18.08.2013 Views

gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge

gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge

gambling in alberta - Research Services - University of Lethbridge

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

community representatives were concerned that dollars be<strong>in</strong>g gambled locally were not be<strong>in</strong>g<br />

returned <strong>in</strong> the form <strong>of</strong> charitable allocations.<br />

A m<strong>in</strong>imal toll on physical <strong>in</strong>frastructure was reported by most <strong>in</strong>dividuals. In some cases this<br />

m<strong>in</strong>imal impact was due to tak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>frastructure deterioration <strong>in</strong>to account <strong>in</strong> future budgets.<br />

In some communities outside <strong>of</strong> Calgary and Edmonton it was reported that the services<br />

created for the new cas<strong>in</strong>o permitted the respective city development agencies to promote<br />

expansion <strong>of</strong> new bus<strong>in</strong>esses.<br />

Once aga<strong>in</strong>, tourism was cited as a positive for cas<strong>in</strong>os, yet there is no available statistical data<br />

available from community representatives to provide verification or quantification <strong>of</strong> this.<br />

Cas<strong>in</strong>o-cas<strong>in</strong>o competition was not considered to be an issue; nor were there many concerns<br />

expressed about cas<strong>in</strong>o placement near residential communities. In general, cas<strong>in</strong>os were<br />

portrayed by most <strong>of</strong>ficials as relatively benign entities.<br />

Perceived Negative Aspects <strong>of</strong> Gambl<strong>in</strong>g and Cas<strong>in</strong>os<br />

Little local public resistance to cas<strong>in</strong>os was noted, although the discussion <strong>of</strong> VLTs <strong>in</strong>evitably<br />

raised concerns.<br />

Many community representatives were highly critical <strong>of</strong> the prov<strong>in</strong>cially-controlled Alberta<br />

gam<strong>in</strong>g model and <strong>of</strong> AGLC. One <strong>of</strong> the key issues voiced was the lack <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluence that<br />

municipalities have over cas<strong>in</strong>o applications. The process as it currently exists <strong>in</strong>volves 8 stages.<br />

However, the local municipality is not <strong>in</strong>volved until stage 4 where the applicant has to<br />

demonstrate community support for the new facility to go forward. However, ultimately the<br />

prov<strong>in</strong>ce has overrid<strong>in</strong>g authority to decide on these applications. The only leverage the city<br />

has concerns the cas<strong>in</strong>o’s need for a build<strong>in</strong>g permit, with this permit hav<strong>in</strong>g to be obta<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

even prior to submitt<strong>in</strong>g the cas<strong>in</strong>o application.<br />

AGLC and the prov<strong>in</strong>cial government were portrayed as a reluctant partner that was at times<br />

non-communicative and unwill<strong>in</strong>g to respond to municipal concerns. Some <strong>of</strong>ficials reported<br />

that AGLC was slow <strong>in</strong> pull<strong>in</strong>g licenses from problematic gam<strong>in</strong>g establishments thus forc<strong>in</strong>g<br />

municipalities to allocate resources to take care <strong>of</strong> <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong>-related issues that were prov<strong>in</strong>cial<br />

<strong>in</strong> orientation but impacted people at the community/municipal level. Community<br />

representatives <strong>of</strong>ten reiterated concerns expressed by the mayors about a perceived lack <strong>of</strong><br />

transparency about how prov<strong>in</strong>cial <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> revenues are distributed.<br />

F<strong>in</strong>ally, community representatives suggested the current organization <strong>of</strong> government <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong><br />

might be less than optimal from a cost perspective. When the M<strong>in</strong>istry <strong>of</strong> Gam<strong>in</strong>g was<br />

dissolved <strong>in</strong> 2006, it is their perception that these responsibilities devolved to several different<br />

m<strong>in</strong>istries, all <strong>of</strong> whom <strong>in</strong>cur bureaucratic costs before distribut<strong>in</strong>g <strong>gambl<strong>in</strong>g</strong> revenue.<br />

212

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!