!
The answer is "MONEY, MONEY, MONEY."
John Major, the Mayor and Council, the Government-all with one objective in mind--MORE MONEY.
Gambling, drinking, drugs, prostitution, (but legalize that also), can all contibute to a Nevada lifestyle-but surely it will pay off-big time.
Can we attract the people seeking these vices?
I think so!
Will we experience increased crime, and the demoralizing of many of the residents of this city? To be expected.
Will we have additional broken homes and more welfare recipients? Sure.
Will we see additional local bankruptcies, both
small business and residents. You can bank on it.
Will drug addiction become more prevalent? Well, people have to cope in whatever manner suits, and drugs appear to be the answer for many.
I firmly believe we will make the big time before too long.
Be careful what you wish for! You wanted these people in City Hall-so you voted them in-did not just wish for them.
Oh yes, by the way, what has become of that police investigation re a campaign donation-and Skakun?
I do believe George Paul is getting out while
the getting is good.
That choice is not open to one and all.
Sit back and enjoy-this circus is not really off to a running start yet.

Posted by: REALIST on August 30 2006 11:44 AM

We will not see an increase in the welfare roles as the Campbell government has convieniently forgotten that initially, welfare was a form of social control. Those who were unable to cope with life were granted welfare to prevent them from turning to alternate forms of money generation, most often crime. Our current neo-liberal ideology does not have the capacity to understand this simple fact. It was clearly explained to the BC Lieberals that the result of their ham fisted treatment of the welfare system would create increases in homelessness, increases in addictions and increases in property crimes as people were forced to resort to crime to survive. We see in our papers, ignorant sheep and editors who repeat the lies of the powerful that poverty is a choice and that welfare just enables them to live in poverty. Those with a speck of intelligence know not to believe the crap that the wealthy spew in order to make the poor look responsible for their own misfortune. Society is sick and our leaders are the perpatrators of the sickness.

Posted by: trusted on August 30 2006 6:07 PM

Honestly, REALIST, I often wonder just where you are coming from.
I have NEVER seen any article stating poverty as being a choice.
I know-oh yes, I do know people who chose welfare over employment. As do their offspring, and the circle will continue. Some of the claims are done honestly, many are not-but seeing as how the welfare system no longer employs investigators, the so called small percentage who collect by making dishonest claims remain undetected.
When you give reference to "sickness" you really should inform in what manner all of society is "sick." The leaders are the perpetrators of what "sickness."
You err when you attempt to inform the public by hypothetical statements.
If you have actual facts, I suggest you give reference to those.
You condemn, but know not what you are condemning.
I believe people were given welfare so they could survive. I have known many welfare recipients in my day, and many were incapable of turning to crime to survive. They also did not have the smarts to hold down the most menial job. There was basically no reason the government would make any attempt to "control" this segment of society.
I am a firm believer in the welfare system.
I, in no way, knock those who I am pretty certain could not live without that assistance.
It has become their way of life. I do not like to see the system abused, but I certainly would not want to see it obliterated. That would be a travesty.

Posted by: REALIST on August 30 2006 9:35 PM

Funny, I'm a personal friend of one of Prince George's top Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance investigators. She as well as others are still on the job. As for where my knowledge comes from it is experience and education in social policy and political history. I speak with knowledge not hypothetical statements. When you understand neoliberal idiolgies it becomes quite clear how society is being manipulated in the race to the bottom and how the wealthy continue to use this effective greed fullfilling system to further their advantage over the poor. You seem like an individual who is interested in learning more and for you I will cite a very usefull book to read called Canadian Society: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century. Edited by Dan Glenday and Ann Duffy, Oxford University Press. This is a good beginning.
As for sickness I refer to the new ideal of money replacing God in most people's lives. (I refer to God not in the purely religious sense but, in the term of treat others as you would have them treat you, sense) we have lost our sense of community and replaced this with personal greed and the belief that it is o.k. to put money before people and the planet. This is the sickness to which I refer.

Posted by: thereasonableman on September 2 2006 12:18 AM

Oh boy, and I thought the acid's not very good in this town.

What the hell do we need a second casino for in this town ? That's the question, stay on topic.

Councilor Sherry Sethen worries that by agreeing to move the by-law forward, there will be a public perception that Council is heading into a public hearing with approval already on their minds.

Well, duh !!!

Posted by: trusted on September 3 2006 7:57 AM

Well DUH!!!
We need it for the additional money it brings to the owner, the city and the government.
We need it to stop progress and keep more of the public hooked and penniless.
We need it to create family problems and keep the cops busy with domestic disputes and keep them off the streets.
We need it to give more business to pawn shops and second hand stores.
We need it to increase the need for more housing for the men or women booted out from the home when they become addicted gamblers.
We need it to have a reason to beg for more donations.
We need it to prove the soup kitchens are required.
We need it so lawyers can make more money defending criminals, (paid by gov't). who have no other way of obtaining money to gamble other than by pushing drugs or stealing.
We need it for the bankruptcy experts to handle the affairs of those who take their payment money and gamble it.
We certainly need it-and I am sure there are more reasons than the ones stated above.
Add your own!