Page 1 of 1
Casinos
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:37 am
by DougHuntingdon
Why does Cleveland get to hog two of them?
Why doesn't Lakewood get one? You could put it on the Savannah Peninsula.
http://www.cleveland.com/casino/plainde ... xml&coll=2
Doug
class
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:55 am
by ryan costa
In Cleveland it will draw a lot of 21 year old high school drop outs.
In Lakewood it will draw a lot of 21 year old high school drop outs from Cleveland.
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:47 pm
by Kenneth Warren
Ed Morrison writes on the social costs of casinos with Cleveland in mind:
http://www.i-open.org/cleveland2/2006/0 ... eland.html
Kenneth Warren
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:53 am
by Jim O'Bryan
Ken
5. In the face of 30,000 pathological gamblers (we are not dealing here with the less mild "problem gambler"), a fund of $25 million to $30 million for treatment amounts to about $1,000 per pathological gambler. Not much.
(The Louisiana study finds that the median gambling losses of Level 4 pathological gamblers -- gamblers who have sought treatment -- was $37,500 over their lifetime and $17,500 in the year before they sought treatment. Louisiana study, pp. 18-19.)
6. In the face of an annual social cost of $300 million, a economic development fund of $60 million to $75 million is not much. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of $60 million for economic development. But the social cost of this money, in my view, is too high. (Remember, I am only calculating costs from "pathological gambling" not the milder disorder of "problem gambling".)
Ken
I m late for church, just tell me, will it cut my taxes by at least $10?
.
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:30 am
by dl meckes
Jim-
Although I don't think gambling will bring the revenue that some seem to see, and will indeed bring more cost than benefit, I wonder what your seemingly pathological problem is with accepting the fact that people don't like paying high taxes.
You can close your listening ears all you want, but that won't make the voices, either outside or inside your head, go away.
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:39 am
by Jim O'Bryan
dl meckes wrote:Jim-
... I wonder what your seemingly pathological problem is with accepting the fact that people don't like paying high taxes.
You can close your listening ears all you want, but that won't make the voices, either outside or inside your head, go away.
DL
This time it was multi-facted. One is that many want casinos no matter what the social problems and associated costs. Two that people are looking at lowering taxes while we all know we have to vote for the next three raises.
Don't get me wrong I am all for more more money in my pocket, just show me the realistic plan.
Knowing I cannot get my taxes lowered probably in my life time, I have just chosen to seek two other roads to salvation. 1) Saving money on purchases and 2)Generating more money to offset those taxes. Bill Call is right, acountablitlty and innovation.
Now my question to you. What is your pathological problem with pushing a stone that can not be pushed?*
If Lakewood found $30 million tomorrow, we would still need to raise taxes.
* Of course that stone would be me, not taxes.
.
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:42 am
by dl meckes
Jim O'Bryan wrote:What is your pathological problem with pushing a stone that can not be pushed?*
* Of course that stone would be me, not taxes.
I am the Sysaphisian sister. It's my job AND my avocation.
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:47 am
by Jim O'Bryan
dl meckes wrote:Jim O'Bryan wrote:What is your pathological problem with pushing a stone that can not be pushed?*
* Of course that stone would be me, not taxes.
I am the Sysaphisian sister. It's my job AND my avocation.
DL
Which would be why we love you, and would do anything for you. Not only the thankless job of keeping me real, while you run the board very smoothly.
Seriously, you know this city's fianances as well as anyone. What is the scenerio you see Lakewoodites getting a reduction in taxes over the next 5 years?
.