|
|
|||||
|
|||||
| Path: Main Street : NewsWeek : Op/Ed : Audience Opinions |
Voters and local governments in many towns and cities across Canada have indicated, through referenda and resolutions, that they do not want charitable gaming in their communities. In spite of widespread antipathy toward gaming, most provincial governments have become dependent upon those revenues to fund some social programs, and appear to be headed toward an expansion of gaming operations.Do you think provincial governments should set up charity casinos, etc. in those communities anyway, overriding expressed local preferences, in order to advance what they perceive to be in the public interest?
(Responding to the Cover Story Canadian Charitable Gaming Scene In Chaos, March 9, 1998)As the executive director of a inner city Christian mission focused on helping families, I would like to raise a more fundamental question than that of government bungling and greed. Why are charities in the business of supporting gambling at all?
Gambling (which you call gaming) has considerable down sides. It is a often a tax on the poor. There is a significant percentage of the Canadian population who will become problem gamblers resulting in more suffering and more broken families.
It is time for charities to recognize that they are the sugar coating which helps our society swallow the poison pill. If the pill was not sugar coated, the poison would be obvious and responsible Canadian citizens and legislators would begin to rethink their support for this destructive diversion.
Ken Little, Executive Director, Toronto City Mission
My feeling on casinos is that they suck $$ out of the economy that could and should be spent in other areas. Casino's are certainly a source of funds, so are taxes. If a community expressly states that they do not want a casino, that should be the end of the question as the "community" usually represents the majority feeling. the Gov't should come up with other ideas that would work within that community but that might take creative thinking.Marcia Walter
Reliance on gaming for general revenues is an abdication of government responsibilities. charity casinos become a 'replacement' tax, one that is often levied against the poor.... raising revenue through gaming does not tax according to ability to pay. There is a difference between purchasing a raffle ticket to support a particular charity, and participating in large scale organized gambling for profit. The gaming community is finite. in my community, a local charity ran a small 'basement' bingo operation for years. once the big, multi charity casino moved in, the smaller bingo was shut down for lack of business . we are getting more and more gaming casinos all the time and I think they will drive each other out of business.Robert Wild
Yes, absolutely. However, the problem as I see it is that not enough of the gaming funds get to where they should be going. There are too many "middle-man" types sucking off the total funds. Ever penny possible should be redirected back to those programs, education, poverty assistance, even health programs and other important programs that never seem to break even.Sean McKeough
I believe local communities ought to have the right to refuse charitable gaming sites in their jurisdictions but that choice should be a balanced, informed opinion. Ontario municipalities which held a referendum last fall, I believe, failed to inform their residents fully of all sides of the debate. More specifically, charities need their voices heard on this issue.Susan Ross
I think governments need to heed the people who decide that they want to keep casinos and VLTs out of their communities. These forms of gambling, plus lottery tickets, are simply taxes made palatable by the possibility of reward (however small). It's time people learned to give from their hearts, not for what they can/might receive in return.Margaret Blank
Although I can understand some of the antipathy that is arising over the government's ideas re charity casinos, I do think that a lot of people have lost sight of the fact that it is these very casinos that fund so many of our small but vital services. Charity Bingo is the main 'casino' that is being targetted. This activity supports thousands of small organizations such as the Learning Disabilities Association, who depend upon the money from such activity to support their activities within their communities. Having seen the work that is able to be done as a result of Bingo games, I am very hesitant to condemn this move on the part of the government. I think most people, when they hear the word 'casino' promptly think of high rollers, plush surroundings and gambling, which leads to gambling addictions and other vices, including the world of crime.I believe that most of these casinos are in reality simply a place for the average person to go and spend a few hours in company with others with similar interests, win or lose a few bucks and go home, having provided some much needed wherewithal for a not-for-profit organization to continue operations.
There is simply not enough money in the government to support all these organizations. In the post war years, we all had to make do, volunteering and giving what could be spared to charity were commonplace, and everyone helped everyone else where they could. Today, it seems that few people really want to help out, everyone wants someone else to take up the responsibility, no-one wants to be 'involved'. Well, these charity casinos are one way in which a lot of those 'no-one's' can help out without really becoming involved. A few dollars spent and lost at a Bingo game will help someone else to support a less privileged person, or a less popular cause.
Colin and Anthea Hoare
Not only should provincial governments respect the wishes of local communities regarding charity casino's but they should also see this resistance as an opportunity to get out of gaming altogether!Lotteries and casino's are predatory, hidden and regressive taxes that attack society's most vulnerable and gullable...hardly something in the 'public interest'. Is it any wonder that people have become cynical of their governments when these same institutions have been gleefully fleecing the citizenry for the past 20 odd years?
In addition to finally balancing the fiscal books, provinces have an additional obligation. That would be to wean themselves off gambling... admit the mistake and raise income taxes appropriately on high income earners and corporations to make up the difference. (oh, and if they want to move to the U.S., let them!)
As far as charities are concerned, they stand on the same perilous moral ground as governments when it comes to gaming & lotteries. They should also bow out and stop feeding off of someone else's weakness and vulnerability to further their own 'good' cause.
Dwight Peters
Morality aside, let's look at the ethics of the issue.As a consultant in the area of ethics and values (and other things) we have a hybrid model that, simply put has us ask three questions: Who are the stakeholders to this dilemma (we should always include those mentioned in the mission of the organization) Which core ethical values are in jeopardy, such as, trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, justice & fairness, citizenship, and caring? If two core ethical values are involved, the one we must address is the one that if dealt with would produce the greatest good for the greatest number in the long term.
Our model is much more thorough, but for the purposes here, I think these questions provide some interesting insights.
First of all, who is most responsible for answering these questions? If we say, 'government,' or 'nonprofit agencies,' or 'citizens,' what sort of different solutions would emerge? Simplistically we might find government saying that citizens are its primary stakeholder and likely we the public would say that our communities are the primary stakeholder. But what would nonprofit agencies answer? Given their mandates and missions to commonly serve the less fortunate, would they not say 'the underprivileged?' Again, simplistically argued, are not nonprofit agencies the only stakeholder with a clear vested interest gaming, i.e., the revenues would go to help the needy.
Second, how would government, nonprofits, and citizens answer the second question? From personal experience, the responses would be wide ranging but would have to link back to who each saw their primary stakeholders to be. Nonprofits, again from experience, chose the core ethical value of caring more frequently than other groups as the basis for their actions. I am not judging the choice - it makes sense. When combined with the answer to the first question, the picture is more complex - even in this simplistic analysis. The argument often put forward by nonprofit agencies is that casinos etc. are a necessary source of funds for the agency to "care for those less fortunate." And this argument has a lot of impact - look to a typical United Way Campaign to see how it is positioned in the community.
Finally, the answer to the third question - long term good. This is where the rubber hits the road. This is the question least often answered because of the history of each group of making short term decisions. But let your mind roam - what would each group say would be the solution to the gaming solution that would produce the greatest positive results for the greatest number for the long term? I would like to see this question addressed.
Until then, it appears to me that nonprofit agencies themselves have become the primary drivers for gaming in communities where the citizens do not necessarily want those kinds of activities to occur... the situation is akin to how arts groups are rallying behind the tobacco industry. To the question posed, what citizens want or don't want looks to be in conflict with what the nonprofit sector does want, i.e., money to provide services.
Keith Seel
I live in Aylmer, Québéc and we have a Casino in Hull. The public relations dept says that the Casino has brought many tourist to the area!Yes, while the tourist are spending their money in the Casino, local merchants in Hull are closing down!
And now another business has started up in the Outaouais, Gamblers Anonymous!
Did anyone verify the long term affect of gambling, on our economy and our taxpayers?
Our social infrastructure is falling apart around us, we have needy families, marital disfunctional couples and a small handful of deadbeats who can't pay child support (but) can be found in the Casino or leaving their toddlers in the parking lot!
Who created all this? Better yet, who is encouraging this social disease?
Your guess is good as mine. I for one will not support gambling to support charities; soon the charities will be supporting the gamblers who have created a mess of their lives.
With all the tools and technology we have now, can't we do something better for recreational pleasures that won't destroy our family lives and our (forever long) suffering economy?
There is hope.People have to give of themselves.
Linda Sparks
The new charity casinos will attract an unduly large proportion of those who are financially and psychologically at risk. I believe it to be morally wrong for government and charities to be making money from this source. Surely we can find better ways to build our economy than through jobs and revenues based on greed and exploitation.John & Eileen McClellan
|
|||
