Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Opposition to a casino in one's own neighbourhood is a public space issue

In the news today: a poll showing that people are more likely to oppose a casino if it's in their neighbourhood.

The media is generally interpreting this as either NIMBYism, or as a sign that people don't want gambling to happen near them.

But I don't think that's the whole story. I think it has more to do with the physical structure of a casino and its interface with the streetscape.

I have the impression that the casino they're talking about is meant to be rather large, to draw tourists from all over and also to host live performances. Casinos are traditionally designed to be windowless, so gamblers are less aware of the passage of time. So this has me (and, likely, your average citizen) picturing a big windowless box with a giant parking lot - a dead zone without eyes on the street replacing what is currently a bustling street full of shops and patios.

That sort of thing doesn't fit in most Toronto neighbourhoods. Most of our streets are already full of homes and businesses where people live and work and shop. When we picture a casino in our neighbourhood, we wonder what healthy, thriving buildings that we use every day would have to be torn down. I blogged before about how I find myself hating a development that plans to tear down businesses that I use all the time, and this is for a developer who's building a condo in my neighbourhood - exactly what I'm in the market for! Imagine how much more opposition would come to tearing down things people use all the time to build a casino, which most people use very rarely, if ever.

The locations being discussed for a casino (Ontario Place, Woodbine, etc.) are already separate from the streetscape and the day-to-day functioning of neighbourhoods. Either there's enough space to build it without tearing anything down, or they'd be replacing one tourist-magnet entertainment complex with another tourist-magnet entertainment complex. It has no impact on most people's day-to-day lives.

But if you take the hypothetical scenario into the respondent's neighbourhood, suddenly an implicit part of the question is "Do you want to replace some existing functional aspect of your neighbourhood with a casino?"

Asking people if they want a casino in their neighbourhood is akin to asking if they want a racetrack, or an amusement park, or a zoo, or a football stadium, or an airport, or a large hadron collider. If you say no, it isn't necessarily because you're opposed to any of these things as general concepts. It may well just be because you're already full.

4 comments:

Lorraine said...

Well, I'm opposed in principle to NIMBY, and have vociferously refused every NIMBY petition shoved in my face. The NIMBY-type facilities inevitably follow the path of least resistance, which inevitably results in things like environmental racism or classism. For siting NIMBY-type things the idea I think they should invent is random drawings. You seem to be framing casino opposition in terms of eminent domain, to which I'm also opposed in principle. Interesting. A casino, unlike [?] a landfill, isn't something that has to exist. It surprises me that Toronto is jumping on the casino bandwagon. Is your local economy not actually viable, or is my Toronto-envy misguided? Perhaps this "golden horseshoe" thing is of the past? Or has it reached the point where the only politically viable tax is a "sin" "tax"?

impudent strumpet said...

I haven't actually looked into how economically "necessary" it is, because my opinions on the matter tend to average out to indifference. I do know that right now our political leaders seem to think other taxes are less economically viable than a lot of citizens think they are. (The provincial government refused to even do the math on tax increases when it was doing the math on cutbacks.)

A casino wouldn't normally be an eminent domain question, that's just the fallacy of this one poll. The sites they're actually talking about are unused lands on the fringe of the city, or existing entertainment complexes that are open to being repurposed. But the actual neighbourhoods where people live are full - you know, from all the people living there. If you ask people what they'd think of a casino in their own neighbourhood, the first thing that comes to mind is "Where would you even put it?" Just like if you were asked if you wanted an elephant in your bathroom.

laura k said...

I think the public space issue as you're describing it is a NIMBY issue. I don't think NIMBY is necessarily selfish and evil. It often is, because the NIMBY-ers are often opposing a necessary service. But if it's, say, pushing an expressway through a neighbourhood, and every neighbourhood NIMBYs it, urban space is protected.

laura k said...

Also worth remembering, alongside the "Where would you put it?" question. A major project in an urban setting means something - many things - will be torn down and people will be displaced.