Casino deal approved
Baldwin, Therrien remain opposed to deal to resolve DBIA’s casino appeal, with Baldwin calling it ‘a payoff’
The new casino in Peterborough can be built now that a dispute between the city and the downtown business association has been settled.
City council ratified a settlement agreement at a special meeting Tuesday night.
Under the deal, the DBIA will get $150,000 annually from the city for the next 20 years for downtown promotion and security.
It means the B.C.-based Great Canadian Gaming Corp. can now go ahead with its plan to build its new casino on Crawford Dr. at The Parkway in the city’s south end.
The city had rezoned the property on Crawford Dr. in the spring of 2016, but faced an appeal before the OMB.
Both the Downtown BIA and AON Inc., a downtown landlord, wanted the casino downtown because it would bring crowds – and investment – to the core of the city.
But now that appeal is expected to be dropped.
And although there were protests last week at City Hall, as councillors discussed the settlement in closed session, there was no protest Tuesday.
Two councillors voted against the settlement: Coun. Diane Therrien and Coun. Gary Baldwin. (The vote was the same as last week, when councillors gave preliminary approval to the settlement.)
Coun. Andrew Beamer and Coun. Lesley Parnell were the only two councillors to speak in favour of the settlement during Tuesday’s debate.
Beamer said the city stands to gain $3.2 million from the casino every year.
To ensure the city gets that money, Beamer said, council is investing $150,000 annually in downtown security for the next 20 years (for a total of $3 million).
Beamer sees downtown security as a great investment: He said many people (particularly seniors) have told him they think the downtown is unsafe.
Meanwhile council has plans to invest in big capital projects downtown: They want to convert the Louis Street parking lot into an urban park, for example.
Those types of improvements would be a waste of money if people don’t feel safe going downtown in the first place, Beamer said.
He said the settlement allows the city to improve downtown security, and at the same time get revenues and jobs from a casino. “It’s a win-win,” he said. But Coun. Gary Baldwin didn’t agree, calling it “a payoff” for the DBIA.
He said he wasn’t happy with the idea of giving the downtown $3 million in tax money to drop their appeal.
“It’s simply unprincipled,” he said. “I wonder who will be the next enemy to take us to the OMB or the courts? We’ve already set a precedent – who will we pay off next?”
Baldwin said council decided it was within its planning principles to rezone for a casino, last year.
So council should have let the OMB decide who was correct instead of offering a $3 million “payoff ”, Baldwin said.
“Why should we be held ransom by any organization?” Baldwin said. “It’s not our money – it’s tax money.”
Coun. Lesley Parnell said she agrees that tax money is “precious” – but she saw the settlement as a wise use of that precious money.
A casino puts $3.2 million in the city’s coffers every year without increasing taxes, she noted. At the same time, she said, the city is investing in much-needed security downtown.
“There’s an ongoing problem with panhandlers that we have been unable to address,” she said. “It’s often cited as the number one reason people don’t go downtown.”
Add some security, she said, and perhaps that “problem” will be solved.
Plus, she said, there’s already slot machines a short car ride away in neighbouring Cavan Monaghan Township. City residents gamble there, she said – and yet the city of Peterborough gets none of the jobs or revenues.
“It’s time for us to have the revenue to give relief to taxpayers,” she said.
Coun. Diane Therrien said she doesn’t want a casino downtown – but she doesn’t like the location on Crawford Dr. either.
That’s because there’s a large natural park neighbouring the casino property, Harper Park.
“I just prefer these developments not be located next to significant parks and greenspaces,” she said.
But Parnell said the casino isn’t expected to harm Harper Park; even the exterior lighting will be designed to mitigate light pollution, for example.
“The environmental concerns have nothing to do with this – it’s all looked after,” Parnell said.
Parnell also noted that the property has been zoned for industrial use for years – meaning the city always meant for it to be developed.
But Therrien said she’s still concerned about the city’s reliance on “outdated models of economic development” – relying on a casino for revenues when perhaps casinos may not be money-makers forever.
Baldwin said the city should be concerned about how much money the casino will take out of people’s pockets – not how much it will put in the city’s coffers.
“The House always wins,” Baldwin said. “They will take more money from the community than what’s going into it.”
Two citizens spoke against the settlement, before the vote on Monday (nobody spoke in favour).
Marie Bongard said she didn’t think the downtown should get money from a settlement when businesses along Lansdowne St., as well as south-end residents, will see more traffic and wear-and-tear on their streets.
Sheila Nabigon-Howlett, the chairwoman of the citizens’ group No Casino Peterborough, also objected to the settlement.
She questioned the legality of council committing to $150,000 annually to the DBIA for the next 20 years; it means future councils will have to pay up.
“What if the casino doesn’t produce the pot of gold it’s expected to, for 20 years?” she asked. “There are lots of examples of casinos going belly up.”
Coun. Dan McWilliams asked her to name one casino that closed in Canada, but Nabigon-Howlett couldn’t – she said all the examples are in the U.S. (she said it’s happened in Atlantic City, for example).
The Shorelines Casino Peterborough will replace the existing Shorelines Slots at Kawartha Downs, which has been operating for nearly 18 years and paying a quarterly revenue share to Cavan Monaghan Township.
Meanwhile the OMB appeal hasn’t been cancelled yet: It’s scheduled to begin at City Hall on May 8 and take three weeks. It was unclear on Tuesday night whether it will go forward or be cancelled.
No Casino Peterborough wanted to be an appellant in the hearing, but they didn’t have the money to hire a lawyer.
They took participant status instead, meaning they can speak up at the hearing but don’t have to hire a lawyer or a planner to make a case.
But if both the DBIA and AON have settled with the city, it leaves the group in limbo.
In an interview after the meeting, Nabigon-Howlett said she wants her group’s concerns to be heard before the OMB on May 8 – even if the appeal is dropped.
“The fact we had to drop out for lack of funds shouldn’t negate our right to be heard.”