68 responses so far ↓

• 1 Peter Ladner // Mar 15, 2011 at 10:56 pm

  Wow. First the casino was essential for paying for the roof that was already being built. Now it’s not.

  Then PavCo said they absolutely had to have it. Then they said they’d regroup and try something else if they didn’t get it.

  First Paragon said they couldn’t stay where they were. Then their landlord said they could. Then the landlord, in a release from PavCo’s PR people, said they couldn’t.

  Paragon said they’d been working on this since 2007. Now Mr. Buckley can’t recall when this half-billion-dollar project landed in his life. Maybe Richard Turner knows.

  First BCLC CEO Michael Graydon is rumoured to be compensated for swinging public opinion in favour of gambling. Then he couldn’t say how many of the key customers in his $2.something-billion operation have gambling addiction problems.

  First municipalities were getting 16.6% of destination casino revenues. Then they were getting 10%.

  First the arts and charities were getting a third of the cut. Now they’re getting less than they did in 1995 while BCLC revenues have tripled since then.

  The VPD say crime isn’t an issue– nothing like the nightclubs. Then senior retired RCMP officers line up to say this is a gang magnet.

  Paragon is sailing along with healthy profits (around $150k gross net per night, as near as I can figure). Now they say at that rate they’ll have to shut down if they can’t expand, putting single mums with cancer out of work.

  Whodunnit?

• 2 George // Mar 15, 2011 at 11:02 pm

  Thanks for this article Frances, and as Peter so eloquently puts it… who done it…

  I’m sorry I mean no disrespect to the workers, but ….stop the drama, facts please!!

• 3 Joseph Jones // Mar 15, 2011 at 11:02 pm

  As a “business,” Paragon has not demonstrated a lot of aptitude for risk assessment. Maybe they thought they were playing a fixed game?

• 4 mezzanine // Mar 15, 2011 at 11:55 pm

  Mr. Ladner,

  If anything, IMO Mr. Podmore has been consistent with the land lease and funding for the casino:

  “If [the whole project] isn’t approved, then we will have to figure out what are the other options for those lands. A big source of revenue for the stadium was the land lease payments from these lands.”

  Podmore said the city has already signalled it doesn’t want more highrise residential development in the area, leaving PavCo with limited options for land it has earmarked to generate repayment of a $510-million provincial loan for the roof.” [1]

  Dollars for donuts the CoV will zone for condos if paragon falls thru.

  …….

  And edgewater casino closing in its current format is if anything, a certainty.

  “[spokesperson] Gee-Wing acknowledged Canadian Metropolitan has a rezoning application in the works for a major development on its property at the Plaza of Nations.

  The proposal calls for at least a half-dozen residential highrises, a practice rink for the Vancouver Canucks, a community space and an outdoor performance area.

  When the Courier asked Gee-Wing if Canadian Metropolitan could extend Paragon’s lease for at least two more years beyond 2013, and phase in the redevelopment around Edgewater, he replied, “I’m pretty confident we could, but we haven’t gotten to those areas of development yet in terms of timetable.” [2]
  …..
  And as I’ve said before, casino revenue nowadays is more becoming general revenue, for the province and the city.

  “Coquitlam’s Boulevard Casino, which has over 1,000 slot machines and 60 gambling tables, puts about $9 million a year in the city’s coffers, the mayor said.

  “That pays for a lot of services in Coquitlam,” Stewart said. “Here I am, not particularly a gambling advocate, and yet if there are going to be casinos and some communities are going to get the revenue, then I do want Coquitlam to get its share of those revenues.”” [3]

  IMO, Burnaby and richmond will apply for the gaming quota if paragon falls thru.

• 5 mezzanine // Mar 16, 2011 at 12:00 am

  1 http://www.globaltvbc.com/Funding+Place+roof+dependant+casino/4347543/story.html
  2 http://www.vancourier.com/Casino+company+Vancouver+landlord+odds+over+lease+extension/4438613/story.html
  3 http://www.straight.com/article-377486/vancouver/politicos-fear-casino-impact

• 6 mezzanine // Mar 16, 2011 at 12:06 am

  oops again, i suppose edgewater closing is not a certainty; they have other designs for the site and they don’t plan for it to be there in the mid to long term, though.

  [needs sleep..]

• 7 The Fourth Horseman // Mar 16, 2011 at 12:29 am

  Mezzanine,

  See, you DO get it. It’s a moveable feast. First this, then that, then, umm, this again.

  Looks like you have your own case of “paragonitis”. I recommend: bed rest, 1,500 slot machines and a call to your taxpayer in the morning.

• 8 S Garossino // Mar 16, 2011 at 12:33 am

  Mezzanine–fess up, you have a day job with PavCo, don’t you?

• 9 mezzanine // Mar 16, 2011 at 1:54 am

  @ Fourth, still need sleep, i don’t think i have pargonitis, but maybe a bad case of lotto fever. :-S

  @ S. Garossino.

  I don’t work for BCLC or PavCo.

  But I have 3 rhetorical situations for you:. Let’s say the paragon proposal fails, and the landlord decides to close edgewater.

  1) Would you be opposed to the equal amount (not an increase, but the same) of gambling activity to hastings park, the only other casino within CoV?

  2) Would you be opposed to the equal amount being moved to a new facility? where would you put that new facility in the CoV?

  3) Vancouver decides not pursue further gaming. But richmond/burnaby get the extra activity with some debate, but with a general concensus from citizens. Would you be opposed to that? Bear in mind these casinos in particular are close and easy to access from the CoV.

  I can agree with some concerns (aiming for a high level of urban fit/neighbourhood amenities, expansion of programs for problem gamblers, ongoing legislation and enforcement for money laundering). I can also see why as a non-gambler there are some merits to the casino.

• 10 Roger Kemble // Mar 16, 2011 at 4:43 am

  BC Place renos don’t depend on casino money

  “That’s the word from PavCo CEO Warren Buckley . . . ”

  To paraphrase PavCo chair Mr. David Podmore some days ago: We need the revenue from the new casino to pay for the new roof on the stadium.

  As a long time acolyte to a discredited premier what say you now Mr. Podmore?

• 11 Ian // Mar 16, 2011 at 7:37 am

  Frances, I’m told there were drawings of the BC Place redevelopment circulating at city hall prior to the RFP that included a casino as well as a new VAG in close proximity. Have you heard the same thing?

• 12 Joe Just Joe // Mar 16, 2011 at 7:53 am

  There was a great article in this weeks BIV about this very subject. It corrects some of the misinformation being spread.
  I’m not a supporter of Casinos in general but at the same time I can’t find reason for me to fight this proposal. I have a hard time believing that the opponents would not be fighting this even if it was really just a move, and not an expansion as well.
  Ideally we would’ve had an office/hotel developer outbid Paragon for the site, but that didn’t happen, and residential on the site wouldn’t be in the citys interest either.

• 13 Just Curious // Mar 16, 2011 at 9:30 am

  I think what confuses me most is why the expansion of an existing gambling facility is causing this uproar. If we as a community (CoV and beyond) are so concerned about gambling addiction, why is this issue coming to rise now? Why is online gambling (the mecca for people suffering from addiction) free from scorn?

  I don’t gamble, nor am I an advocate necessarily. But I do question the motivations at play here with regard to the opposition. Where were these groups when online gambling sprang up? This sounds a lot more like NIMBYism than true concern.

• 14 Dan Cooper // Mar 16, 2011 at 9:46 am

  Re: “- What are the number of problem gamblers in the province? (We know the likelihood, but not the actual caseload so far.)”

  If caseload means the number of people in treatment, I would not see that as the key figure. Rather, it’s the total number or percentage of the populace who are addicted that needs to be tracked, and even more to the point the ones among them who are not in treatment, either because they have not tried to access it or it is not available/insufficient.

• 15 Dan Cooper // Mar 16, 2011 at 9:54 am

  @JJJ 7:53 am:

  Of course, there’s nothing intrinsically positive about the highest bid, and one doesn’t have to accept a bid if it is impractical or brings negative consequences. If a mushroom grower (think horse manure; lots of horse manure!) had bid more than the casino operators for the site, it wouldn’t have made it somehow morally necessary to put their plant there. Actually, I see this as like the Olympic Village situation; the city – it seems – might have done better to have accepted a lower bid that was better suited to the site. It’s too late to change that history, but the BC Place land can still be repurposed.

• 16 S Garossino // Mar 16, 2011 at 11:38 am

  Hi Mezz, I was just having a little fun with the accidental back and forth changes in your posts. Didn’t mean to actually suggest anything…

  The VNV Coalition opposes the expansion of gambling in Vancouver. That pretty much says it. Location etc are all secondary issues that depend on actual proposals being made by applicants.

  Everything is speculative until an actual proposal is made, with plans, etc.

  Research pretty consistently says that densely populated residential neighbourhoods are poor sites for casinos. You just don’t see them. That’s why the suburban casinos are not sited in residential neighbourhoods at all, let alone ones with density.

  Richmond and Burnaby both have well developed facilities that meet the demands of their communities. Have not heard any suggestion the communities want more capacity than they have now.

• 17 Ian // Mar 16, 2011 at 11:47 am

  Frances,
  According to a January 2008 council report, Judy Rogers met with Pavco late in 2007. PavCo asked the City Manager to convene a special process to deal with zoning and other issues associated with the redevelopment of the BC Place lands.

  PavCo agreed to pay half the cost of the process and it began work in march 2008 under the direction of Michael Gordon and an oversight committee comprised of all the staff big wigs. Gordon and others met with PavCo and all associated parties.

  When Gordon reported out in September, his report recommended a rezoning that permitted a permanent casino use on the lands – reversing City policy on the casino which called for a temporary location in the NEFC.

  The real question is who asked for that casino zoning and why was it inserted into the ODP 6 months ahead of PavCo’s “open” Request for expressions of interest.”

• 18 Ron // Mar 16, 2011 at 11:54 am

  The word “need” is relative – there are always options, and it should be read that way.

  Read that PavCo “needs” the money from the casino in the same way that the Vancouver School Board “needs” more money from the Province.

  There are always preferences and alternatives.

• 19 Morven // Mar 16, 2011 at 2:09 pm

  Ian # 17

  Fascinating.

  Brings up the question of what is the role of senior public servants.

  Is it to advise the elected representatives on the plus and minus of a proposed policy or is it to act closely with the developer to craft a suitable proposal.

  I get irritated, and this is just my view, when I see city staff involved at far too early a stage in the planning process when there are many otherwise experienced and qualified independent planners/architects to do the ground work.

  And they still expect the ordinary citizen to be comfortable with the planning process.

  The answer is no.
  -30-

• 20 Bill McCreery // Mar 16, 2011 at 2:35 pm

  Good point Morven 19.

  I am very uncomfortable with the City taking fees from private developers. It puts the City into an untenable conflict of interest. One of many fixes required.

• 21 Ashokraj // Mar 16, 2011 at 6:24 pm

  If Michael Gordon reported a rezoning of the NEFC ODP in September 2008 to allow for a major casino on the property, why was this not brought forward for public discussion, given the fractious and heated history of casinos in Vancouver?

  Is Peter Ladner correct in saying that this point was only inserted in an Appendix to a motion, and there was no notice to Council of the point?

  If this is the case, this looks like a very serious problem inside the planning department.

  Additionally, given the reliance that Podmore placed on this tiny point, it also looks as if PavCo somehow thought that this slender process was sufficient for them to go ahead with a half billion dollar redevelopment.

  What’s going on?

• 22 Ashokraj // Mar 16, 2011 at 6:35 pm

  @ Ian: Who were the staff “bigwigs” who participated in the process with PavCo? Did any councillors participate? What does the record show about notice to council?

  Did council get played by staff here? Where are those staffers today?

  Questions, more questions.

• 23 S Garossino // Mar 16, 2011 at 10:07 pm

  Good grief! Can PavCo please get its basic story straight and its facts right?

  In this week’s issue of Business in Vancouver, PavCo CEO Warren Buckley says about our claims that:

  “At 110,000 square feet, the casino is about the size of a single football field, not two, as some opponents keep repeating.”

  The FACTS: According to the page 9 of the planning report, the proposed casino gaming floor will be not greater than 114,000 sq ft. View here: http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110118/documents/p4.pdf

  An NFL football field is 57,600 sq ft. 114,000 sq. ft is 1.98 NFL football fields. I confess to rounding 1.98 up to 2. Wherever time and space have permitted, I have ALWAYS described this as 2 NFL football fields.

  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_area_of_a_football_field

  Memo to PavCo: Stop accusing your opponents of spreading misinformation. We have worked overtime to be as accurate as possible in all our statements, and have double- and triple-checked all our numbers before making public statements.

  Try it sometime.

• 24 Ian // Mar 16, 2011 at 11:21 pm

  I’m going from memory here. The senior staff cmt was detailed in rogers’ report to council in january 2008. It included for example brent macgregor who went on to work for pavco on paragon’s bid. Hmmm.

  Ive been told by city hallers that dobell may have had a hand in this when he was on contract to both city hall and the premiers office. That’s how the art gallery ended up in the same paragraph as the casino zoning.

  While the casino rezoning was an addendum to the report it was also spelled out in the body of the report. It would have been difficult to miss.

  To be fair to councillor ladner, the controversial point at the time was the npas gift of dlcs and amenity costs to the province. The city didnt even put up a fight. It was if the city manager and mayor sullivan were bargaining for the premier’s office, not vancouver taxpayers. This was why vision and cope voted against the whole package.

  Another point of interest: pavco specifically asked to have the report completed and voted on prior to the 2008 civic election.

• 25 Frances Bula // Mar 16, 2011 at 11:41 pm

  Trying to respond to some of the comments here:

  I am a bit concerned about people trying to build elaborate conspiracy theories out of what is sometimes just bad and incomplete reporting. (Not pointing any fingers. I’m as guilty as everyone else. Never paid any attention to the casino in the October rezoning, even though there were many mentions of it.)

  It’s not that some funny things didn’t happen here. The most egregious misdemeanour I see on the record so far was when Premier Gordon Campbell announced a massive new entertainment complex and casino at BC Place in March 2010, as though it was a done deal and there were no rezoning processes to go through at the city.

  But some of what I see here is people adding two plus two and coming up with 173. Yes, Paragon knew as of 2006 that it had to find another site. Yes, PavCo started having meetings with the city in 2007 about developing the land around the stadium in order to pay for renovations. Yes, I saw drawings in May 2008 that showed the casino next to BC Place.

  But none of that is criminal. The city has had a policy for over 20 years designating the area around BC Place as an entertainment zone. The casino was seen as part of that. In fact, other casinos were shut down in the city and Edgewater was allowed to open in 2004 because the BC Place area was seen as a more appropriate place.

  The casino was a temporary use — but only for the Plaza of Nations venue, not for the whole Northeast False Creek area. Warren Buckley doesn’t know exactly when Paragon started talking about tripling the size of the casino BECAUSE HE HAD A JOB IN SINGAPORE until January 2008 and so wasn’t on the scene in the early days of the PavCo redevelopment discussions — not because he’s being evasive. He did make it clear in our interview that, of course, Paragon had expressed an interest in bidding on the land for a casino/hotel project. And Buckley said that Paragon was told that, while that was interesting, they’d have to go through the bid process like everyone else and take their chances.

  Finally, people have to realize that what sometimes seems like contradictions are just different reporters asking different questions and coming up with different angles for the story. I asked Podmore, two weeks ago, and Buckley, this week, about the actual financing structure for the stadium. Both told me the same thing — the casino lease payments were intended to cover about half of the loan payments on the $150-million construction loan from the province. They both said the other part of the loan payments would come from naming and sponsorship rights, along with new revenue because the stadium would get used more days in a year.

  So what about the stories from elsewhere with Podmore saying the stadium depends on the casino? Well, that also could be true in a larger sense. BC Place doesn’t depend on the casino for immediate financing because a lot of money has been committed from the province. But that money is just our current tax dollars being promised. It’s also true to say the future casino revenue would help replace those spent tax dollars.

  Does that mean there were no hopeful discussions among the province, Paragon, and BC Lottery Corporation before March 2010 about a three-times-as-big casino? I doubt it. The province has to want this casino a lot — it’s an extra $100 to $200 million a year in revenue. The city also made this a promising proposition. NOT because it included a casino in the October 2008 rezoning. No one commented on that at the time because it was presumed to be the same casino that was already there. No, the city gave the Paragon proposal an edge because planners said they wanted job space, not just condos, in that area as part of a long-term plan to ensure that the downtown doesn’t become just a residential resort.

  Okay, the Colbert Report is almost over now, so it’s time to quit. Happy to provide any additional information I have from old notebooks in answer to your questions.

• 26 Deacon Blue // Mar 16, 2011 at 11:45 pm

  Yeah. And the Pope ain’t Catholic.

  Provincial government revenue is behind this, the Gateway tower at the foot of Cambie, and the bizarre idea floated a year or two ago to turn the closed lunatic asylum in Coquitlam into a tower zone.

• 27 George // Mar 17, 2011 at 12:14 am

  Frances…
  the more I think I understand about this issue, the more confused I become… getting headache trying to keep it straight…

  @Deacon Blue… 26
  “bizarre idea floated a year or two ago to turn the closed lunatic asylum in Coquitlam into a tower zone.”

  don’t know if I’d phrase it that way, but…

  isn’t that idea still on the table ?

  The senior residents from Riverview with the most severe cases of dementia are being relocated to the top originally 3 floors of Youville seniors residence I believe on Cambie.. families of current senior residents protested and the project was scaled back to 2 floors…sadly 2 floors of residents were displaced… all for the Real Estate…

• 28 S Garossino // Mar 17, 2011 at 1:08 am

  I haven’t noticed anyone suggesting criminality here, or if they have we have no evidence of it, from what can be seen. But what seems to be missing is transparency. This process is surprisingly murky.

  The inclusion of a casino in the NEFC ODP, via an appendix, only arises as a concern because of the weight David Podmore placed on it in his submission to Council. I was surprised to hear him rely on it as some sort of clear green light. Apart from everything else, PavCo and Paragon would have known very early on in the 2009 bid process that the Gaming Control Act governs casino expansions, and its provisions are paramount over municipal development plans.

  The expansion application is not and has never been ancillary to rezoning. It is a separate process governed by the Gaming Control Act and Regulations, and all parties would have known this in 2009 at the latest.

  So the conduct of all the participants–not just the sitting Premier–is odd. Everyone knew this process had to happen, and they proceeded in a way that characterized it as (and still talk about it as if it is) a rezoning application.

  That in itself is disingenuous.

  Then we have City planning staff pointing to the ODP appendix as having significance to them. At the same time they disavow an obligation to take into account the lengthy and involved 3 year public consultation process that the City had undertaken in the 90′s.

  Councils cannot bind future Councils, it was said by planning staff, and each application should be judged on its own merits.

  If that is so, why should Council now consider itself bound by the 2008 ODP Appendix?

  There are many unanswered questions, and it is not only people on this board who have them.

  Given the fractious history this issue has in Vancouver and BC politics, a policy shift of this magnitude should have a much clearer process and regulatory provenance.

• 29 Jo-Anne Pringle // Mar 17, 2011 at 1:27 am

  @Deacon Blue – I don’t want to take this thread off topic – but Deacon, part of your post caught my eye. Where/how is provincial gov’t revenue behind Gateway at the foot of Cambie?

• 30 mezzanine // Mar 17, 2011 at 8:21 am

  @ S Garossino:

  “The inclusion of a casino in the NEFC ODP, via an appendix, only arises as a concern because of the weight David Podmore placed on it in his submission to Council.”

  If anything, Ms. Bula reviews that in #27:

  “The city has had a policy for over 20 years designating the area around BC Place as an entertainment zone. The casino was seen as part of that. In fact, other casinos were shut down in the city and Edgewater was allowed to open in 2004 because the BC Place area was seen as a more appropriate place.

  The casino was a temporary use — but only for the Plaza of Nations venue, not for the whole Northeast False Creek area. ”

  …..

  As an aside, I wouldn’t be surprised if lay people found it hard to glean info from reports like these. The process we are having now ideally would have happened much earlier. But be clear – what is the criticism with the process and what is the criticism about the actual proposal? We saw this with the Hornby bike lanes.

• 31 Max // Mar 17, 2011 at 10:35 am

  @ mezzazine #30

  I understand through another blog, that the proposed new Telus building have not gone through the zoning process at this point, yet, they have been announced as a done deal.

  Supposedly the city sold a parking lot at Georgia and Richards to help accomodate this new project – the amount and surrounding dealings have yet to be disclosed.

• 32 boohoo // Mar 17, 2011 at 11:12 am

  On a somewhat related note, Council sent back to staff Concord’s proposal for two towers in NEFC until they pony up the park space they promised 20+ years ago.

  http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Vancouver+halts+False+Creek+condo+plans/4452269/story.html

• 33 Bill McCreery // Mar 17, 2011 at 11:17 am

  Thank you Frances and others. Your information and perspective is instructive.

  I’m not sure the ‘now you don’t, now you see it’ thread is that significant. What is significant from what Peter Ladner and others say, is: what determines what a “major casino” is. In the context of 2007 – 2008 most people would have thought that the Edgewater Casino was a “major casino”. In the context of that time it was. and, for that matter still is.

  The current Paragon PROPOSAL is an even bigger, 2 1/2 times bigger, “major casino”.

  Another side to this matter are the potential alternate uses. Yet more residential condo towers next to a major sports facility is not the brightest idea in the book. One would think even hotel patrons would want a little peace and quiet for their $250 a night, unless of course they’re in the casino until 4am.

  Other possibilities might include:

  1) a combination of base and towers offices – the VisionCritical block is across the street; the CBD needs space for office use (the problem might be timing for Pavco because office developers may not need this location for some time, but should expediency be the planning determinant?);

  2) why not put the proposed practice rink on this site tied into the Stadium, maybe with some offices uses as well + other related sports training facilities, etc.; do a land swap with the Plaza of Nations developer and put whatever (residential/ office, etc) further away from the stadium with better water views, etc.;

  3) is there some government or institutional use that can be a good fit with the Stadium – a physical education / sports training facility?

  What’s missing here, among several things, is that too many people are to close to their own interests. This includes the City. Everybody needs to step back, take a deep breather or two and come at this important bit of geography with more flexible mindsets and fresh eyes.

• 34 The Fourth Horseman // Mar 17, 2011 at 11:18 am

  Mezz,

  There is criticism with both process and proposal.

  Process has not been followed.

  Proposal (the expanded casino itself) is not looked favourably on by a majority of Vancouverites.

  That a “new” casino—not looked upon favourably by a majority of Vancouverites was even included by the City as acceptable use is a beggaring of the process.

  Seems clear to me.

• 35 Deacon Blue // Mar 17, 2011 at 11:41 am

  @ George #27

  Since the Reagan and Thatcher decade, we have been “housing” mental illness in our streets.

  You know—Smaller Government—except when it comes to gambling.

  What are your “Lucky Numbers”?

  @ Joanne #29

  I believe the question was asked on this blog as to what the ownership was on that parcel of land. I may be wrong, but the reply I remember is that is was the province.

  “Another side to this matter are the potential alternate uses. Yet more residential condo towers next to a major sports facility is not the brightest idea in the book.”

  McCreery 33

  I dunno Bill. Seems to me that the wall construction that is meant to keep out the foul smells and pollution, as well as the noise, from Pacific Boulevard traffic will prove up to the test to drown out the next Rolling Stones concert, or the cheering crowds at Grey Cup 2011.

  Downtown is a hip “mixed use, hi-density zone”. People that don’t want that should shop somewhere else.

  “That a “new” casino—not looked upon favourably by a majority of Vancouverites—was even included by the City as [an] acceptable use is a beggaring of the process.”

  The Fourth #34

  Yes, hat-in-hand Horseman and preferably on bended knee.

• 36 The Fourth Horseman // Mar 17, 2011 at 11:46 am

  Frances,

  Having a difficult time with this statement:

  ‘No, the city gave the Paragon proposal an edge because planners said they wanted job space, not just condos, in that area as part of a long-term plan to ensure that the downtown doesn’t become just a residential resort.’

  But they were Ok with a “resort” of some type down there, apparently? OK to so-so wages in hotels and casinos? Why didn’t they encourage some office towers/complex or more tech space where the Microsoft’s of the world would have adeuate space in a city that boasts no business parks?

  We already have lots of hotels and restaurants in this city—those are the first kinds of businesses to feel the pain when there isn’t enough of a diversified economy–and dicretionary income—to be had.

  What we don’t have in Vancouber is good space for the jobs of the future.

• 37 The Fourth Horseman // Mar 17, 2011 at 11:48 am

  Hmmm, maybe “Vancouber” not a typo?

  Rhymes with “goober”.

• 38 Ian // Mar 17, 2011 at 12:46 pm

  “The most egregious misdemeanour I see on the record so far was when Premier Gordon Campbell announced a massive new entertainment complex and casino at BC Place in March 2010, as though it was a done deal and there were no rezoning processes to go through at the city.”

  Frances, with due respect I think you’re viewing this issue from the wrong angle and this sentence illustrates why.

  In March 2010, the casino was a done deal. The province has the legislative authority to build regardless of the city’s approval. They would have had to ride out a storm but they had the ability. That all changed as the political dynamic at the provincial level changed through 2010.

  So the real issue isn’t what the province did to the city. It’s what the province did to due process and taxpayers.

  That means it matters that, despite what the CEO and Chair told you by way of background, the Premier and the Minister told citizens something different – the new roof would be paid for through leases and development rights. Or at least that’s what they said at the announcement and in the Legislature.

  And it matters what happened in the period between January 2008 and March 2009 when the Request for Expressions of Interest went out. That’s the period when Paragon was working to get “the edge” as you put it that made the RFEI meaningless.

  To put a finer point on it, you can’t, in your words, give the Paragon proposal “an edge” in 2008 and consider the Request for Proposal process “fair” in 2009.

  And we have to remember that “edge” came in a process that was requested by, and partially paid for by PavCo.

  The other day you quoted Scott Menke as saying they began their work with the city to get a casino on the BC Place lands 4 years ago. That puts Paragon right in the middle of the rezoning process with Pavco.

  Lastly, I think its a little disingenuous to give the 2008 casino re-zoning a pass because the area is an entertainment zone as if that’s a carte blanche for any kind of entertainment. So sex shops would have escaped attention too?

  Whatever you think “entertainment” means, at the time it didn’t mean a permanent casino presence. The re-zoning was a policy change that gave Paragon a leg up – if it wasn’t why bother doing it in the first place?

• 39 PeterG // Mar 17, 2011 at 1:03 pm

  The only reason that we are all having this discussion is that Campbell has (almost) left the building. If he were still around, the casino would be sailing merrily along. Now, some of our elected representatives are discovering that , yes, they really do have a backbone and maybe it’s now safe to peek from under the covers.

• 40 The Fourth Horseman // Mar 17, 2011 at 1:26 pm

  @Ian #38.

  Two thumbs up.

• 41 Sean // Mar 17, 2011 at 1:58 pm

  What? No conspiracy theories about how these machinations are all part of a master plan by Vision to divert attention from the bike lanes before the upcoming civic elections?

• 42 Ron // Mar 17, 2011 at 2:08 pm

  WRT the size of the casino -

  At 114,000 sq ft – that still substantially smaller than the new Holt Renfrew at Pacific Centre. which is 137,000 sq ft.

  At which do you think people drop more cash?

  http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=c87bf747-cf1c-44c9-a8dd-23ba517b9a0f

  Football fields are not enclosed structures and should not be used to compare. It’s equivalent to a condo sales centre removing the ceiling on its display suite to make a space feel much bigger than it actually is.

• 43 Ron // Mar 17, 2011 at 2:21 pm

  WRT the City dentying rezonig to force Concord Pacific to build the park at NEFC -

  The park is going to be the repository for contaminated soil from NEFC – the same way that both Andy Livingstone Park and David Lam Park are repositories for contaminated soil. Contaminated soil is stored in situ (on site) under plastic liners and monitored.

  Concord’s current course of action appears to be based on the sequence of building the park once the last project is being built (i.e. once all of the contaminated sol is excavated.) That makes sense from Concord’s perspective since it keeps costs down.

  However, there are alternatives.

  If the park is to be built now, then all of the contaminated sols from all of the sites at NEFC can be excavated now, placed under the park site, and then developed when the demand warrants.

  That would result in the same situation that was seen with International Village about 10 years ago – remember the “duck ponds” at International Village after excavation but before all of the sites were developed?

  The main downside would be the loss of those spaces in the interim (while they are open pits) – i.e. the current location of the Concord display centre and some of the surface parking closer to Pacific Boulevard. The upside would be the delivery of the park.

  No doubt the exercise would be costlier to Concord, so hopefully they would have the same amount of money to devote to the community amenity contribution – i.e. the NEFC dragon boat facilities to be located at the park.

• 44 S Garossino // Mar 17, 2011 at 2:52 pm

  @Ian: This business about the province having the ability to build regardless of the city’s approval is a bit of a red herring. I only bring this up because so many people repeat this point without understanding the real legislative underpinnings here.

  The truth is the province has no power to over-ride the city here–they MUST have local host approval for an expansion or relocation of the casino, and this is mandated by the Gaming Control Act and its regulations.

  It is the Gaming Control Act–specifically s. 19(1)(a), which requires that the local host government or affected first nation approve the development or relocation of any gaming facility.

  The rules setting out the nature of the compulsory public consultation process that local host governments undertake pursuant to the Act, can be found in the Gaming Control Regs.

  The public hearing process we are engaged in is two-fold–it is both a municipal land use rezoning application AND a public hearing pursuant to provincial gaming legislation respecting the expansion and relocation of Edgewater Casino.

  Further, one other point being raised in the hearing by Councillors is moot–ie, the question as to whether members of the public would oppose the simple relocation of the casino. Section 10 (a) of the Gaming Control regs governs public hearings, and prescribes that adequate community input entails publication of the particulars of any proposed change. Meaning that if PavCo and Paragon want a relocation only, they have to come back with a detailed project proposal that the public can review.

  Nothing anyone says today about a theoretical move meets the standard for “adequate community input” as set out in the legislation. A detailed proposal has to be submitted. Meaning PavCo and Paragon have to re-start the process with a new application. Probably one of the many reasons they are saying this is an all or nothing deal.

  They know more than anyone that it is.

  The Province has no power to over-ride or by-pass local host approval unless it convenes and changes the legislation to permit this.

  This is a fine point, but it does make a difference, and to my mind explains some of the positioning being taken by PavCo and Paragon as the process advances.

• 45 mezzanine // Mar 17, 2011 at 2:56 pm

  @Fourth at #36,

  I’m not the expert to say that process was followed, as max at #33 pointed out other examples.

  Of course proponents of the casino could have made more effort to be explicit.

  and the proposal?

  “[the] Proposal (the expanded casino itself) is not looked favourably on by a majority of Vancouverites.”

  IMO It would be accurate to say there is a strong opposition from community groups; i am unsure if there has been any polling done by the city to say that the majority of people oppose it. If you have any info otherwise, please correct me.

  And let’s say if you do poll people and the majority do not support gambling, would they make or not make compromises if it meant tax increases or limits to future growth in programs?

  It would be interesting to see what sort of conusltation burnaby did prior to them opening the expanded grand villa in ~ 2008.

• 46 Ian // Mar 17, 2011 at 4:23 pm

  @sgarrison, you forget Bill 75, The Significant Projects Streamlining Act, which gives the provincial government the ability to override any municipal or PROVINCIAL law constraining any project the government deems “a significant project”. The government can, by following the procedures outlined in the act, override the provisions you noted in the Gaming Control Act.

• 47 Morry // Mar 17, 2011 at 5:01 pm

  Frances: you are pulling our leg are you not?
  I am a bit concerned about people trying to build elaborate conspiracy theories out of what is sometimes just bad and incomplete reporting.

  Read Peter Ladner’s comments again…. it is not about a conspiracy … it’s about being led by the nose.

• 48 Morry // Mar 17, 2011 at 5:04 pm

  forgot to add this link:
  Pavco can’t get its story straight
  http://bit.ly/f3QdAI

• 49 Frances Bula // Mar 17, 2011 at 5:05 pm

  @Morry. No, I’m not. People are mixing up good questions about bad process with other pieces of stuff that are just poorly communicated information or incomplete news reporting. I see this all the time: A person is quoted in one medium saying one thing, another medium saying another. Everyone jumps on it, saying, “Oh, he’s shifty. He’s changing his story.” But all the reporters know that it’s just that different reporters asked different questions and were pursuing different stories. All I’m saying is, Don’t get sucked into attacks that are built on nothing. Focus on the real problems.

• 50 Frances Bula // Mar 17, 2011 at 5:25 pm

  @Ian. I’m not sure I follow everything you’re driving at but I’ll try to respond to what I do understand. I think you’re totally wrong to think that mention of a casino got slipped in to the 2008 report. Everyone knew there was a casino already in that area. No one thought it was particularly newsworthy that it was going to stay in that area. It’s silly of you to suggest that anyone gave the entertainment zone “a pass” that would allow anything and everything, including sex shops. The uses were listed. Sex shops are very regulated in Vancouver and there would have been an uproar if they were included.

  What is unclear for all of us, when we look at that September 2008 report, is whether a) city planners and b) the province and Paragon knew at that time that there was a casino three times the size of the current one being planned.

  There are three possible scenarios.

  One. The province, Paragon, the compliant NPA councillors and the wicked city planners all knew exactly what was being planned and the report included the mention of the casino as an approved use in a deliberately deceptive way. In this theory, all those parties knew the casino was going to ask to expand massively but they counted on the public assuming that “casino” in the report just meant a casino of a similar size to the one that already existed. The city planners were possibly hypnotized by Ken “Dr. Evil” Dobell.

  Number two. The planners were dupes and had no idea what the province and Paragon were planning. (Ditto for councillors.) They put “casino” in the October 2008 report because the city had always envisioned having an entertainment zone, and a parking lot next to a stadium with no waterfront access seemed like a good place for it. But they didn’t know that anyone was thinking of tripling the size. But PavCo and Paragon knew and were relying on getting this city okay as a kind of Trojan horse. (Of course, one small problem: the city would still have to agree to a tripling of the capacity, so it’s not like they were home free.)

  Number three. The planners put in casino because that is what had always been envisioned for the area. The city had decided, in a controversial decision, to bow to the winds of change in 2004 and have a casino in that area, so no biggie if it’s included in the official plan. Neither PavCo nor Paragon had come to any decisions by then. But, over the next 16 months, as PavCo and Paragon talk (it’s not illegal to have discussions, btw), the two sides come to the conclusion that a big casino could help support a big stadium renovation and a big stadium renovation would help support a stadium.

  Does that mean the bid was rigged? Well, in the sense that PavCo and Paragon knew that there were all kinds of conditions that made it hard for others to bid on the development. Residential developers would be at a disadvantage because city planners had said over and over that they wanted job space in that area. If PavCo had given the bid to Concord, they ran into the possibility that city planners and ultimately council would say that a Concord residential development didn’t meet the objectives for the area.

  No other casino developers would be likely to bid because Paragon holds the only city casino licence there is, with no others available.

  The only other option would have been a developer willing to build a large amount of office space — that would have met city requirements. Was there someone like that? Would an office developer have been at a disadvantage because the province/PavCo would have seen offices as a much poorer return than a large casino? That’s what we don’t know. I note that the Aquilinis currently have a redevelopment application sign up next to Rogers Arena for an office building, so there is some interest in building office space down there.

  I really think it’s misleading to go around saying to people that a casino use was snuck into the area. It was there. Everyone was used to it. No one was particularly complaining. It’s the size of the proposed new casino and who knew what when the 2008 report was passed that are the uncertainties.

• 51 Frances Bula // Mar 17, 2011 at 5:31 pm

  @Morry. Do you have a clip of him saying those exact words. Or is that the reporter’s summary of what s/he thinks Podmore said. I can’t tell you how many times I have got things slightly wrong over the years because I thought I heard someone confirming what I wanted to hear. If there’s a clip, okay. But this is a paraphrase. Different thing.

• 52 Joe Just Joe // Mar 17, 2011 at 6:41 pm

  Frances, while the sign at Rogers Arena might mention an office tower it now won’t be all commercial like the original proposal. The new tower is only commercial on the bottom, the top will now be residential as will be the other two towers proposed for the site. Pretty sure no developer has the appetite for office space around BC Place especially for $6M/yr in land leases.

• 53 The Fourth Horseman // Mar 17, 2011 at 7:08 pm

  @morrie #45

  Justason poll in February 2011 and released by the City then, too, I believe. Found that 70% of decideds were against, with 30% of decides for.

  “And let’s say if you do poll people and the majority do not support gambling, would they make or not make compromises if it meant tax increases or limits to future growth in programs?”

  I always get a big kick out of people who only look at the “upside” of the numbers provided, morrie. As with any enterprise, the expanded casino, regardless of what it might do to its citizens, how it affects neighbourhoods, or how it may downgrade the overall Vancouver experience, is to be lauded, regardless of downside consequences, very ably documented in other jurisdictions.

  Some people here seem to follow the adage “they know the price of everything–and the value of nothing”.

  I would dare say, morrie, that people may just say OK to an extra $18 per Vancouverite per annum on a tax bill (whether income, business or property tax) in order to keep this thing from becoming a defining part of Vancouver.

  $18 per person, per year—this is what the revenue to Vancouver from PROJECTED numbers from Paragon would mean to the City coffers.

  And of course, Paragon hasn’t kept any of its previous revenue projections/promises in the current spot that houses Edgewater, so let’s make that $10 per person, based on the fact that current revenue projections from Paragon are off by around 35%.

  AND, of cource that doesn’t include costs for extra policing, social services, etc. etc etc. In fact, strip away the extra $10 million from the $16 million (plus property tax money that we would get if something else built there) Paragon says the expanded casino might bring in (it currently gives us $6.3 million) and one could see the possibility of a net loss to the City.

  Certainly, we would have to go begging to the province for more services, since those are a Provincial matter. Hmmm. How much dough do we get from the Province for treatment of the addictions—including gambling–we already have? Don’t make me laugh.

  And how ironic that the game of real estate tradeoffs for new social housing in Vancouver is predicated on luring more addicts to the area. Sure, build those SRO’s on the backs of other addicts. Pure genius!

  Yes, let’s talk about Burnaby. Why don’t they talk about capacity issues and increases in revenue there? After all, $180 million was spent to upgrade the facility, to see a measly 6% increase in revenues? And we are told that we will see a 100% increase in revenues—from $100 to $200 million plus by tripling the size of the Edgewater facility? Really?! Seriously?!

  Or how about the River Rock in Richmond, , where, according to Stephen Quinn, who visited on a recent evening, and said the place was not busy.

  Do you not think that perhaps we are seeing a bit of a saturation problem here in the Metro region? So, you build The Largest Casino in Western Canada—and that that will bring in the “tourists” alright—from new West, Coquitlam, etc. (Seems that the fellows at Paragon and PavCo are now backing off the big overseas numbers they were predicting. Quel surpris!).

  A casino, is a casino, is a casino. Same games. Same people. A bigger spot will be a novelty for about 5 minutes. Then people will go back to playing at the ones they have in their communities.

  Or maybe they won’t. Because the people who give a casino it’s biggest return are its problem gamblers—gee, there’s that nasty “downside” thing again.

  If individuas go to a casino even once a month, that is not who they are catering to…

  Here’s an idea. Since the bulk of the revenues go to the Province anyway, why not have those in Burnaby and Richmond become Super Casinos and make those our “Destination” casinos. They get a little more for hosting, policing, and addiction services, but the rest of the cities in the region get cash back for supplying the patrons.

  The best part for Vancouverites: less temptation for the younger gamblers to get started, so less social services needed. Less gang bragging rights in our area (go out to River Rock any night and see if you can spot one or two), less money laundering and less loan sharking.

  Yes, please send me my $10-$18 bill, City of Vancouver, forewith. Those are numbers I can believe in.

• 54 S Garossino // Mar 17, 2011 at 8:05 pm

  @Ian: Interesting re: Significant Projects Streamlining Act. You are right–I had forgotten that legislation. It certainly has its own nooks and crannies though.

  1. Where has the Act been used since its enactment in 2003, do you know?

  2. Do you think the Province would use it to force casinos into communities?

  3. Do you see use of a move like that as a winner for the Province?

• 55 mezzanine // Mar 17, 2011 at 9:20 pm

  @ Fourth,

  It is hard in some ways to put monetary values on governance. From a societal point of view, I can see benefits to the construction jobs, reduction in black market gambling and government revenue streams that casinos can bring. I can also see a lot of potential downside with problem gambling, money laundering and poor urban form if done improperly.

  Let’s say we do propose an $12 per person tax to replace gambling. Then consider the metro mayors just rejected a $31 per *household* property tax that translink wanted to improve transit and road infrastructure [1].

  …….

  didn’t know about justason – 51% against, 31% for and 17% neither.

  http://www.justasonmi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/city-omni-release-12-FEBRUARY-2011.pdf

  How much gambling is too much? i don’t know. I wouldn’t want vancouver to turn into vegas, yet i don’t think this proposal will, if we get the urban fit and streetscape right.

  I can also see how a DT casino will most likely draw money from outside Met Vancouver/BC. I don’t know how much.

  If gambling as you say is an unqualified bad, that will negatively affect neighbourhoods, then we should aim to remove gambling from the CoV, if not the metro area/province. we might get closer to that if paragon fails and edgewater loses it lease on the plaza of nations and the city opts not to seek a new site.

• 56 mezzanine // Mar 17, 2011 at 9:21 pm

  [1] http://www.civicsurrey.com/2010/10/07/mayors-turn-down-property-tax-increase-for-translink/

• 57 mezzanine // Mar 17, 2011 at 9:33 pm

  nb in my #57, it should say “a DT casino will most likely draw the most money from outside Met Vancouver/BC compared to other casinos in the metro area.”

• 58 Ian // Mar 17, 2011 at 10:10 pm

  Last post Frances, because I suspect we’ll continue to disagree big time on this one:

  First, as someone who appreciates your work very much even when I disagree with you, I’m surprised at the tone of your response.

  I’ll leave it at this. I disagree with your assertion that it was no biggie to amend the ODP to include a permanent “major casino” use when Council in 2004 only tenuously approved – very explicitly – a temporary use.

  That’s particularly the case when there was no public discussion of the change (it wasn’t included in the public open houses) and nobody apparently requested the new zoning.

  I believe that’s a legitimate position and I’m sorry you don’t even if you disagree with it.

  I also disagree with you on the fairness of PavCo’s RFP process.

  Paragon principal Dianne Bennett admits that the rezoning put them in a favoured position. Here’s how she put it in an interview with the Las Vegas paper: “There were other bidders (for the Vancouver project) but we had the casino license. Others could build a hotel, but no one could offer the economic impact that we could with our plans.”

  I see a problem that PavCo set up that process, paid for half of it, was fine with putting the zoning change before a public process and then went out with an arguably biased and truncated RFP process.

  That wouldn’t pass scrutiny in most Canadian jurisdictions. Again I’m sorry that you don’t see that as a legitimate concern even if you disagree with it.

• 59 The Fourth Horseman // Mar 17, 2011 at 10:54 pm

  Mezzz #57

  I just can’t see that they have made a compelling presentation for gamblers from outside of BC being attracted to Vanc. at all because of an expanded casino. Indeed, it appears that the total number of out-of-town(Metro gamblers) has been lowered several times as we go along.

  The fact is that the design of this casino plus the proliferation of slots is the indicator here. You’re not drawing the Macau money, you’re not drawing the Europeans. The folks in the Staes have plenty of gambling properties, many of which are now failing.

  We don’t see a breakdown of from where these “destination” gamblers would be coming from. I believe that Paragon, in their Deloitte report—that used Paragon numbers—mentions a marketing budget of $700,000.

  That hardly buys you 3x a week coverage in our local community papers.

  Look, the

• 60 The Fourth Horseman // Mar 17, 2011 at 10:59 pm

  Sorry, can’t remember where that “dangler” above was going.

• 61 The Fourth Horseman // Mar 17, 2011 at 11:04 pm

  PS Oh well I know that the Mayors don’t want to raise property taxes re: transit.

  So add it to my income tax, send it to Ottawa, who sends it back to BC. Then the province can pat our mayors on the heads and hector then about ponying up, before handing it over at the local level, where it should be.

  One. Taxpayer.

• 62 mezzanine // Mar 17, 2011 at 11:50 pm

  @ Fourth #62

  Lotto fever!

• 63 Deacon Blue // Mar 18, 2011 at 1:00 am

  Some mention “Burnaby”. I assume they mean the “Villa” visible on the Freeway on the south side as we approach Boundary Road.

  I was a building technology student at nearby BCIT in the 1980′s when that job went bust. The top level projected majestically over the cruciform plan of the tower itself…

  Problem was? The architects had failed to conceive how that would be built some 20 stories up in the air. The engineering solution was to erect (very expensive) temporary steel I-Beam supports for the concrete formwork.

  The Villa was a dead duck from that moment on, until the Casino deal came through.

  Then, there is Bridgeport… Disneyland on the Fraser. And, lying under the flight path of aircraft headed for YVR. Nobody wanted to shop there.

  Miraculously, after the casino opened there was a new hotel. Soon, Canada Line would be stopping there too.

  Hey, a Casino with hotels in the flight path to the airport, serviced by LRT, all that is good with me. It makes sense. People can ride transit from there to the airport, or to points elsewhere in the city. The hotels can serve the Casino, or they can serve weary travellers. It’s a win-win.

  However, adding more gaming to the stadium district is a lack-of-brains solution. Let’s kill it.

• 64 Frances Bula // Mar 18, 2011 at 9:04 am

  @ Ian. I don’t think we disagree that Paragon had an edge in the process because they already had a casino licence. As I said in my last post, that made it unlikely that any other casino operator would bid. It also made it harder for anyone proposing just a regular office or commercial development to compete.

  But there are always bidders on projects who are in a better position than others. That’s why they end up winning. The only reason to be suspicious would be if there was some very targeted effort to include “casino” as a permitted use in that zone, without anyone wanting it or realizing that Paragon intended to try to get it.

  And that’s where I disagree with your interpretation. The temporary use in 2004, as I keep saying, was only for that Plaza of Nations site. There was never any suggestion that I ever heard that the city or even the local residents saw the Edgewater casino as something that would eventually be forced to leave the area. That’s why no alarm bells off when people saw the October 2008 report and there were several mentions of the casino and relocating the casino. It’s because everyone, local residents included, expected that the Edgewater casino would end up somewhere in the same area, just not at Plaza of Nations.

  People are still saying they are fine with having the casino, at its existing size, there. What everyone is objecting to is the tripling of the size, which was not at all spelled out in the October 2008 report.

  BTW, you say there’s a problem that PavCo set up that process and paid for half of it. That seems weird to me. PavCo pushed for a rezoning, yes, and we all acknowledge they really jammed the city. Other developers have done that on occasion, but none with quite the force that PavCo did. But the city makes all applicants pay for part of the process. If they didn’t, local taxpayers, likely you included, would be complaining that we all were having to pay the costs of their expensive and time-consuming rezonings that include having to hold public hearings.

• 65 The Fourth Horseman // Mar 18, 2011 at 10:02 am

  Mezz #62

  LOL!!!

• 66 Morven // Mar 18, 2011 at 12:13 pm

  Francis Bula # 64

  You are mistaking cost efficiencies with the apprehension of a conflict of interest.

  Yes, the city does required developers to engage in early planning studies. But when the city staff are the ones doing the planning studies for the developer and it is the same department that provides the impartial advice to our elected representatives, then the ordinary citizen is quite entitled to ask where are the checks and balances to ensure impartial advice.

  As I have said earlier, there are more than adequate independent planners/architects to do the early studies without city planners being closely involved.

  In many other disciplines, the appearance of conflict of interest is something to be avoided at all costs (sic). Why should developer funded planning studies be any different?
  -30-

• 67 Bill McCreery // Mar 18, 2011 at 2:04 pm

  @ Morvin 66.

  Agreed. And, this is also the same line of thinking which puts the Director of Planning in a joint press conference with a developer, and the Mayor championing a spot rezoning development PROPOSAL at the applicant’s press show and tell.

• 68 Joseph Jones // Mar 18, 2011 at 6:31 pm

  Bula #50: Sex shops are very regulated in Vancouver.

  So tell us all about how our effective City Hall is moving ahead to shut down no-business-permit Fantasy Factory at Kingsway and Fraser.

  “It will be months before the fate of a controversial sex shop operating without city approval is known.” Vancouver Courier (10 Dec 2010)

Leave a Comment