Larry's Corner

The Flamborough Slot Revenue Debate

By Larry Di Ianni
(posted April 24, 2008)

Years ago, when I was on Stoney Creek Council, then Mayor Bob Hodgson polled our local Council on where we thought it best to put a Casino. The province had indicated that our region was to get one and there were a number of bidders, including someone from the Stoney Creek area. It was decided that we would support the Flamboro Downs bid because it made sense to include a Casino at the grounds of the racetrack so that the two would complement each other. Mayor Hodgson went to Regional Council and voted as he had been advised by our local group. (It is interesting to note that the racing program has fallen on hard times, while the Casino business has steadily picked up.)

The point is that although the Casino is in Flamborough, the Regional politicians of the day could have petitioned the Province to put it elsewhere in the Region. It was only common sense for it to go to Flamborough under the expert tutelage of Charles Juravinski. The Casino paid royalties to the host municipality from the beginning. This too made sense because the traffic would create expenses for the Town and the money would offset these expenses.

When the City was amalgamated the royalties came into the city coffers. Hamilton would assume all revenues and liabilities as well as the responsibility for maintenance caused by the traffic to Flamboro Downs. If the City had kept to this arrangement, we would not be feeling the angst and anger over the slot revenues that we are feeling today.

However, the Council of the day was faced with a huge debt incurred by the Town of Flamborough over the Borer’s Creek issue. Borer’s Creek was a development issue in Flamborough where an honest administrative error, as I recall, saddled that municipality with a huge debt over development work that had been done and should have been privately paid for, but wasn’t. The Town, then the City picked up the costs. Using the slot revenues was a convenient way to cover the costs without adding same to the tax levy. At the end of the day, it really wouldn’t have made a difference because the tax levy would have been offset by the revenues anyway, but politically it seemed like good optics and good financing to do it that way. The agreement had always been to phase out the revenues to Flamborough once Borer’s Creek had been paid for. This wasn’t done a few years ago, however, because of spiking Assessment increases to Flamborough residents. Council decided to keep the money in that community out of compassion for the spikes they were experiencing. Some Councillors balked at this, by the way, but I worked out a deal with them to keep the money in place in exchange for my efforts to get Provincial funds to help the rest of the city out. It seemed to work. Peace was kept.

Now Council has had a change of heart. In the name of fairness to the rest of the community, the revenues are being shared across the whole city. There is some legitimacy to this line of thinking. It was the entire City that sent the resource to Flamborough in the first place, and the customers of the Casino do come from the whole community, not just Flamborough.

However, for the sake of harmony and the optics of fairness to a community experiencing a 10% hike based solely on property taxes, not assessment pressures, Council should have phased in the clawback. Ward one got a wallop once or twice, as did Dundas, but in those cases, the pressures came from the city tax hike AND assessment increases. In this case, there is only one culprit: the city budget.

I will quickly note that this deal could have been worked out. Why it wasn’t is beyond me! It is also clear to me that the Roman Sarachman’s of the world and his Free Flamborough Extremists are mostly to blame, in my opinion, for the hardened attitudes against Flamborough. Roman and his cohorts have routinely come to Council criticizing every move that Council made as a sign that amalgamation wasn’t working and that Council didn’t care about Flamborough, but only cared about its assessment dollars. Roman was occasionally assisted by a buffoonish performance from an older gentleman whose name I cannot recall but would ask the most inane questions imaginable. In the spirit of democratic decency, we listened to him, but I couldn’t keep from stifling some of my colleagues muted smirks as this person spoke. That strategy on the part of this Flamborough group backfired. I always felt that the vast majority of people from that community were decent and understanding.

Unfortunately, the Flamborough Councillors of the day, Margaret McCarthy and Dave Braden did not help build bridges. They often repeated the same mantra of oppression at every opportunity. In fact Mr. Braden made Hamilton-bashing an art form. Margaret was a bit more subtle and mostly co-operative, but had a blind spot on this specific issue.

So, what to do now? Because Council couldn’t or wouldn’t ‘jump the shark’, it must face the Flamborough residents head on after the fact. I would suggest a mail out to the entire community explaining the accurate tax situation and the history of the slot revenues. I would additionally suggest that the Mayor have town hall meetings in Flamborough to explain the same information. (What ever happened to Community Councils?) The fact that he voted the right way should help him, although he won’t be entirely able to escape the accusation, fairly or unfairly, that he wasn’t able to deliver. This shouldn’t bother him. He can take the heat. Accurate information even with a hum or din of displeasure in the background is preferable to misinformation. And my fear is that a community that has wallowed in half-truths on this issue up to now will drown in the despair that will ensue if the facts are not presented. And that would be tragic for our entire city.

BACK TO LARRY'S CORNER