A good way to wreck a local economy: build casinos
- August 13, 2014 1:54 pm at 1:54 pm #1034452
The location is not suburban. It’s brownfield.August 13, 2014 3:47 pm at 3:47 pm #1034490
I have never been to the casino. Nor will I ever go. Throwing gobs of my money away with a best possible 50% chance to see any return is not my idea of a good time. If there had been some mention of a possible entertainment venue being built as an addition to said casino, my interest would have increased marginally.
I have only ever driven by this place. It’s everything I loath about mid-western urban environments. A 70,000(?) square foot climate controlled, concrete and plastic box sprouting out of a field of hard, black asphalt. That is not what I wanted to see downtown. Or anywhere for that matter.
If the casino were to shut down today. I know that there would be as little thought put into its deconstruction, as there was in its construction. And that would be my only regret, or concern.August 13, 2014 3:57 pm at 3:57 pm #1034495
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Alex Silbajoris wrote:</div>
cited a few posts above, there’s a spinoff effect for establishments near the casino. With only the Blue Jackets to provide the draw to the AD, that’s a “single point of failure” leaving the AD vulnerable to anything going wrong with the hockey team.
I don’t see that at all. There’s the ball park, the LC music venue, and a wide variety of corporate offices and headquarters in the Arena District, not to mention the Park St. strip and other restaurants, bars, and the like. Hell, the North Market would be considered a part of the AD, wouldn’t it? Plenty of high-density residential buildings, too. Questions about the viability/financing of the hockey arena are beyond my pay grade, but it isn’t anything close to a single point of failure for the district.
A separate thought – I have always been astounded by the idea that a casino would be any sort of significant financial boon to whatever neighborhood it landed in. I have no objections to gambling, morally or otherwise, but I could never wrap my head around the idea that a casino had more to give than it takes. That’s just not the casino business model. Hollywood Casino is making a profit – not a big one, but one nonetheless – and I drive by it frequently enough to see that the parking lots are mostly full. It pulls plenty of people, but hasn’t done a damned thing to spur on development outside of its property lines. It won’t – it exists to drain its customers of the money they’d otherwise use elsewhere, and is designed to give its customers no reason to leave its premises. On balance its customers leave with less money than they went in with – this is not in dispute, is it? – and on balance they don’t have that much to start with, demographically speaking.
That could be said for any business. When I go to the movies I leave with less money than I went in with. My whole gripe is that if you stick it in a neighborhood where people don’t really want to go to anyway then you are going to only attract people whose primary concern is gambling and therefore won’t be inclined to spend money on other things. I’ve gone to Hollywood casino, why would I leave the casino and spend money in the surrounding area when there is nothing I want to spend money on. Contrast that to AD, where for me at least, I’m 100% guaranteed to spend money somewhere else.
I don’t gamble a lot but when I do I’m usually playing something like craps where I have slightly less than a 50/50 chance at winning. So basically I know on average I’m going to lose money over the long haul which to me is the cost of entertainment. However when I’m up since I feel I got the money for free I usually spend it much more recklessly. So it usually works out like this, I go and play one day and win $500. Afterwards we go somewhere else and blow $300 of that money on nonsense, a more expensive meal, more drinks than usual or a splurge gift. But for every time I win $500 there are 3 times that I will lose $200. Then I still go out spend money on drinks to forget about the money I lost. So all in all after going 4 times I’ve lost $100 on gambling. Considering I’m there for a few hours each time that comes out to about $10/hr for entertainment, which isn’t much different than going to the movies. However in the process I’ve spent a lot of money on drinks, food, shopping and strippers (don’t judge) that I wouldn’t have otherwise.
So in the process of losing that $100 I spent $300 of my perceived winnings on other stuff which isn’t casino related. But there has to be something nearby because it’s obviously an impulse buy that will die down once I’ve gone home and slept on it. At Hollywood Casino there simply isn’t a place for me to spend that money. However in Vegas or the local casino here in Miami, I simply walk out the casino still full of energy with many non casino options to spend it.
Then on top of that I have my friends with me who don’t gamble at all and are just along for the ride/drinks. So at Hollywood, a few of us gamble, while others drink and watch and enjoy in the excitement. When were done we load up and go home. So basically because a couple people wanted to gamble, you now have less people going out where we would otherwise go. Which would be fine if that money was going to another neighborhood, but it’s not. It’s just going to the casino.
So for me at least, you’ve gone from a situation where a casino downtown would have led to me spending more money in local business to a casino in the suburbs that if I go is taking away money from local business.August 13, 2014 6:46 pm at 6:46 pm #1034530
If there had been some mention of a possible entertainment venue being built as an addition to said casino, my interest would have increased marginally.
There have been many well attended concerts at the current location, from Morris Day to En Vogue, at their entertainment venue.August 14, 2014 7:35 am at 7:35 am #1034553
There has not been anything resembling a national act in that casino for well over a year. Nothing but tribute and cover bands, at best.August 14, 2014 9:03 am at 9:03 am #1034569
They were actually putting locals on for a while as well, non cover groups to boot, so that was nice to see. Knowing what is happening right now, national acts, even the groups like En Vogue who haven’t had any new material for quite some time, are trying to charge extreme premiums for live performances. This is partly due to the festivals that have become so common in this country, at least that’s my theory anyways.
In other words, the fact that the casino hasn’t booked national acts for the past couple of months (hasn’t been a year) probably has more to do with it being summer time, and just not worth the booking prices.August 14, 2014 9:34 am at 9:34 am #1034580
There has not been anything resembling a national act in that casino for well over a year. Nothing but tribute and cover bands, at best.
I like The Ark Band…August 14, 2014 11:00 am at 11:00 am #1034641
Cleaned up brownfield.
From the Stone Brewery thread
Here’s the brewery/bistro site in CA:
For everyone complaining about a large industrial building surrounded by asphalt parking lots and landscaping.August 14, 2014 12:05 pm at 12:05 pm #1034669
Cleaned up brownfield.
And thanks to Penn we had two brownfields cleaned up.August 14, 2014 1:17 pm at 1:17 pm #1034691
yuppers! Yay Penn.
It’s a shame it is wrecking our local economy.August 14, 2014 1:22 pm at 1:22 pm #1034695
Ha! Yeah, I know the city is miserable with 2-3 million a quarter in taxes, the ability to bail out and purchase the arena, the cleaned up environmental disaster at Delphi and the one in the Arena District, the newly annexed land, the 1500 jobs it provides…
I’d love to see any other business in the world held to the same standard of “good for the economy”.
I mean, they’re no Stone Brewery. That’s 350 whole jobs and god knows alcohol never harmed a community like gambling does…
The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.