I get that, but watch us get into a complicated, bureaucratic nightmare nonetheless*.
Obviously I'd much prefer if the City would just back away from the profit sharing thing and let the private operator do what they do best.
Oh of course.
Posted 17 April 2016 - 09:15 PM
I get that, but watch us get into a complicated, bureaucratic nightmare nonetheless*.
Obviously I'd much prefer if the City would just back away from the profit sharing thing and let the private operator do what they do best.
Posted 17 April 2016 - 09:25 PM
...Obviously I'd much prefer if the City would just back away from the profit sharing thing and let the private operator do what they do best.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding Mike, but are you suggesting that revenue from gaming should not be shared with host communities? Here is some brief info regarding that matter:
The Province shares gaming revenue with local governments that host casinos and community gaming centres in B.C. Host local governments receive ten per cent of the net casino gaming revenue from community casinos and community gaming centres within their jurisdiction....Host local governments may use this revenue for any purpose within their legal authority...
Edited by Nparker, 17 April 2016 - 09:26 PM.
Posted 17 April 2016 - 09:35 PM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 17 April 2016 - 09:39 PM
Shared with the host, yes, but not shared among other municipalities who feel they are owed some of the profits.
Posted 17 April 2016 - 09:44 PM
Shared with the host, yes, but not shared among other municipalities who feel they are owed some of the profits.
Oh I quite agree. If a new casino is situated within the municipal borders of the city of Victoria, there is zero reason for revenue to be shared with any other part of the CRD.
Posted 17 April 2016 - 10:56 PM
Well in no other situation of casinos does the profit sharing idea come up. It just goes the the siting municipality.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 18 April 2016 - 07:01 AM
What about profit sharing among munis on the Westshore?
Well, that's the only one in the whole province. Esquimalt gets a cut, go figure. While Victoria provides Esquimalt policing on a per capita basis. So Esquimalt gets revenue, but Victoria pays for any extra policing, if you can even draw some type of line between the View Royal casino and extra policing required in Esquimalt. Which I'm not sure you can.
Metchosin, Sooke and Highlands get casino revenue. Why? Who knows.
Posted 18 April 2016 - 07:12 AM
Just amalgamate them all, then they can can share it... under one or two governments.
Posted 18 April 2016 - 08:12 AM
^No, for God's sake no.
I was pro amalgamation until I saw what Helps and company has done to the city.
I will stick with my local muni government thanks.
After what has happened in Victoria good luck getting anyone to vote to amalgamate with them.
Posted 18 April 2016 - 08:53 AM
...I was pro amalgamation until I saw what Helps and company has done to the city...
I still hold out hope that under some sort of amalgamation (I prefer the 3 muni model) candidates like Her Worseship and Comrade Isitt would have less chance of being elected.
Posted 18 April 2016 - 09:39 AM
^ right. Instead of the region being run by the "best" 100 politicians, it would be run by the best 13 or so. Improving the quality of overall governance is a huge reason to want amalgamation.
Posted 18 April 2016 - 10:01 PM
I like the way my muni is run just fine. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Now Victoria on the other hand...........
You guys prove to me that you can vote in a pro business/development/taxpayer council and then we will talk.
Posted 18 April 2016 - 10:34 PM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 19 April 2016 - 06:08 AM
What would the reaction be from Westshore residents if the mayor of Victoria was found to be operating a variety of companies profiting directly and indirectly from the developments and initiatives she championed and approved?
I'm not fully convinced Her Worseship isn't doing that already. Perhaps she owns shares in a porta-potty manufacturer. I doubt it's much of a stretch to suggest she sees some sort of personal profit from all of her "medicinal" marijuana shops.
Edited by Nparker, 19 April 2016 - 09:19 PM.
Posted 19 April 2016 - 09:16 PM
Mike K., on 18 Apr 2016 - 11:34 PM, said:What would the reaction be from Westshore residents if the mayor of Victoria was found to be operating a variety of companies profiting directly and indirectly from the developments and initiatives she championed and approved?
Sorry Mike, she is not that smart. Oh, and nobody "profits" from anything she is championing.
Posted 19 April 2016 - 09:17 PM
^I should have added, "except the poverty pimps"
Posted 21 April 2016 - 06:14 AM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 21 April 2016 - 07:42 AM
Sometimes when you can climb a mountain, sit in an alpine environment and stare down at the world below you realize that at the end of the day politics is a game benefiting a select few connected to the upper echelons of power.
I see what you did there
Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network
Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams
Posted 21 April 2016 - 03:43 PM
A Committee of Victoria Council has voted reluctantly to increase the Johnson Street Bridge project budget by more than 8.2 million dollars.
The increase brings the total project cost to 105 million...although not all of that amount will necessarily be spent.Two million of it is a recommended contingency.
Council was reminded there are still two elements to come...,there's no amount budgeted yet for fendering or for landscaping on the west side of the channel.
Posted 21 April 2016 - 03:52 PM
^ right. Instead of the region being run by the "best" 100 politicians, it would be run by the best 13 or so. Improving the quality of overall governance is a huge reason to want amalgamation.
You really think that you get the 'best' people running for municipal politics? The one thing that amalgamation MIGHT do is at least allow us to pay councilors and the Mayor proper full time wages which might then attract more capable (but not the best) people. Of course what will happen though is that voters will squawk at paying $100K+ to councilors and $200K+ to the Mayor so we will be back at square one.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users