Survey shows lukewarm support for casino in Markham
Markham Economist & Sun
May 8, 2014
By Amanda Persico
A survey on support for a casino in Markham does not show enough enthusiasm for a gambling facility to go ahead, the councillor behind the survey says.
“The results of this survey do not demonstrate sufficient support for any project that includes a casino,” Regional Councillor Jim Jones’ letter to residents at the bottom of the survey reads.
“However, the survey does indicate some of the higher priority items like infrastructure and transit are strongly supported.”
Last month, Mr. Jones put out a survey asking residents to weigh in on his vision for a multi-use entertainment facility that would include a gaming or casino resort.
Councillors Don Hamilton and Colin Campbell also loaned their names to the survey.
While the focus was the entire entertainment complex, the casino idea stole the show.
“People were latching onto the word casino,” Mr. Jones said. “But I saw the larger picture of a convention centre that would attract major, major industry.”
The casino would make up about 5 to 7 per cent of entertainment square footage, which would also include a convention centre, five-star hotel, arena, performing arts centre and retail and restaurant venues.
Close to 75 per cent of patrons would be from out of town, Mr. Jones added.
The survey was sent to 94,000 homes and received more than 2,300 responses.
Just over half indicated they would support the city looking into the pros and cons of a world-class entertainment complex that includes a casino.
About 55 per cent were in support of the city evaluating the economic benefits a casino would bring to the municipality.
According to the survey, Markham could expect to see between 8,000 and 10,000 permanent jobs as well as an annual hosting fee of about $30 million to $40 million and $25 million to $30 million in property taxes that would line the city’s coffers.
If Markham were to host a casino, respondents ranked how host fees should be spent, with transportation and transit leading the charge, followed by maintaining low property taxes, stormwater system upgrades, senior citizen and affordable housing, trails and parks, upgrading community centres and supporting amateur sports.
Respondents also ranked site selection considerations for this type of entertainment complex, with clear separation from residential areas at the top of the list, followed by proximity to all-day transit, structured parking, adjacent to 400 series highways and other environmental issues.
Spending potential host fees on transit is an eye opener, Mr. Jones said.
“People want money spent on transit,” he said. “The problem is gridlock and people are frustrated. To get transit, there needs to be a reason to go there.”
The entertainment complex would have been that reason, he said.
“I was hoping a project this size would expedite transit plans,” he said. “I was hoping this would advance the advancement of transit.”
About 34 per cent of respondents indicated knowing the entertainment complex and casino would be privately funded did not make the deal more appealing, while 54 per cent said private funding sweetened the deal.
When asked if Markham should still consider a casino given potential negative impacts such as increased gambling addictions and increased crime, 49 per cent responded yes, 42 per cent no.
Last month, the No Casino Markham group - consisting of Councillor Alan Ho, public school board Trustee Allan Tam, co-chairperson of the York Region Parent Association Alick Siu and council candidate Amanda Yeung Collucci - denounced a casino in the city and introduced an anti-casino petition.
The group has garnered 1,100 signatures, both in person and online.
“We are against a casino in Markham, period,” Mrs. Yeung Collucci said. “We have nothing against the complex. But no casino.”
While the hosting fees paint a rosy picture, it is the negative social impacts that are worrisome, she said.
