A broken heating system has brought Bingo to a standstill in Prince Rupert.
The current totem Bingo hall has called its last number as the British Columbia Lottery Corporation shut down the operation due to inadequate heating in the third avenue location.
With the Chances Gaming Centre not scheduled to open until the summer (and maybe later judging by the state of progress at the First Avenue site), it’s going to be one serious bit of withdrawal for local bingo players who became a fixture on the bingo scene in the city.
The Daily News provided the sad details for the local bingo players, but a glimmer of hope for the local charities that depend on the funds raised through the bingo society.
COLD HOUSE MEANS BINGO LOST FOR NOW
By Leanne Ritchie
The Daily News
Friday, March 09, 2007
Local bingo players have dobbed their last card for a few months after Totem Bingo was closed by the B.C. Lottery Corporation because of inadequate heating
Robin Cook, corporate communications officer with the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, said the bingo hall was closed Feb. 28 and nine people were laid off.
“The new Community Gaming Centre is scheduled to open in Prince Rupert this summer. We were hoping to keep this location open until that happened,” said Cook.
“Unfortunately, the leased building did not meet the requirements, so it had to be closed.”
According to Cook, the building’s boilers failed several months ago and the landlord was unable to replace them. This left the facility without any heating.
“The landlord set up portable heaters as a temporary measure but it didn’t meet the requirements and it was freezing cold in there. We had no choice but to close the operation. We aim to provide a fun experience for people and it was just freezing in there.”
The British Columbia Lottery Corporation has inspectors who visit facilities around the province to ensure safety and comfort standards.
“Totem Bingo was the only facility in the city. It’s really unfortunate there is going to be a gap. But if we can’t provide a comfortable safe environment our hands are tied,” said Cook.
In the meantime, all 41 affiliated charitable community organizations, members of the Prince Rupert Bingo Association, will continue to receive funding.
The funds come through the Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch, however enforcement branch officers have informed the B.C. Lottery Corporation that those funds will not be stopped just because Totem Bingo has closed.
“They have informed us that all the charities associated with Totem Bingo will be transferred to the new facility when it opens and there will be no gap in funding,” said Cook.
The new Chances Community Gaming Centre was expected to open this spring however construction delays have pushed back the opening of the facility.
“For the new site, we are expecting the opening to be late spring, early summer,” said Craig Briere, business manager of the Prince Rupert Bingo Association. “We are still working out the final timeline but we ran into a few construction delays.”
This winter has not been great for construction.
“Obviously, like it has been for everybody else, the winter’s weather has not co-operated as much as we would have like it to,” said Briere. “But we are dealing with it and we are progressing as fast as we can.”
The new Community Gaming Centre includes plans for a restaurant, and 150 bingo seats, 60 to 70 slot and electronic gaming machines and both arcade-style and live entertainment. It comprises 36,000 square feet, with 5,000 square feet of patio, and a convention centre on the lower level.
“That size places us as one of the largest gaming centres — casinos or Community Gaming Centre — in northern B.C. and with that and due to the quality of the building, the build right now is roughly at about $12 million. It’s a big undertaking but well worth it,” said Briere.
Showing posts with label Gambling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gambling. Show all posts
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Is gambling coming up snake eyes in Terrace?
The debate over whether to allow slot machines to be installed at the Lucky Dollar Bingo Hall in Terrace may very well be turned over to the people.
With a city council split down the middle on the issue, it fell to Terrace Mayor Jack Talstra to say yea or nay on the controversial issue, so he said No, maybe, kind of, sort of.
Actually Talstra voted against the plan, but did suggest that he wouldn’t be against the issue going to a referendum to decide if the City welcomes the machines, which it is anticipated would bring in 330,000 dollars in revenue annually.
The debate was clearly an emotional one as many of the councilors put forward the belief that the introduction of the machines to their city would have a negative impact on the city and its social fabric.
Others stepped up and set that responsible citizens who enjoy that particular lifestyle should not be denied that option by their elected officials.
The decision by council was the second time that an expansion of gambling options was defeated by the elected officials of Terrace. It was back in 2003 that the Best Western Hotel in Terrace put forward casino plans of their own, only to have the idea shot down in a similar split.
With Prince Rupert in the process of building their own gambling emporium on the waterfront at the old Legion site, there was some concern expressed over whether two gambling locations in the Northwest could survive in competition.
Unless that referendum suggestion is acted upon, it would seem that those concerns over too many gambling centres might be a moot point.
Mayor backs gambling referendum
By DUSTIN QUEZADA
Terrace Standard
Oct 25 2006
MAYOR JACK Talstra says he'd be in favour of holding a referendum to decide if city residents want slot machines.
Talstra, who broke a tie on council last week that did away with plans by the Lucky Dollar Bingo Palace to install slots, says a referendum would accurately judge the community's wishes on the matter.
Judging what the community wanted when it came to slots was difficult, he added. "Council is divided on the (slots) issue and that generally means the community is divided on the issue," Talstra said late last week. "There are reasons on both sides to consider."
Talstra's support of a referendum to decide the issue comes after describing slots as a form of "aggressive gambling."
"On principle, I'm personally against aggressive gambling and against aggressive gambling for the community as a whole," said Talstra last week following the decisive Oct. 17 city council meeting.
And if voters were ever to say 'yes' to slots in the city, Talstra favours a trust or foundation so that the profit from slots would "be given back to the same people from whom it's been taken."
Talstra's tie-breaking vote that did away with the Lucky Dollar plan represents the second time in three years city council has rejected gambling expansion.
Talstra also broke a tie on council in 2003 when the Best Western Terrace Inn presented the city with a casino plan.
This time council was asked to do away with a bylaw prohibiting slot machines and video lottery terminals.
Citing the societal cost of aggressive gambling as being too high, Talstra's opinion proved to be the fatal one to the efforts of local businessman John Becher to install slot machines at the bingo facility.
"I would say 'no' to slots and 'yes' to a referendum," said Talstra.
Based on opinions from a Oct. 16 public meeting, the naysayers outnumbered the slot machine supporters, said the mayor, but that didn't make it easier to do what he felt was best for the community.
Along with the social problems slot machines might create, Talstra said revenues that would come back to the city would likely be offset by the need for more police officers were crime to also rise.
Estimates from the B.C. Lottery Corp. had pegged maximum annual revenues from the proposed machines at $330,000.
Talstra said a more probable figure would be $300,000.
If crime were to spike, the RCMP could conceivably ask for two to three more officers at $90,000 each, added Talstra.
"The money would probably go out just as fast as it would come in," Talstra said.
The mayor followed the city's six councillors, who were evenly divided in their support for the bylaw amendment.
Speaking first, Marylin Davies said she supported the slot machine idea because of the economic impact their implementation would create and because she didn't believe policing would be significantly impacted.
Nor did she think the societal impacts would change greatly.
"We can top up addiction services if necessary," said Davies of monies the machines would generate for the city.
Davies finished by saying the city should offer a wide range of lifestyle amenities.
"Why discriminate against the vast majority of people who do gamble responsibly?"
Councillor Rich McDaniel made his position clear calling the expansion of gambling a "social evil."
"The moral argument is overwhelming," said McDaniel, adding gambling proponents are good at downplaying the social costs of such expansion.
"The economic argument doesn't hold water," he added.
McDaniel said he has no problem with occasional gambling but couldn't support large-scale public gambling.
Councillor Carol Leclerc said her decision was greatly affected by public opinion.
"I listened to what the people have to say and the majority of people do not want slot machines in Terrace," Leclerc said.
Leclerc said she was convinced that slots are highly addictive.
"It's sad when society expects instant gratification," she said.
Leclerc added she doubted two gaming centres in Prince Rupert and here could be supported, making the economic argument a moot point.
Councillor Lynne Christiansen said she too took stock of opinions in the community and at the public meeting.
She said people were very aware of the societal impacts of gambling that wouldn't be balanced by possible economic benefits.
"There are now fewer addiction services," Christiansen said. "We don't want to prey on the people that can least afford it."
Christiansen added that a one per cent increase in municipal taxes would be a much better way to replace lottery monies than to "make it on the backs of gamblers."
In supporting the amendment, first-time councillor Brian Downie said the city already has a level of problem gambling.
"Individuals will gamble regardless of slots," said Downie, adding gambling is a socially acceptable activity.
Downie said he sought public opinion in other communities with gaming centres.
"None of them could say definitively there was a change," Downie said. "They didn't see a (negative) impact."
Downie added the jobs that would have been created at the proposed centre could go to people struggling with addictions.
Brad Pollard, another councillor new to the issue, said he felt the benefits of slot machines would outweigh the negative societal impacts.
He, too, felt that there are already problem gamblers in Terrace.
Pollard cited estimates that 10 per cent of the population in the north are problem gamblers and one per cent would be considered pathological gamblers.
Pollard said council wouldn't be honest if it said the addition of slot machines would significantly increase those numbers.
"Refusing to allow slot machines is unjustified," Pollard said. "I'm concerned that [council] is setting the course where we limit opportunities because of people who cannot enjoy gambling responsibly."
The proposal to amend the bylaw would have seen 75 slot machines installed at the Lucky Dollar Bingo Palace on Legion St. Had the application been successful, the building would have become a part of the Chances Community Gaming Centre chain.
With a city council split down the middle on the issue, it fell to Terrace Mayor Jack Talstra to say yea or nay on the controversial issue, so he said No, maybe, kind of, sort of.
Actually Talstra voted against the plan, but did suggest that he wouldn’t be against the issue going to a referendum to decide if the City welcomes the machines, which it is anticipated would bring in 330,000 dollars in revenue annually.
The debate was clearly an emotional one as many of the councilors put forward the belief that the introduction of the machines to their city would have a negative impact on the city and its social fabric.
Others stepped up and set that responsible citizens who enjoy that particular lifestyle should not be denied that option by their elected officials.
The decision by council was the second time that an expansion of gambling options was defeated by the elected officials of Terrace. It was back in 2003 that the Best Western Hotel in Terrace put forward casino plans of their own, only to have the idea shot down in a similar split.
With Prince Rupert in the process of building their own gambling emporium on the waterfront at the old Legion site, there was some concern expressed over whether two gambling locations in the Northwest could survive in competition.
Unless that referendum suggestion is acted upon, it would seem that those concerns over too many gambling centres might be a moot point.
Mayor backs gambling referendum
By DUSTIN QUEZADA
Terrace Standard
Oct 25 2006
MAYOR JACK Talstra says he'd be in favour of holding a referendum to decide if city residents want slot machines.
Talstra, who broke a tie on council last week that did away with plans by the Lucky Dollar Bingo Palace to install slots, says a referendum would accurately judge the community's wishes on the matter.
Judging what the community wanted when it came to slots was difficult, he added. "Council is divided on the (slots) issue and that generally means the community is divided on the issue," Talstra said late last week. "There are reasons on both sides to consider."
Talstra's support of a referendum to decide the issue comes after describing slots as a form of "aggressive gambling."
"On principle, I'm personally against aggressive gambling and against aggressive gambling for the community as a whole," said Talstra last week following the decisive Oct. 17 city council meeting.
And if voters were ever to say 'yes' to slots in the city, Talstra favours a trust or foundation so that the profit from slots would "be given back to the same people from whom it's been taken."
Talstra's tie-breaking vote that did away with the Lucky Dollar plan represents the second time in three years city council has rejected gambling expansion.
Talstra also broke a tie on council in 2003 when the Best Western Terrace Inn presented the city with a casino plan.
This time council was asked to do away with a bylaw prohibiting slot machines and video lottery terminals.
Citing the societal cost of aggressive gambling as being too high, Talstra's opinion proved to be the fatal one to the efforts of local businessman John Becher to install slot machines at the bingo facility.
"I would say 'no' to slots and 'yes' to a referendum," said Talstra.
Based on opinions from a Oct. 16 public meeting, the naysayers outnumbered the slot machine supporters, said the mayor, but that didn't make it easier to do what he felt was best for the community.
Along with the social problems slot machines might create, Talstra said revenues that would come back to the city would likely be offset by the need for more police officers were crime to also rise.
Estimates from the B.C. Lottery Corp. had pegged maximum annual revenues from the proposed machines at $330,000.
Talstra said a more probable figure would be $300,000.
If crime were to spike, the RCMP could conceivably ask for two to three more officers at $90,000 each, added Talstra.
"The money would probably go out just as fast as it would come in," Talstra said.
The mayor followed the city's six councillors, who were evenly divided in their support for the bylaw amendment.
Speaking first, Marylin Davies said she supported the slot machine idea because of the economic impact their implementation would create and because she didn't believe policing would be significantly impacted.
Nor did she think the societal impacts would change greatly.
"We can top up addiction services if necessary," said Davies of monies the machines would generate for the city.
Davies finished by saying the city should offer a wide range of lifestyle amenities.
"Why discriminate against the vast majority of people who do gamble responsibly?"
Councillor Rich McDaniel made his position clear calling the expansion of gambling a "social evil."
"The moral argument is overwhelming," said McDaniel, adding gambling proponents are good at downplaying the social costs of such expansion.
"The economic argument doesn't hold water," he added.
McDaniel said he has no problem with occasional gambling but couldn't support large-scale public gambling.
Councillor Carol Leclerc said her decision was greatly affected by public opinion.
"I listened to what the people have to say and the majority of people do not want slot machines in Terrace," Leclerc said.
Leclerc said she was convinced that slots are highly addictive.
"It's sad when society expects instant gratification," she said.
Leclerc added she doubted two gaming centres in Prince Rupert and here could be supported, making the economic argument a moot point.
Councillor Lynne Christiansen said she too took stock of opinions in the community and at the public meeting.
She said people were very aware of the societal impacts of gambling that wouldn't be balanced by possible economic benefits.
"There are now fewer addiction services," Christiansen said. "We don't want to prey on the people that can least afford it."
Christiansen added that a one per cent increase in municipal taxes would be a much better way to replace lottery monies than to "make it on the backs of gamblers."
In supporting the amendment, first-time councillor Brian Downie said the city already has a level of problem gambling.
"Individuals will gamble regardless of slots," said Downie, adding gambling is a socially acceptable activity.
Downie said he sought public opinion in other communities with gaming centres.
"None of them could say definitively there was a change," Downie said. "They didn't see a (negative) impact."
Downie added the jobs that would have been created at the proposed centre could go to people struggling with addictions.
Brad Pollard, another councillor new to the issue, said he felt the benefits of slot machines would outweigh the negative societal impacts.
He, too, felt that there are already problem gamblers in Terrace.
Pollard cited estimates that 10 per cent of the population in the north are problem gamblers and one per cent would be considered pathological gamblers.
Pollard said council wouldn't be honest if it said the addition of slot machines would significantly increase those numbers.
"Refusing to allow slot machines is unjustified," Pollard said. "I'm concerned that [council] is setting the course where we limit opportunities because of people who cannot enjoy gambling responsibly."
The proposal to amend the bylaw would have seen 75 slot machines installed at the Lucky Dollar Bingo Palace on Legion St. Had the application been successful, the building would have become a part of the Chances Community Gaming Centre chain.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
An Inside Job?
The Fifth Estate has revealed a rather disturbing bit of news for those that play the lotteries, not everyone has our best interests at heart.
Hard as it is to believe, some retailers are taking advantage of their clients especially those of an advancing age and have cashed in tickets of customers reaping large prizes while telling their customers they either won a lesser prize or no prize at all.
The Globe and Mail has a preview of the show which airs on CBC Wednesday night and suggests figures that state “More than two hundred lottery “insiders” have won prizes of $50,000 or more in Ontario since 1999, and more than two-thirds of these wins may have involved the deception of a customer who bought the ticket.”
The control over the payouts varies across the country, with BC offering at least a more involved process for any winnings over 3,000 dollars. The BC Lottery Commission requires anyone who wins a prize over that amount to come in for questioning regarding the process of purchasing and redeeming their tickets. It makes for a process that may at least deter all but the most devious of folks from trying to reap an undeserved reward.
Contrast that to the process in Ontario where you don’t have to answer any questions until you reach 50,000 dollars and you can understand why Ontario may be leading the nation in fraudulently obtained jackpots.
The findings by the Fifth estate seem to have hit a nerve at the Ontario Lottery Corporation, which is disputing the findings and interpretation of the Lottery scene in Ontario. They suggest that the CBC got their figures wrong and are providing a misleading conclusion to the state of the lotteries in Ontario. The official position of the Lottery Corporation in that province is; “Ontario is a leader in Lottery security.”
Like anything else in life, the lotteries are very much a buyer beware transaction, players should be a bit more pro-active in their fates when taking on the games of chance and fate.
It's pretty well a given in gabmling that at most times you can't beat the house, but in this instance it seems we can’t even beat the middleman.
The lesson to be learned from all of this is a simple one, check your tickets yourself, or have someone you trust implicitly to check your tickets. If you’re going to inadvertently be sharing your money or even worse giving it away, best to give it to somebody that might actually have your best interests at heart!
Hard as it is to believe, some retailers are taking advantage of their clients especially those of an advancing age and have cashed in tickets of customers reaping large prizes while telling their customers they either won a lesser prize or no prize at all.
The Globe and Mail has a preview of the show which airs on CBC Wednesday night and suggests figures that state “More than two hundred lottery “insiders” have won prizes of $50,000 or more in Ontario since 1999, and more than two-thirds of these wins may have involved the deception of a customer who bought the ticket.”
The control over the payouts varies across the country, with BC offering at least a more involved process for any winnings over 3,000 dollars. The BC Lottery Commission requires anyone who wins a prize over that amount to come in for questioning regarding the process of purchasing and redeeming their tickets. It makes for a process that may at least deter all but the most devious of folks from trying to reap an undeserved reward.
Contrast that to the process in Ontario where you don’t have to answer any questions until you reach 50,000 dollars and you can understand why Ontario may be leading the nation in fraudulently obtained jackpots.
The findings by the Fifth estate seem to have hit a nerve at the Ontario Lottery Corporation, which is disputing the findings and interpretation of the Lottery scene in Ontario. They suggest that the CBC got their figures wrong and are providing a misleading conclusion to the state of the lotteries in Ontario. The official position of the Lottery Corporation in that province is; “Ontario is a leader in Lottery security.”
Like anything else in life, the lotteries are very much a buyer beware transaction, players should be a bit more pro-active in their fates when taking on the games of chance and fate.
It's pretty well a given in gabmling that at most times you can't beat the house, but in this instance it seems we can’t even beat the middleman.
The lesson to be learned from all of this is a simple one, check your tickets yourself, or have someone you trust implicitly to check your tickets. If you’re going to inadvertently be sharing your money or even worse giving it away, best to give it to somebody that might actually have your best interests at heart!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)