Tony Blair says super casinos will help regenerate the areas they're in - giving them ‘the chance to put themselves on a proper modern footing'. Damian Aspinall agrees with him, whereas Steven Bate dismisses the idea as ludicrous. Here, Jon Ladd doubts the pilot scheme will prove much either way
The debate about regional casinos has divided opinion as much as any piece of legislation I can remember. Though I welcome this discussion, I am dismayed that so few people recognise that there are valid arguments on both sides of it.
Like the colours on a roulette wheel there appear to be only two options. The anti-gaming lobby - the reds - believe that deregulation will lead to the disintegration of the country's social fabric. The pro-casino lobby - the blacks - that the opening of a regional casino will bring unrivalled economic benefits to a previously deprived area.
Unfortunately, the decision to launch regional casinos with a pilot scheme of one brings into play the third colour on the wheel, green zero. And as anyone who knows gaming can tell you, whenever that comes up, nobody wins.
In reality the truth lies in between the red/black argument. While it is true that gaming-led regeneration brings social challenges, anyone who wants to place a bet can do so already - either at a bookies or through the internet, where checks such as age-verification of participants or support mechanisms for problem gamblers are likely to be less stringent than at a casino.
Casinos can have a positive impact on employment in an area. But a single regional casino in the pilot means that the ripple effect of creating a gaming-led destination is not likely to be felt in support and other industries. The siting of regional casinos is contentious. If these are placed in city centres, concerns arise about encouraging impulse gambling. However, if they are sited out of town, then there is the need to ensure that the appropriate infrastructure exists for both public transport - which must be available throughout the night and early hours of the morning - and private transport, which should not result in excessive traffic flows through residential areas.
The argument that casinos will attract tourism to an area is somewhat spurious. Certainly it is true that where a gaming-led destination is developed this will happen. However in cities where a single casino exists - for example, Le Casino de Montreal - the casino is not seen as one of the top tourist attractions in the city, but rather as an add-on, that is something that visitors may go to while they are in town, but which does not drive them to it. The vast majority of visitors to a single site casino will come from within a 30 mile radius.
Single big casinos are not seen as top tourist attractions but rather as an add-on visitors may go to
Jon Ladd, BURA
UK legislation ensures that not all of the floor space of a casino is given over to gaming. A regional casino would have a minimum floorspace of 5000 m2 with at least 1500 m2 given over to non-gaming activities. This is deemed positive as it both ensures that those visiting the casino can take a break from gambling and also that this space can be used to provide non-gaming facilities (restaurants, bars, etc) for the broader community. However, the creation of these facilities may have an adverse impact on existing establishments in the vicinity.
All in all, there's no doubt that casinos can act as a catalyst for regeneration, if their implementation and delivery is undertaken correctly.
Perhaps the biggest problem is the fact that in order to push the Gaming Act through parliament before the last election, the legislation was watered down to provide for just one regional casino, rather than the eight that had been previously proposed. Having spoken to a wide range of people, representing both the pro and anti viewpoint, I have yet to find one who has considered that this is appropriate either as an outcome or as a basis for a pilot scheme. What we have been saddled with is a compromise solution that benefits no one.
If we are going to go in for regional casinos, then we should do so in a manner that has regeneration at its heart and if this cannot be done, then we should drop the whole idea.
Should the number of regional casinos in the pilot scheme be increased eventually, then, from a regeneration perspective, it is imperative that they are not allocated simply by distributing them in a variety of locations - one seaside town, one market town, one city and so on. The pilots should be run where there is the strongest economic case for doing so. This must be considered not only from the viewpoint of each town and city that is nominated, but also from a regional and national perspective. Further, consideration should be given to siting a number of regional casinos in a specific location in order to create a leisure destination that will attract tourists from outside the UK, because, as I say, a single casino will not achieve this.
Finally, any change in the number of pilot projects will result in an initial delay in delivery. However, such a delay is a small price to pay so that we can properly test if regional casinos can play a catalytic role in delivering regeneration. The long-term benefits will far outweigh the short-term inconvenience.
Source
RegenerateLive
Postscript
By Jon Ladd, chief executive, BURA
No comments yet