Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
I don't know the numbers, but I've heard those VLTs rake it in for Filo-esque places and the people who play them are also usually boozin it up while they give their money away. Also, I'm no sociologist, but through passive observation I would confidently surmise that the majority of VLT players are also smokers.
Sure it's a loophole, but they do have a point. If you want to smoke, drink and play VLTs are you going to go the place where you can drink and play VLTs or are you going to the place where you can smoke, drink and play VLTs?
|
As Mr. Inlow indicated this morning in Chambers, the applicant bar is not zoned to be a gaming establishment. Neither does it hold a business license to be a gaming establishment. There are certain requirements that would need to be met in order to gain those approvals; requirements that the casinos and bingo halls have already obtained. You can't be characterized as one type of establishment for the purpose of one bylaw and a different establishment for another bylaw.
In any event the bylaw doesn't specify the source of revenue for gaming establishments. In other words, simply because you obtain a significant portion of your revenue from VLTs does not make you a gaming establishment.
But I think you hit the crux of the argument, all legalese and tripartite tests aside, that the applicant bar is trying to make. The City's answer is: tough. We knew that would be a possibility, we considered input from bar, casino and bingo hall owners and made this decision notwithstanding the potential for loss of business on your behalf. This is a bylaw made for the public good and in that regard, your private business interests and fear of speculative losses does not outweigh the public good and the City's purview to legislate in such areas. Nyah nyah nyah.