See: http://www.problemgambling.vic.gov.au/
What is Problem Gambling?
Consequences
How can I help myself?
Support for family and friends
The information is translated into Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Greek, Italian, Macedonian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Turkish, and Vietnamese.
Times Colonist, Letter. Tuesday, December 05, 2006
So the solution to the Bear Mountain sacred-cave issue could be to destroy the cave in exchange for a casino.
Why do the words hypocrisy, greed and short-sightedness spring to mind?
So much for any thoughts of spiritual elevation.
The only spirits being elevated will be the sale of bottled ones at the proposed casino.
Jocelyn Skrlac, Victoria.
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2006
Don’t trade cave for casino
Times Colonist, Letter, Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Re: “Developers court natives with casino,” Dec. 2.
I am sure readers are shocked and appalled that our native brothers would be asked to sell their birthright for a casino. A cave with stalagmites and a subterranean lake is a precious gem which should be preserved at all costs. Such a treasure is a rarity. No wonder natives consider it sacred.
Olive Clapp,, Victoria.
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2006
Casino shouldn’t be traded for cave
Negotiate solution to Bear Mountain conflict, but don’t lose sight of the wider implications
Times Colonist, Tuesday, December 05, 2006 Article tools
Congratulations to all the parties in the Bear Mountain sacred-cave dispute for settling down to the hard work of negotiating a solution.
But they need to have another try.
The confrontation over a cave that First Nations say is sacred produced blockades and threats of legal action and escalating protests. The parties wisely opted instead to declare a truce and start talking about a solution.
Their efforts so far risk creating more problems than they solve.
The Times Colonist reported that Langford, Bear Mountain Resort developers and First Nations are discussing a settlement that would include a new casino. First Nations, Langford and neighbouring municipalities would all get a cut of the profits; the First Nations could also benefit from casino job opportunities.
Developers would help the Tsartlip band develop 23 acres of land it owns near Skirt Mountain, in part by contributing $6 million to infrastructure development. And the province could be asked for $3 million to support development on land owned by the Tsartlip and the Songhees.
The cave would be filled in to allow construction.
Trading the sacred for a share of casino profits strikes some as overly expedient, even hypocritical, particularly in light of the comments from First Nations leaders during the protests.
But any deal will involve trade-offs; it’s up to the First Nations to decide whether that one is acceptable. The indication is that band members will have difficulty accepting the agreement reached by their representatives, an indication of problems with the process.
The bigger problem is the inclusion of a new casino as part of the deal.
The province, through the B.C. Lotteries Corp., decides on casino locations. Its goal is to maximize profits and the capital region has not been on its priority list. There is, for now, more money to be made opening mini-casinos in smaller communities. If the deal depends on cash from flashing slot machines there could be disappointment and more conflicts ahead.
If there is some plan for a new casino, a whole new set of conflicts could be on the horizon. The Great Canadian Casino in View Royal takes in about $75 million a year from losing gamblers; a portion of that money is shared with nearby municipalities. A new casino would mean a drop in revenue for View Royal, Colwood, Esquimalt and the other local communities, and potential property tax increases for residents.
And a new casino — with its traffic and potential for increasing social problems — is likely to come as an unpleasant surprise to neighbours.
It’s important to resolve this dispute and the efforts made to sit down and talk are to be applauded.
But the process appears to have got wildly out of hand and turned into a fantastic version of “let’s make a deal,” with slot machines and multimillion-dollar developments all thrown into the mix.
The proposed solutions are likely to create even bigger problems.
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2006
Negotiate solution to Bear Mountain conflict, but don’t lose sight of the wider implications
Times Colonist, Tuesday, December 05, 2006 Article tools
Congratulations to all the parties in the Bear Mountain sacred-cave dispute for settling down to the hard work of negotiating a solution.
But they need to have another try.
The confrontation over a cave that First Nations say is sacred produced blockades and threats of legal action and escalating protests. The parties wisely opted instead to declare a truce and start talking about a solution.
Their efforts so far risk creating more problems than they solve.
The Times Colonist reported that Langford, Bear Mountain Resort developers and First Nations are discussing a settlement that would include a new casino. First Nations, Langford and neighbouring municipalities would all get a cut of the profits; the First Nations could also benefit from casino job opportunities.
Developers would help the Tsartlip band develop 23 acres of land it owns near Skirt Mountain, in part by contributing $6 million to infrastructure development. And the province could be asked for $3 million to support development on land owned by the Tsartlip and the Songhees.
The cave would be filled in to allow construction.
Trading the sacred for a share of casino profits strikes some as overly expedient, even hypocritical, particularly in light of the comments from First Nations leaders during the protests.
But any deal will involve trade-offs; it’s up to the First Nations to decide whether that one is acceptable. The indication is that band members will have difficulty accepting the agreement reached by their representatives, an indication of problems with the process.
The bigger problem is the inclusion of a new casino as part of the deal.
The province, through the B.C. Lotteries Corp., decides on casino locations. Its goal is to maximize profits and the capital region has not been on its priority list. There is, for now, more money to be made opening mini-casinos in smaller communities. If the deal depends on cash from flashing slot machines there could be disappointment and more conflicts ahead.
If there is some plan for a new casino, a whole new set of conflicts could be on the horizon. The Great Canadian Casino in View Royal takes in about $75 million a year from losing gamblers; a portion of that money is shared with nearby municipalities. A new casino would mean a drop in revenue for View Royal, Colwood, Esquimalt and the other local communities, and potential property tax increases for residents.
And a new casino — with its traffic and potential for increasing social problems — is likely to come as an unpleasant surprise to neighbours.
It’s important to resolve this dispute and the efforts made to sit down and talk are to be applauded.
But the process appears to have got wildly out of hand and turned into a fantastic version of “let’s make a deal,” with slot machines and multimillion-dollar developments all thrown into the mix.
The proposed solutions are likely to create even bigger problems.
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2006
See: http://www.inyaface.co.nz/index.htm
New Zealand website that educates youth about gambling/problem gambling.
