Though casino magnates keep publicly insisting that they will not develop a mega-casino in downtown Toronto unless it’s wanted, recent reports of the casino lobby and a perniciously misleading advertisement suggest they already know full well that the idea of a mega-casino here is unpopular. It is now even more impossible than ever to believe that they value our preference over their money. Taken together, there’s no doubt that casino developers are working assiduously to get the first brick of the mega-casino in the ground before Torontonians have a chance to reject it.
Toronto Star‘s City Hall reporter Robyn Doolittle wrote about the influx of lobbying under Ford’s administration, but pointed to one very suspicious incident regarding MGM’s casino pitch.
Lobby registrar Linda Gehrke has launched an investigation into the events leading up to when Councillor Ana Bailao was charged with impaired driving on October 16, 2012:
“…before her arrest Bailao was drinking at a posh downtown lounge with a small group, which included Sussex lobbyist Jamie Besner, Ford’s former chief of staff Nick Kouvalis – who does market research for Sussex – and Councillor Mark Grimes.
The optics weren’t good. Sussex is working for MGM casinos. Bailao is considered an important swing vote. And Grimes chairs the board for Exhibition Place, the preferred casino site.”
All involved claim that no city business was discussed. Perhaps not, but I think a husband could be excused for objecting when a young buck with carnal intentions wines and dines his wife, even if, strictly speaking, they don’t do the deed. But this is an imperfect parallel; presumably, a husband has more trust in his wife than in his local politician. No, the onus is on the councillor to avoid cultivating a relationship with lobbyists before something improper happens. Adultery begins with a platonic coffee. We are only aware of this exchange by fluke, as Bailao happened to get caught driving drunk. It’s safe to assume this isn’t the casino lobby’s first or last attempt at exerting influence.
But if we take the casino developers at their word, they will happily back away if only we indicate that we do not want a casino here. In a speech given to the Economic Club of Canada back in January, MGM chairman and chief executive officer Jim Murren said, “We’ve been here for two years… we’ve been under the radar for a bit because we’ve been listening. We won’t do anything people don’t want us to do.”
Maybe their lobbyists have been greasing the casino wheels here for two years, but Murren knows that under the radar is a euphemism for secret; he can’t honestly claim to have spent two years listening to a conversation we didn’t know we were having. Put another way, it’s not a coincidence that the people “wondering” if we want a casino here are casino developers. They are here because they, not us, desire a casino be built. MGM’s two-page ad in this weekend’s National Post makes it clear beyond a doubt that they know exactly what Torontonians like, and that they know it’s not a casino.
The mega-casino’s advertisement made literally not a single reference to the casino! Neither in text nor in image. In a space of two full-sized newspaper pages, the word “casino” was painstakingly avoided. The main print of the ad asks us to “imagine the possibilities,” and declares that the mega-casino development, referred to as the “integrated resort,” is, “for the families,” “for the community,” and “for the future.”
MGM chose to represent the mega-casino development graphically by depicting not the casino, but snowflakes, water, green space, a grand promenade, the CNE gates, a Chinese parade, and, for good measure, a Ferris wheel. The scenes in these images have signs which bear words meant to appeal: “Hamburger,” “fine art,” “amphitheatre.” Food, art, music! These aren’t the words or images you associate with “casino,” and this is the point. The clearer they depict the casino, the more we’ll reject it. (The CNE has since issued a cease and desist letter to MGM demanding that they stop using images associated with the CNE to promote their casino proposal).
This ad is a tacit admission that they know a casino is unwanted here. Also, that they do know exactly what what we like and what we don’t, but it’s not what they’re selling. A casino proponent might get confused and look at the ad with disgust, believing that land wasn’t supposed to be earmarked for hippie urban crap, but for gambling. So, if Murren was sincere when he said they wouldn’t build unless the casino is wanted, MGM would exit. Yet they persist.
The grotesque and perverse misrepresentation in the ad is important to remember when assessing MGM’s projection of the mega-casino’s benefits. It’s impossible to see such a flagrant, pre-meditated lie in one aspect of the pitch and to expect anything approaching honesty in the rest. Their numbers should be taken seriously only if you think a casino looks like snowflakes or a Ferris wheel.
City Council were to decide in April whether or not the casino gets the go-ahead, though a city staff report has been delayed and it seems that a vote won’t come to council until May at the earliest. But perhaps the lobbyists’ work is done and the vote is already a foregone conclusion. We’ll see.
____
Jeff Halperin is a Toronto-based writer. You can follow him on Twitter @JDhalperin.
For more, follow us on Twitter @TorontoStandard and subscribe to our newsletter.
