REVscene Automotive Forum

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)
-   Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)
-   -   No go for Surrey casino project (https://www.revscene.net/forums/679332-no-go-surrey-casino-project.html)

Harvey Specter 01-19-2013 01:21 AM

No go for Surrey casino project
 
Looks like it's a no go for the casino project...

Quote:

SURREY (NEWS1130) – Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts was the deciding vote early Saturday morning. Council voted down the a proposed mega casino in South Surrey by a vote of 5-4.

There was no shortage of passion, or speakers, on day two of the public hearing. Like the first one on Monday, went into the wee hours.

Hour after hour council heard how the city would benefit from the new resort-style attraction being proposed by Gateway Casinos.

“I really emphasize the fact that it would have a theatre, it would have restaurants,” says one man who had addressed council.

“There’s job opportunities in its construction,” said another. “I’ve been to casinos lots of times and I’ve never been offered drugs or prostitutes,” said a third.

But for others, the project represents the loss of a quiet, livable neighbourhood. “I live where I live because I suffer from a mental illness. It’s dark and quiet and remote, and now they are proposing to put this casino 60 feet from my bedroom,” one woman relayed.

“Eighteen per cent of seniors that go to casinos will get addicted,” an SFU PhD student told council.

“Money laundering is a huge problem at casinos,” declared another speaker.

Close to 200 people were signed up to speak over the course of the hearing.

The 100 million dollar resort-style plan included slot machines, a 200-room hotel, a theatre, and four restaurants to be built at 10 Ave. and 168 St.

jack3d 01-19-2013 03:40 AM

wouldve been nice

Ronin 01-19-2013 04:07 AM

And....we're back to having no reason to go to Surrey.

CorneringArtist 01-19-2013 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin (Post 8136282)
And....we're back to having no reason to go to Surrey.

I live in Surrey and have to agree. I'm not sure if I want to chalk this decision up to genuine concern for the community or NIMBYism.

van_city23 01-19-2013 07:17 AM

Sucks when you consider the amount of jobs this would have provided.

punkwax 01-19-2013 07:30 AM

Kind of disappointed, but not overly. Would've been cool to have a River Rock type resort in my backyard although I didn't think the location they were proposing was all that great. My favourite little par 3 is right there, and I was wondering if the family that owns it were selling it to make room. Mind you, there's a lot of space in the area but I just don't see a mega resort sitting right beside Meridian..

StylinRed 01-19-2013 08:16 AM

sucks for the rest of us outside of surrey since that means we'll keep getting the riffraff crossing over :)

El Bastardo 01-19-2013 10:13 AM

I don't get why people get this kneejerk "OMG GAMBLEEN" reaction when someone mentions a casino or similar types of gaming.

Its 2013 and I think we can all agree that the gaming industry has turned the corner from being a back alley dice game to a legitimate source of entertainment.

Ronin 01-19-2013 10:15 AM

It's stupid for Surrey not to do this project considering there are already casinos in the Lower Mainland that aren't that far away. People are going to gamble whether you like it or not. Why not have them do it in their own town while providing jobs?

The usual arguments for not having casinos like increased traffic and crime don't really apply to Surrey since it's already congested and full of criminals. :lol

hopalong 01-19-2013 10:21 AM

It would of been nice to have a nice resort style casino in surrey. It would of created hundreds of jobs. Tax breaks and other benefits. It would of probably eventually stretched out the skytrain line in south surrey. The perception of casinos is outdated.

quasi 01-19-2013 10:21 AM

Surrey already has a casino at the race track and Cascades in Langley, Starlight or Boulevard aren't more then 30 mins away for most people who live there anyway. In my opinion the large senior population in that area are better off without a casino in such close proximity.

hotshot1 01-19-2013 10:52 AM

I don't even understand why there has to be a city council to decide matters like these. Someone should be able to purchase land and build a casino on top of it without approval.

vitaminG 01-19-2013 11:17 AM

.,ow.

murd0c 01-19-2013 11:18 AM

the problem is putting it in South Surrey, everyone is so stuck up of course they will vote no since their lives will be destroyed if it was approved. They should build it in a different Surrey location then there won't be as much backlash as seen

Gridlock 01-19-2013 11:23 AM

I wouldn't want to live next to a casino. I don't blame them.

It wasn't that long ago that we had to shoot a nutter at the new west casino.

RRxtar 01-19-2013 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotshot1 (Post 8136441)
I don't even understand why there has to be a city council to decide matters like these. Someone should be able to purchase land and build a casino on top of it without approval.

if people could build whatever they wanted wherever they wanted, cities would be an absolute disaster.


the problem with these public council meetings and inquirings is the only people who attend and voice their opinion are people with money invested, and people with more time than money (seniors). the majority of users of the types of facilities in question are usually too busy to attend.

Lomac 01-19-2013 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gridlock (Post 8136485)
I wouldn't want to live next to a casino. I don't blame them.

It wasn't that long ago that we had to shoot a nutter at the new west casino.

That's a little simplistic though, no? Langley had a shooting at a mall a few years back. There are shootings at Restaurants in Vancouver and Richmond. One thing doesn't necessarily mean it's going to bring about another thing.

I recall back when they were proposing to build Cascades in Langley, there was all this talk about fears of crime and prostitution that would take over the city and that the downtown core of Langley would turn into a slum. Guess what? Langley is just as prosperous as ever, crime didn't jump through the roof, and prostitution didn't dramatically increase (at least, not so much as you'd notice... :lol).

That said, I think building a casino in a suburban area is a little silly. Keep 'em within city limits or out in industrial areas. It's not that I wouldn't want a casino itself in my backyard; I'd be more worried about the increase of vehicular traffic in my area, is all.

Liquid_o2 01-19-2013 01:40 PM

From a planning perspective this was a terrible location for this type of use. The City of Surrey keeps contradicting themselves. They talk about being sustainable and building a properly planned city, but they almost let this go ahead.

They want to revitalize Downtown Surrey and spur economic growth? Put the entertainment complex there, with a casino, convention centre, theatre and restaurants. Allow people to access it by skytrain and hopefully LRT in the future. Create a hub of activity. Not some giant complex in the middle of South Surrey where everyone would drive to.

bing 01-19-2013 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotshot1 (Post 8136441)
I don't even understand why there has to be a city council to decide matters like these. Someone should be able to purchase land and build a casino on top of it without approval.

Dear student,

Please put more thought into your own questions before asking them.

Sincerely,

teach

quasi 01-19-2013 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotshot1 (Post 8136441)
I don't even understand why there has to be a city council to decide matters like these. Someone should be able to purchase land and build a casino on top of it without approval.

So if I bought the houses on either side of your home I should be able to bulldoze them put up a safe injection site on one side and a strip club on the other?

parm104 01-19-2013 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotshot1 (Post 8136441)
I don't even understand why there has to be a city council to decide matters like these. Someone should be able to purchase land and build a casino on top of it without approval.

Every city and municipality has an already agreed upon development plan. This plan was carefully structured and residents had the opportunity to place their input and concerns prior to this plan becoming established.

These town meetings that propose future developments are usually pretty full because it affects the economics and well-being of the residents that currently live in that area or own land in that area. Every single plan and move has the potential of causing a great loss to these residents or possibly bringing them great gain. I would imagine that the property values of houses around the casino would drop significantly. If not, they may propose to build more town houses and condos around the casino which might bring forth a busier population. More garbage, more street traffic, cheaper home prices...these are all concerns that people may have and need to be addressed by City Counsel before a developer or land owner goes forth and does as they please.

hotshot1 01-19-2013 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bing (Post 8136637)
Dear student,

Please put more thought into your own questions before asking them.

Sincerely,

teach

Okay. Thank you, I will keep that in mind for next time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RRxtar (Post 8136541)
if people could build whatever they wanted wherever they wanted, cities would be an absolute disaster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quasi (Post 8136683)
So if I bought the houses on either side of your home I should be able to bulldoze them put up a safe injection site on one side and a strip club on the other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by parm104 (Post 8136700)
Every city and municipality has an already agreed upon development plan. This plan was carefully structured and residents had the opportunity to place their input and concerns prior to this plan becoming established.

These town meetings that propose future developments are usually pretty full because it affects the economics and well-being of the residents that currently live in that area or own land in that area. Every single plan and move has the potential of causing a great loss to these residents or possibly bringing them great gain. I would imagine that the property values of houses around the casino would drop significantly. If not, they may propose to build more town houses and condos around the casino which might bring forth a busier population. More garbage, more street traffic, cheaper home prices...these are all concerns that people may have and need to be addressed by City Counsel before a developer or land owner goes forth and does as they please.

I live in a neighborhood surrounded by houses. I am fairly certain that you can't just prop up a store anywhere, you would have to get a permit and so forth but you're right quazi, I wouldn't like having those 2 sites on either side of my house.

But say there was a strip mall 2 blocks away from my house, I think anyone should be able to place any store in that complex without anyone having approval, considering they do everything legally.

In this case, they had a vote which means that if it passed, the casino would be built. That means that there was no question about permits or of them breaking any bylaws. They were denied because of human emotions and not on any stats (like projections of how much it would benefit the area and so forth), which in my opinion is pretty ridiculous.

SoNaRWaVe 01-19-2013 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotshot1 (Post 8136886)
In this case, they had a vote which means that if it passed, the casino would be built. That means that there was no question about permits or of them breaking any bylaws. They were denied because of human emotions and not on any stats (like projections of how much it would benefit the area and so forth), which in my opinion is pretty ridiculous.

:suspicious:

In your logic, a safe injection site and a strip club should be built sandwiching your house regardless if you liked it or not then. Considering it would probably be placed there because 1) it would most likely clean up the streets around your place from dirty needles and 2) strip club and safe injection site would provide jobs. Therefore, it is beneficial.

Or would you have liked to have your opinions heard before these sites are put up?

I'm sure you would like to have an input if something is going to be built and potentially impact you/your neighborhood directly or indirectly.

I'm not sure at what you mean by permits, but I'm sure there would be some sort of rezoning that would be required. And that can also mean a decrease, or maybe an increase, in land value.

Maybe we should just build a landfill right in your backyard without asking you.

bing 01-20-2013 02:43 AM

In case anyone is wondering why the community needs to be consulted.

Quote:

BCLC makes a proposal to the host local government, which is the municipality, regional district or First Nation with authority of land use planning where the facility will be located. Public and community consultations are also required. All of these requirements are set out in the Gaming Control Act
Approval Process | Casinos | What We Do | BCLC Corporate

Greenstoner 01-20-2013 03:46 AM

Gateway owns the land, they will likely try again or sell the land to other business developer like costo, Walmart....etc
Posted via RS Mobile


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net