Fight goes on for pokies win

[LostDoggy]

Was reading through the tribunal submissions (I know, I know .. surely there are better ways of passing the time).. and it doesn't seem like the Dogs are pretending like they are good things (the Pokies). In fact, the submission barely mentions it at all and focusses on the positive points of the proposal -- ie. that Vic Uni gets a cutting edge sports science faculty, the area gets a pretty good sporting facility, and the Dogs get to finish up the Whitten and not waste more of the state and federal governments' money in VCAT padding lawyers' pockets (reading between the lines).

I am totally against exploitative gambling facilities (I probably went over the top in my protestations in an old thread with Sedat -- believe me, I hate Crown, for example, with a passion and have a T-shirt describing it as a 'hive of scum and villanny -- Mos Eisley Cantina, anyone?), but this is a case of weighing up positives and negatives, and while there are some negatives associated with this, especially for the residents of Edgewater (who I still argue can best afford the facility in social terms), the positives outweigh it. If the pokies cannot be moved, Vic Uni loses a whole faculty (and associated enrolments), the Dogs really get into strife, and the Whitten never gets upgraded and all the money just goes down the drain (or lines more lawyers' pockets).

The original blame lies with the Dogs allowing pokies in the WO in the first place -- and a bad conceptual redesign of the entire proposal to link the redevelopment of the WO with the Edgewater approval (so that the whole thing falls down if one isn't approved -- that's just silly). Is it possible for the Dogs to just shut down the pokies in the short term instead of relocating them? That way the WO project is disassociated from the Edgewater "Hilton" and can resume/continue construction, while the Dogs negotiate the Hilton project seperately.

[Topdog]

That's precisely the point of their objection to the machines, their proposed location.

From the council themselves...

"There’s a huge difference between the ‘destination gambling’ which exists with the machines located at Whitten Oval – which requires people to travel to that venue specifically to gamble - with the ‘opportunistic’ gambling presented by the Edgewater venue."

So they would rather leave the pokies where vulernable university students are and where young parents will be to pick up their kids? The opportunistic line is a complete load of garbage and the fact that the council is against it is why I continue to make mention of the Highpoint pokies. That is a heck of a lot more opportunistic for gambling then it would be in Edgewater but the council had no problems signing off on that one and about 5 or 6 others in the area.

Location obviously matters...Otherwise, why not permit the installation of pokies inside dole offices across the Western suburbs...stick a bottle'o in there too while yer at it...You'd make a killing.

Yes it does matter so please move it away from the "poorer" area of the city.

[Mofra]

Maybe I'm extrapolating, but the tenor of some of the above responses suggests RAIDIM's concerns are unimportant and that this mob should just shut up and go away.

No, they can voice there concerns.... just as we have a right to respond to them.

That's precisely the point of their objection to the machines, their proposed location.

Maybe I'm extrapolating now, but how much of the residents concern is actually about gambling, and how much is a worry about the effect on property values? If that is the concern, the pokies are a convenient target.

From the council themselves...

"There’s a huge difference between the ‘destination gambling’ which exists with the machines located at Whitten Oval – which requires people to travel to that venue specifically to gamble - with the ‘opportunistic’ gambling presented by the Edgewater venue."

Yet there is a pub a few hundred metres away with pokies that is within walking distance from housing commission flats?

Where do you think pokies are better placed - at a venue in a new estate with a majority of owner occupier residents, or closer to a high density apartment block of people from a lower socio-economic background?

Of course, this is making the huge assumption that the majority of people don't travel more than a few hundred metres to a venue - not an asumption I'd make.

Location should matter, however apparently it is an afterthought.

Location obviously matters...Otherwise, why not permit the installation of pokies inside dole offices across the Western suburbs...stick a bottle'o in there too while yer at it...You'd make a killing.

If it won votes I wouldn't put it past the council.

Which suggests what?...You've no business objecting to something unless you've objected to everything comparable that's preceded it?

See point A.

Besides, they don't live near Highpoint, they live at Edgewater. From what I can gather, they're annoyed in part because residents purchased property there without being made aware there'd be a gaming facility plonked nearby.

Gaming facility?

You're aware that pokies will represent 4% of the floorspace, and it is primarity a hotel/function centre?

I haven't heard anyone objecting to the dining facilities.

Point missed

Name calling?

zeal⋅ot   /ˈzɛlət/ –noun 1. a person who shows zeal.

That's name calling? I'm sure the residents will turn emo after my vicious diatribe then

Here's another salient point to consider;

"Each adult in Maribyrnong loses an average $1,148 per annum on electronic gaming machines, compared to $406 per annum for Port Phillip residents, and $599 for those living in the Melton shire, according to research from Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation (VCGR)."

And again from the council:

"Maribyrnong loses in excess of $1100 each year on pokie machines for every adult in our city – the highest for any municipality outside the City of Melbourne. Our losses are only $1 less per adult than the City of Melbourne now – which includes Crown Casino, a world-wide gambling destination"

So a reduction in pokie numbers aside, moving the pokies from an area near housing commission flats to an area of largely employed owner occupiers is something you'd support?

Like shooting fish in a barrel really...what harm's another hand in their pocket?

Again, it is not another hand in the pocket - they are relocating the pokies, not adding pokies to the area.

It's a simplistic point to make but I'd have thought greater gambling losses for locals, also means less money for club memberships.

Would expect the effect to be negligible, however I wouldn't know how many problem gamblers would otherwise buy a Western Bulldogs membership (assuming they have no other vices at all).

Irrespective, the point still remains as to how the club can reconcile this development with it's broader aim to be a positive force in its local community.

I would think that a financially strong Western Bulldogs is the best way to continue to be a positive force in the local communtiy. It would be awful if the community development programs were cut due to financial contraints.

The fact is the club does do positive things in it's local community, and I know we badly need the money, but I just wish we'd find a more savoury means of generating it.

We would sit fairly high up on the moral foodchain in terms of other clubs I would expect.
Unlike other clubs (Hawthorn in Caroline Springs for example) we are not expanding our pokie numbers and are looking at building a venue that provides a raft of other servcies.

[Rocket Science]

While you're assisting with dictionary definitions it might have paid to check the spelling of "their".

In my experience a zealot is what someone's called when they disagree with you, purely because of that fact. It does about as much to further the discussion as highlighting spelling errors.

I'm not actually insisting the thing deserves to be knocked on the head altogether, but I'm also not prepared to suspend all my critical faculties simply because the footy club I support wants something done.

While this issue might be head-smackingly black and white to some, and it's natural to want what's best for the club, I can also understand some of the reservations being expressed by the Edgewater residents, not to mention believe strongly in their right to express them. The apparent three hundred-plus written objections received by council regarding the development would also suggest it's inaccurate to attempt to discredit the concerns of those objecting as the work of some unrepresentative fringe group of nutters and party poopers.

Speaking more generally, the fallout from chronic problem gambling in the Western Suburbs is a serious topic that merits serious treatment, and my own personal view is that I'd rather the club I support, which purports to identify with and contribute positively to its local area, wasn't a beneficiary of it's effects, full-stop. Whether that's realistic in the current climate however, is clearly up for debate.

[Mofra]

While you're assisting with dictionary definitions it might have paid to check the spelling of "their".

In my experience a zealot is what someone's called when they disagree with you, purely because of that fact. It does about as much to further the discussion as highlighting spelling errors.

Disappointing that's you're first point, after raising some valid points in your previous posts.

I'm not actually insisting the thing deserves to be knocked on the head altogether, but I'm also not prepared to suspend all my critical faculties simply because the footy club I support wants something done.

Nobody is suggesting the project shouldn't proceed without scrutiny, but knowing residents who are for the project, their opinion is that it is a group of locals making alot of noise about a facility that will, on balance, be a positive for a new area that has very little else to do (walking/cycling tracks aside, which I think are fantastic ). One resident has described them as being in the minority, however I can't substantiate that.

While this issue might be head-smackingly black and white to some, and it's natural to want what's best for the club, I can also understand some of the reservations being expressed by the Edgewater residents, not to mention believe strongly in their right to express them. The apparent three hundred-plus written objections received by council regarding the development would also suggest it's inaccurate to attempt to discredit the concerns of those objecting as the work of some unrepresentative fringe group of nutters and party poopers.

No issue is black and white, however on balance I believe the proposal;
- Relocates pokies, not add pokies
- Moves pokies away from close proximity to housing commission flats to an area where the local population (presumably) would represent those with a higher discretionary income who
- Provides a function centre & hotel accomodation for the area
- Provides employment opportunities in the area at a time when unemployment is only tipped to worsen
- Improves the financial stability of a club that makes serious efforts to be a positive community force

For mine, the positives outweigh the negatives

Speaking more generally, the fallout from chronic problem gambling in the Western Suburbs is a serious topic that merits serious treatment, and my own personal view is that I'd rather the club I support, which purports to identify with and contribute positively to its local area, wasn't a beneficiary of it's effects, full-stop. Whether that's realistic in the current climate however, is clearly up for debate.

Nobody is suggesting that we should be expanding our pokie base (a la Hawthorn) or building a number of pokie pubs across the suburbs, however this issue is about a function centre with a part pokie representation that provides a number of positives for the area.
As altrusitic as your intention is in raising concerns about problem gambling, there are far worse pubs/clubs/centres in the West that have a far greater allocation of pokies to the venue than a mere 4% floorspace.

[ledge]

4% sounds low but it all depends how big the place is, doesnt it?
Anyway besides that we know how many machines it is, thats more the concern, not floor space.

[BulldogBelle]

Another update....

Early moves for pokies hearing
The Star News Group
27th January 2009

A PRACTICE Day hearing later this week will determine if the appeal against Club Edgewater’s 70 poker machines will be heard at the same time as the appeal for the proposed development.

Maribyrnong City Council, Edgewater residents and the Western Bulldogs will front the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on Friday for the practice day. The day takes the form of a brief hearing that will decide the dates and length of the two appeals.

RAIDIM is holding a public meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) at the Maribyrnong RSL from 7.30pm. The council’s Urban Planning Manager John Karageorge will speak at the meeting.

Maribyrnong City Council mayor Michael Clarke did not respond to Star’s calls last week

[hujsh]

Another update....

Early moves for pokies hearing
The Star News Group
27th January 2009

A PRACTICE Day hearing later this week will determine if the appeal against Club Edgewater’s 70 poker machines will be heard at the same time as the appeal for the proposed development.

Maribyrnong City Council, Edgewater residents and the Western Bulldogs will front the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on Friday for the practice day. The day takes the form of a brief hearing that will decide the dates and length of the two appeals.

RAIDIM is holding a public meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) at the Maribyrnong RSL from 7.30pm. The council’s Urban Planning Manager John Karageorge will speak at the meeting.

Maribyrnong City Council mayor Michael Clarke did not respond to Star’s calls last week

Wonder if they'll play the pokies

[KT31]

Lets cut to the chase.
Any one with any decent conscience and responsibility would not touch a pokie machine.
The only people that are addicted are those that wish to spend their benefits on gambling , so good luck to the Doggies in reclaiming some of our hard eared taxes.

[LostDoggy]

Lets cut to the chase.
Any one with any decent conscience and responsibility would not touch a pokie machine.
The only people that are addicted are those that wish to spend their benefits on gambling , so good luck to the Doggies in reclaiming some of our hard eared taxes.

Not sure you can say that, I know pookie prey on the weak but its an addiction just like drugs can be and it can affect anyone.

[The Underdog]

Lets cut to the chase.
Any one with any decent conscience and responsibility would not touch a pokie machine.
The only people that are addicted are those that wish to spend their benefits on gambling , so good luck to the Doggies in reclaiming some of our hard eared taxes.

You don't write editorials for the Herald-Sun by any chance?
Congratulations you managed to fit sterotype, cliche and over-simplification into a very short space.

[Sockeye Salmon]

You don't write editorials for the Herald-Sun by any chance?
Congratulations you managed to fit sterotype, cliche and over-simplification into a very short space.

Anyone stupid enough to bet against a machine that's programmed to win deserve all they get.

[Desipura]

Anyone stupid enough to bet against a machine that's programmed to win deserve all they get.

Do you bet on the horses/cricket?

[The Underdog]

Anyone stupid enough to bet against a machine that's programmed to win deserve all they get.

Don't go quoting previous (or present) government social policies to me...

[ledge]

Having a flutter on the pokies is just a social thing for some, i have a go every now and then, talk to whoever im sitting next too, you be amazed you can take all day to lose $20 and if your conversing have you actually lost it?
A lot more money is spent on grog to socialize and its more dangerous!
To me its like any other addiction, some get sucked in some dont.
We all have past times, its how YOU manage it.