I walked by city hall this week.
The building stands proud, eight stories tall, on the corner of Main and Bay. A glimmering edifice in a city with substance abuse, women trafficking, substantial homelessness, urban sprawl and gentrification. That same night, I saw an events page against the construction of a casino downtown; a new topic of discussion among city council’s Gaming Facility Proposal Subcommittee. In March, officials will inform the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation of the verdict.
I couldn’t help but feel a sense of (nearly comedic) horror at the fact that this issue is even up for debate. As if our city isn’t already deep into a kind of political unrest. The dissolution that exists between Hamiltonians and their representatives is uncanny.
For starters, a casino downtown would be a nightmare for small business owners. Sixty per cent of small businesses in Canada near a casino go out of business within two years. Issues regarding bankruptcy steadily increase following the opening of a new casino. It’s no wonder that a lot of downtown business owners refuse this consideration.
It’s an old, conservative way of thinking that as long as people are employed, the economy is in a good place. Many of the casino’s apologists, of course, beg to differ. The creation of ‘short-term jobs’ repeats itself. Wages made, the political atmosphere, or the long-term effects of workers in the surrounding area don’t seem to be big areas of contention among supporters. This simplified argument actively isolates individual businesses from their surrounding communities and that’s when things get messy.
With a staggering 18 per cent or so of our population below the poverty line, the very idea seems ghastly. In a city that bleeds for social progress, a casino would force the most disadvantaged sectors no other choice. It is being built in one of the poorest areas in Hamilton, and indebtedness due to gambling is one of the biggest reasons Canadians file for bankruptcy.
Something that isn’t talked about enough, but is perhaps one of the most crucial elements of this controversy, is prevailing health issues. How many parents with children would say ‘yes’ to a highly populated, late-night casino in their backyard? According to the City of Hamilton’s Public Health Services, casinos increase vulnerability to youth, elders, and especially aboriginal communities. Within the youth population of problem gamblers alone, 25 per cent reported an attempt at suicide in just the last year. In case this doesn’t ring some bell, that means youth problem-gamblers are 18 times more likely to attempt suicide than other students.
During my days downtown, I think of the word ‘potential.’ I’ve biked Barton Street at one in the morning and Locke Street at noon. I’ve walked James in the rain, had Wass with friends and pissed on old Churches in the dead of night. All my worst and best experiences are forever ingrained into the delicacy and vitality that is the downtown core.
Out of love, it is with vehemence that I say this city could do without an extra gaming sector, could do without another storm against our rapid tides.
A dissolution can’t exist by definition…
The people supporting the casino are supporters not apologists… it doesn’t exist yet what is there to apologize for?
This and many other problems come up when you focus on your words and not your meaning.
I’d like reading your articles better if they were in plain English without attempts at buzz words
One can surely label the supporters of the casino as apologists. An apologist can be defined as “a person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution…through the systematic use of information.” The word comes from the Greek “apologia,” which translates to “speaking in defense.”