[Please sign our petition here, after reading! Thank you.]

CBC: “The number of severely-addicted gamblers in British Columbia has more than doubled while the provincial government has taken in billions in gaming revenue, according to a new report from the Provincial Health Officer.

The concerning figures have prompted B.C. medical health officer Dr. Perry Kendall to call for more government investment in gambling prevention and treatment programs.

The report, released Wednesday, analyzed data collected between 2002 and 2007. It showed that even though gambling activities have generally declined, the number of people with a severe gambling problem has risen from 13,000 to 31,000.”

The Kendall Report requires an immediate response from provincial and municipal governments. The report was published over six weeks ago, and yet there has been no reaction from the BC government or the City of Vancouver. Meanwhile, we are heading for a development permit hearing on December 17 for the massive casino building – at its original massive size, ripe for future expansion – in downtown Vancouver adjoining BC Place Stadium. One of the largest demographics for rising gambling addiction is young males. Why has there been no reaction to the Kendall Report?

13 years ago, internationally renowned economist Richard Lipsey wrote a paper on gambling expansion with Lennart Henriksson, entitled Should Provinces Expand Gambling. As he is traveling on a schedule too tight to permit him to write on this topic today, Dr. Lipsey invited us to excerpt his paper in ways that are helpful to today’s debate. What follows could have been written yesterday:

By Richard Lipsey, PhD, Professor Emeritus, SFU, Order of Canada

Summary:

We believe it is time for governments to adopt a more sober set of expectation about what new gambling ventures can achieve.

[T]here has been little clear thinking on the question of whether the benefits of expansion outweigh the costs. … Unfortunately, most cost benefit studies to date have been funded by groups with a vested interest in expansion, such as governments or would-be casino developers. In the typical study, the benefits of expansion are overstated, often by ignoring the diversion effect. In other cases, the social costs of expansion are understated or ignored altogether.

To be sure, the tax content of new gambling expenditures for the government is substantial. But for the economy as a whole, we conclude that while some new revenues and jobs are created, these are largely offset by the loss of jobs and revenue in other sectors.

The downside risks of gambling are significant, When the social costs are deducted, the incremental revenues may turn out to be negative. For the BC government, even a tiny increase in healthcare, social services or law enforcement costs would easily wipe out any incremental gain. Sadly, the government continues to overlook the need for objective and realistic analysis.

[T]he benefits from new gambling are limited, and easily overwhelmed by large downside risks.

On Employment:

It is easy to point to jobs created in gambling because they are localized and visible; it is difficult to track the jobs destroyed by the diversion of expenditures from other lines of expenditure because they are diffused. … Only careful studies of overall employment trends, not just those in gambling, have any chance of uncovering the true full effect –and, by and large, such studies find little effect.

[T]the losses from gambling are partly moneys transferred from expenditures that the losers would have otherwise made. For the same reason, most of the jobs created in gambling only substitute one for one (at best) for the jobs destroyed when expenditure switches from other activities. Although any new job is to be welcomed, these are not the sort of increments that justify accepting significant social costs to obtain.

On Problem Gambling and Crime:

Problem gamblers are an easy target for those in organized crime. They can be lent money which they lose, and then forced into such illegal activities as couriering drugs. The existence of a supply of problem gamblers may actually attract the criminals who would exploit them. And, when the consequences come home to roost, suicide may increasingly appear to be an easy out.

On Political Integrity:

A degree of corruption is a very likely product of expanded gambling. To be sure, some jurisdictions seek diligently to prevent corruption in the regulatory process through mechanisms such as conflict of interest rules, the appointment of persons who are above suspicion, or requirements for open procedures. But the effectiveness of these practices is limited. The licenses that a gaming commission awards are extremely valuable, and decisions it makes governing day-to-day operation of gaming facilities will often involve large amounts of cash. Suspicion of corruption and its occasional appearance are inherent in the process.

On Public Debate:

There has been a “bandwagon” atmosphere around gambling in Canada, and an unfortunate stifling of healthy public debate.

On Policy:

All in all, the best gambles are those in which one risks a relatively small sum in the hopes of winning a relatively large sum. The bet the public is being asked to make on extended gambling violates that basic principle. They risk a large economic and social loss that is uncertain and open-ended. No one knows how big it may be. All in all, this is neither an efficient nor effective way of funding public policy goals.

Richard Lipsey, PhD, Professor Emeritus, SFU, Order of Canada

Parents shouldn’t blow college fund at casino
Letter to the editor, Vancouver Courier

BY JENNIFER LUI
MARCH 25, 2011

To the editor:

Re: “12th and Cambie,” March 18.

I strongly disagree with the idea of building a mega casino in Vancouver. Casinos have a way of sucking the money out of everyone who goes there. The casino itself would make money, but for the family members of the customers, it is a disaster waiting to happen. As a Grade 12 student determined to go to university, I’d like my parents to spend their money on a more meaningful cause. Perhaps they could spend their money on my university tuition; it’s just a thought. If the mega casino were to be built, my parents would probably go there almost every week.

I would rather not see them constantly lose money since they usually do every time they step foot inside a casino. It’s not a pretty sight.

Jennifer Lui,

Vancouver

© Copyright (c) Vancouver Courier

67% of Vancouverites believe casino expansion will bring significant social problems.

Once again, consistent with all other polls of the Vancouver public, the Ipsos poll released March 24 shows a clear and substantial majority of decided respondents OPPOSE the expansion of Edgewater Casino. Although the margin of error was large and the sample size was very small at 250 Vancouver residents, this is the third poll since February demonstrating a clear lead by expansion opponents over supporters. No poll of Vancouver residents has ever shown public support for the casino expansion, and no poll has shown support within 10 percentage points of opposition.

Below is a summary of the polling data we are aware of. Please note that the figures below reflect DECIDED respondents.  We have allocated undecideds proportionately, so the numbers are different from what you will see on the survey results themselves:

Here’s what happened when Richmond, B.C.’s small Bridgeport Casino expanded to become the River Rock Casino. Vancouver Sun, October 25, 2007. Also see “Richmond sees rash of casino-related crime” on canada.com.

Casino a crime magnet: RCMP

The opening of River Rock Casino in Richmond has led to a quadrupling of casino-related crime and allowed new organized crime groups to gain a foothold in the city, according to an internal RCMP report obtained by The Sun:

… River Rock opened in June 2004, replacing a smaller casino run by Great Canadian on Bridgeport Road in Richmond. The report found no evidence that River Rock has increased criminal activity in the 500-metre radius around the facility. But calls for service at the casino itself were up sharply.

In the first six months of 2003, according to the report, the RCMP received 32 calls for service from the Bridgeport casino. In comparison, during the first six months of 2006, the Mounties received 137 calls from River Rock — a four-fold increase.

Those calls included:

— 20 cases of impaired driving; 10 cases of disturbing the peace;

— Seven cases of uttering threats;

— Six cases of fraud;

— Six cases of assault;

— Three cases of cocaine possession.

Blank said it’s not fair to compare the two casinos, because River Rock is a full-service resort — with a hotel and theatre — whereas Bridgeport was only a gambling venue. He said River Rock gets about 15,000 visitors a day, compared to 1,000 at the old casino.

At a news conference in August, Richmond RCMP Supt. Ward Clapham said his detachment was struggling to keep up with crime at River Rock. Clapham said three of five kidnappings in Richmond this year have involved possible gambling-related extortion and two of the 11 kidnappings in 2005 were gambling-related. There have also been at least two suicides in Richmond related to gambling debts, he said.