This creeping weirdness in the casino story | Ottawa Citizen

Here?s the official statement from Premier Kathleen Wynne last week, promising Toronto isn?t getting specials treatment in the casino sweepstakes:

?The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) is in the midst of exploring additional opportunities for casinos in Ontario. Some news stories today are suggesting that Toronto is going to get a special deal, with regard to hosting fees.

In light of these stories, I would like to reiterate the new Ontario government?s expectations as to what will happen with casino expansion.

First off, there will be no special deal for Toronto in connection with any proposed casino development. The approach OLG is taking in Toronto with regard to hosting fees will be the same as the approach being used in other parts of Ontario. The hosting fee for Toronto would reflect the size and scale that global gaming companies have confirmed is possible in the city. If the same capital investment and job potential are possible elsewhere, the same hosting fees would be generated.

While a lot of attention has been focused on Toronto, OLG is intent on expanding casino opportunities to a number of regions in Ontario. The underserved markets of North Bay, Kenora, Collingwood-Wasaga Beach and Belleville-Quinte, are currently being considered for development.

My government will ensure that all regions of the province will benefit from OLG modernization.?

-????????? Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario

The bolding is mine, and I keep coming back to that as I read my colleague Joanne Chianello?s relentless reporting on this thing.

?If the same capital investment and job potential are possible elsewhere, the same hosting fees would be generated.?

What bugs me about it is that hosting fees aren?t supposed to be generated by capital investment and job potential, they?re supposed to be generated by slot machines. It?s a straight, simple formula based on the number of nickels and toonies people shove into one-armed bandits. How fabulous is the casino surrounding the slot machines is not supposed to have anything to do with it. A big entertainment complex could mean more money for the operator, for other businessess, even for the city in the form of property and other taxes ? but it has no bearing at all on the hosting fees.

So why does the premier bring it up? The?simple explanation, the one she?s not offering, is that Toronto?s casino is expected to have a ton more slot machines and/or they?re expected to be higher-paying ones, with, say, $10-a-play machines at the top end instead of ones that max out at $5 a play and will just bring in that much money. That claim might be difficult to believe (especially since all Nevada?s casinos had gambling revenues of $10.2 billion US last year), but it would be consistent.

Instead, Wynne takes us somewhere else.

Source: http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/03/19/this-creeping-weirdness-in-the-casino-story/

gunner kiel gunner kiel groundhog soulja boy punxsutawney phil ground hog groundhog day 2012