Tysons Corner Casino -- Foregone Conclusion Now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once the idea of a Tysons casino hits mainstream awareness (we're not there, yet) expect the opposition to ratchet up significantly.

I was against it I the beginning, but now think the area could use an economic boost. I don’t really gamble, but know plenty of people that do, and they seem normal otherwise. If it can be metro accessible, maybe not bad idea since the hotels are already there. I’d like to see the plans.

What "economic boost" do you anticipate? A minor increase in employment for unskilled workers, and more tax revenue for the Ds to spend on more welfare programs? The tax revenue from a casino won't be used to reduce individual business, personal income, or property taxes, it'll just be additive so even more gov't spending can occur. Most people won't see any benefits whatsoever, just a lot more traffic and congestion, and more low income housing for people who otherwise would have longer commutes to their employment.

Why would you think there would be a lot more traffic? It's not like Tysons is a sleepy little town. It's basically surrounded by major highways and the metro.

Also I assume they will bus people in, and people from the hotels may use it for fun. I doubt it makes a huge traffic impact in that area...

DP but why on earth would you want a casino? Of all the possibilities that could generate economic activity? Whether or not there is an increase in traffic, casinos attract crime and decay.
There are so many better options.

I didn't say I want or don't want a casino- I just said I'm skeptical it will make Tyson's meaningfully more congested. That's the oldest anti-development argument in the book and it certainly isn't relevant to a place like Tyson's Corner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here we go. New bill presented. What a mess.

Here's an article

https://patch.com/virginia/mclean/anti-casino-activists-react-reappearance-casino-bill-va-general-assembly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once the idea of a Tysons casino hits mainstream awareness (we're not there, yet) expect the opposition to ratchet up significantly.

I was against it I the beginning, but now think the area could use an economic boost. I don’t really gamble, but know plenty of people that do, and they seem normal otherwise. If it can be metro accessible, maybe not bad idea since the hotels are already there. I’d like to see the plans.

What "economic boost" do you anticipate? A minor increase in employment for unskilled workers, and more tax revenue for the Ds to spend on more welfare programs? The tax revenue from a casino won't be used to reduce individual business, personal income, or property taxes, it'll just be additive so even more gov't spending can occur. Most people won't see any benefits whatsoever, just a lot more traffic and congestion, and more low income housing for people who otherwise would have longer commutes to their employment.

Why would you think there would be a lot more traffic? It's not like Tysons is a sleepy little town. It's basically surrounded by major highways and the metro.

Also I assume they will bus people in, and people from the hotels may use it for fun. I doubt it makes a huge traffic impact in that area...

DP but why on earth would you want a casino? Of all the possibilities that could generate economic activity? Whether or not there is an increase in traffic, casinos attract crime and decay.
There are so many better options.

I didn't say I want or don't want a casino- I just said I'm skeptical it will make Tyson's meaningfully more congested. That's the oldest anti-development argument in the book and it certainly isn't relevant to a place like Tyson's Corner.

It is relevant. The roads are already congested, and additional construction of planned low-income housing in the area leaves no room for additional road capacity. The argument has been that everyone will use Metro, an argument which has been shown repeatedly in the past to be wishful thinking rather than based on rational assumptions or past experience with actual behavior.

[Anonymous]

This is a disaster in the making. The only ones that will benefit are the counties outside of Fairfax county. Yes, it will bring in more revenue, but most of that revenue will go to the state, not Fairfax. Fairfax will then have so spend so much more in maintaining the infrastructure and having police in the area. With the metro and the mall, police already have been over extended in that area for theft, robbings, etc. Now you are going to add a casino? Even if you live in Annandale or Fairfax and need the police, they might be too busy policing the area in Tysons to come to you. Oh, but wait, we have so many people lining up the door to be police so it shouldn't be an issue. I grew up near a casino, people kid themselves if they think it will provide entertainment and money and that's it. Well over a majority of what it brings is problems and crime. Check out suburbs nears casinos and see for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once the idea of a Tysons casino hits mainstream awareness (we're not there, yet) expect the opposition to ratchet up significantly.

I was against it I the beginning, but now think the area could use an economic boost. I don’t really gamble, but know plenty of people that do, and they seem normal otherwise. If it can be metro accessible, maybe not bad idea since the hotels are already there. I’d like to see the plans.

What "economic boost" do you anticipate? A minor increase in employment for unskilled workers, and more tax revenue for the Ds to spend on more welfare programs? The tax revenue from a casino won't be used to reduce individual business, personal income, or property taxes, it'll just be additive so even more gov't spending can occur. Most people won't see any benefits whatsoever, just a lot more traffic and congestion, and more low income housing for people who otherwise would have longer commutes to their employment.

Why would you think there would be a lot more traffic? It's not like Tysons is a sleepy little town. It's basically surrounded by major highways and the metro.

Also I assume they will bus people in, and people from the hotels may use it for fun. I doubt it makes a huge traffic impact in that area...

DP but why on earth would you want a casino? Of all the possibilities that could generate economic activity? Whether or not there is an increase in traffic, casinos attract crime and decay.
There are so many better options.

I didn't say I want or don't want a casino- I just said I'm skeptical it will make Tyson's meaningfully more congested. That's the oldest anti-development argument in the book and it certainly isn't relevant to a place like Tyson's Corner.

It is relevant. The roads are already congested, and additional construction of planned low-income housing in the area leaves no room for additional road capacity. The argument has been that everyone will use Metro, an argument which has been shown repeatedly in the past to be wishful thinking rather than based on rational assumptions or past experience with actual behavior.

What are your worried about, the casino or the subsidized housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once the idea of a Tysons casino hits mainstream awareness (we're not there, yet) expect the opposition to ratchet up significantly.

I was against it I the beginning, but now think the area could use an economic boost. I don’t really gamble, but know plenty of people that do, and they seem normal otherwise. If it can be metro accessible, maybe not bad idea since the hotels are already there. I’d like to see the plans.

What "economic boost" do you anticipate? A minor increase in employment for unskilled workers, and more tax revenue for the Ds to spend on more welfare programs? The tax revenue from a casino won't be used to reduce individual business, personal income, or property taxes, it'll just be additive so even more gov't spending can occur. Most people won't see any benefits whatsoever, just a lot more traffic and congestion, and more low income housing for people who otherwise would have longer commutes to their employment.

Why would you think there would be a lot more traffic? It's not like Tysons is a sleepy little town. It's basically surrounded by major highways and the metro.

Also I assume they will bus people in, and people from the hotels may use it for fun. I doubt it makes a huge traffic impact in that area...

DP but why on earth would you want a casino? Of all the possibilities that could generate economic activity? Whether or not there is an increase in traffic, casinos attract crime and decay.
There are so many better options.

I didn't say I want or don't want a casino- I just said I'm skeptical it will make Tyson's meaningfully more congested. That's the oldest anti-development argument in the book and it certainly isn't relevant to a place like Tyson's Corner.

It is relevant. The roads are already congested, and additional construction of planned low-income housing in the area leaves no room for additional road capacity. The argument has been that everyone will use Metro, an argument which has been shown repeatedly in the past to be wishful thinking rather than based on rational assumptions or past experience with actual behavior.

What are your worried about, the casino or the subsidized housing?

The County has already required subsidized housing in the area, to "spread the wealth" away from the Rt 1 corridor when market forces placed it, so that train has left the station. In that, the County has already foisted heavier traffic loads on Tyson's area roads. A casino adds further to that impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once the idea of a Tysons casino hits mainstream awareness (we're not there, yet) expect the opposition to ratchet up significantly.

I was against it I the beginning, but now think the area could use an economic boost. I don’t really gamble, but know plenty of people that do, and they seem normal otherwise. If it can be metro accessible, maybe not bad idea since the hotels are already there. I’d like to see the plans.

What "economic boost" do you anticipate? A minor increase in employment for unskilled workers, and more tax revenue for the Ds to spend on more welfare programs? The tax revenue from a casino won't be used to reduce individual business, personal income, or property taxes, it'll just be additive so even more gov't spending can occur. Most people won't see any benefits whatsoever, just a lot more traffic and congestion, and more low income housing for people who otherwise would have longer commutes to their employment.

Why would you think there would be a lot more traffic? It's not like Tysons is a sleepy little town. It's basically surrounded by major highways and the metro.

Also I assume they will bus people in, and people from the hotels may use it for fun. I doubt it makes a huge traffic impact in that area...

DP but why on earth would you want a casino? Of all the possibilities that could generate economic activity? Whether or not there is an increase in traffic, casinos attract crime and decay.
There are so many better options.

I didn't say I want or don't want a casino- I just said I'm skeptical it will make Tyson's meaningfully more congested. That's the oldest anti-development argument in the book and it certainly isn't relevant to a place like Tyson's Corner.

It is relevant. The roads are already congested, and additional construction of planned low-income housing in the area leaves no room for additional road capacity. The argument has been that everyone will use Metro, an argument which has been shown repeatedly in the past to be wishful thinking rather than based on rational assumptions or past experience with actual behavior.

What are your worried about, the casino or the subsidized housing?

The County has already required subsidized housing in the area, to "spread the wealth" away from the Rt 1 corridor when market forces placed it, so that train has left the station. In that, the County has already foisted heavier traffic loads on Tyson's area roads. A casino adds further to that impact.

A Casino is much worse than low income housing. At least the housing benefits some people in some way even if it tanks the school district and drives an exodus of wealthy people out of public schools. The casino offers no social benefits, creates mostly low paying jobs, and actively harms people by encouraging addiction. It will also push corporations to relocate their offices out of Tysons.

[Anonymous]

I’d like to go to a sports book now and then, but would pass on the table games. If I had my way, I’d put a sports book inside some of the bigger ABC stores. So I could get my booze and place a bet on a game at the same time. I know, it will never happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a disaster in the making. The only ones that will benefit are the counties outside of Fairfax county. Yes, it will bring in more revenue, but most of that revenue will go to the state, not Fairfax. Fairfax will then have so spend so much more in maintaining the infrastructure and having police in the area. With the metro and the mall, police already have been over extended in that area for theft, robbings, etc. Now you are going to add a casino? Even if you live in Annandale or Fairfax and need the police, they might be too busy policing the area in Tysons to come to you. Oh, but wait, we have so many people lining up the door to be police so it shouldn't be an issue. I grew up near a casino, people kid themselves if they think it will provide entertainment and money and that's it. Well over a majority of what it brings is problems and crime. Check out suburbs nears casinos and see for yourself.

What if we add a streetcar line to the plans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a disaster in the making. The only ones that will benefit are the counties outside of Fairfax county. Yes, it will bring in more revenue, but most of that revenue will go to the state, not Fairfax. Fairfax will then have so spend so much more in maintaining the infrastructure and having police in the area. With the metro and the mall, police already have been over extended in that area for theft, robbings, etc. Now you are going to add a casino? Even if you live in Annandale or Fairfax and need the police, they might be too busy policing the area in Tysons to come to you. Oh, but wait, we have so many people lining up the door to be police so it shouldn't be an issue. I grew up near a casino, people kid themselves if they think it will provide entertainment and money and that's it. Well over a majority of what it brings is problems and crime. Check out suburbs nears casinos and see for yourself.

What if we add a streetcar line to the plans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once the idea of a Tysons casino hits mainstream awareness (we're not there, yet) expect the opposition to ratchet up significantly.

I was against it I the beginning, but now think the area could use an economic boost. I don’t really gamble, but know plenty of people that do, and they seem normal otherwise. If it can be metro accessible, maybe not bad idea since the hotels are already there. I’d like to see the plans.

What "economic boost" do you anticipate? A minor increase in employment for unskilled workers, and more tax revenue for the Ds to spend on more welfare programs? The tax revenue from a casino won't be used to reduce individual business, personal income, or property taxes, it'll just be additive so even more gov't spending can occur. Most people won't see any benefits whatsoever, just a lot more traffic and congestion, and more low income housing for people who otherwise would have longer commutes to their employment.

Why would you think there would be a lot more traffic? It's not like Tysons is a sleepy little town. It's basically surrounded by major highways and the metro.

Also I assume they will bus people in, and people from the hotels may use it for fun. I doubt it makes a huge traffic impact in that area...

DP but why on earth would you want a casino? Of all the possibilities that could generate economic activity? Whether or not there is an increase in traffic, casinos attract crime and decay.
There are so many better options.

I didn't say I want or don't want a casino- I just said I'm skeptical it will make Tyson's meaningfully more congested. That's the oldest anti-development argument in the book and it certainly isn't relevant to a place like Tyson's Corner.

It is relevant. The roads are already congested, and additional construction of planned low-income housing in the area leaves no room for additional road capacity. The argument has been that everyone will use Metro, an argument which has been shown repeatedly in the past to be wishful thinking rather than based on rational assumptions or past experience with actual behavior.

What are your worried about, the casino or the subsidized housing?

The County has already required subsidized housing in the area, to "spread the wealth" away from the Rt 1 corridor when market forces placed it, so that train has left the station. In that, the County has already foisted heavier traffic loads on Tyson's area roads. A casino adds further to that impact.

A Casino is much worse than low income housing. At least the housing benefits some people in some way even if it tanks the school district and drives an exodus of wealthy people out of public schools. The casino offers no social benefits, creates mostly low paying jobs, and actively harms people by encouraging addiction. It will also push corporations to relocate their offices out of Tysons.

Can you please offer sources for the following "facts"?
1. Casinos "offer no social benefit." Counterpoint: I'm personally not a casino person, but I can understand that they indeed are a form of entertainment and socialization that some people enjoy. We don't all have to like the same forms of entertainment, do we?
2. Casinos "create mostly low paying jobs". Source? Low-paying jobs compared to what? I expect most restaurants, movie theaters, retail stores, etc., are also "mostly low-paying jobs." Are you similarly opposed to those kinds of employers in our area?
3. Casinos actively harm people by encouraging addiction. Restaurants, ABC Stores, wine shops, etc. all offer alcohol. Are you actively opposed to those places, too? Probably not, because not all people who drink alcohol are alcoholics. Are you against sports bars because people who bet on sports love them since they can watch many games at the same time? Probably not, because not all people who go to sports bars bet on sports games. And, even if you bet on a game from time to time, you does not make an addict. I could go on with other examples, but hope I have made the point that "existence of thing" does not = "worst case scenario" runs rampant.
4. Casinos "will also push corporations to relocate their offices out of Tysons." Source? Was there a survey of local corporations that showed this sentiment? Or do you know about an example elsewhere where this was the result?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a disaster in the making. The only ones that will benefit are the counties outside of Fairfax county. Yes, it will bring in more revenue, but most of that revenue will go to the state, not Fairfax. Fairfax will then have so spend so much more in maintaining the infrastructure and having police in the area. With the metro and the mall, police already have been over extended in that area for theft, robbings, etc. Now you are going to add a casino? Even if you live in Annandale or Fairfax and need the police, they might be too busy policing the area in Tysons to come to you. Oh, but wait, we have so many people lining up the door to be police so it shouldn't be an issue. I grew up near a casino, people kid themselves if they think it will provide entertainment and money and that's it. Well over a majority of what it brings is problems and crime. Check out suburbs nears casinos and see for yourself.

Is it that casinos get built in high-crime areas, or that the casinos bring crime to previously low-crime areas? I think it's the former. For example, I don't think Hanover MD (where Maryland Live Casino is located) has a crime issue. There's also a casino in Ocean City, MD, and I don't think it's become a hotbed of crime. Perhaps MGM in Oxon Hill and Horseshoe in Baltimore have crime issues, but those issues existed before the casinos were built.

[Anonymous]

“The best places to put them is where there is no economics and there doesn’t seem to be anything driving economic activity,”

https://dismalscience.journalism.cuny.edu/2014/05/18/casinos-always-gamble-neighboring-home-values/

Doesn’t sound like Tysons is the place for a casino.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“The best places to put them is where there is no economics and there doesn’t seem to be anything driving economic activity,”

https://dismalscience.journalism.cuny.edu/2014/05/18/casinos-always-gamble-neighboring-home-values/

Doesn’t sound like Tysons is the place for a casino.

A 2014 post from the "Dismal Science" blog, from some random "young journalist" in NYC? And the quote is from Michael Wenz, "an assistant economics professor at Northeastern Ilinois [sic] University." Is this really the best you've got?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“The best places to put them is where there is no economics and there doesn’t seem to be anything driving economic activity,”

https://dismalscience.journalism.cuny.edu/2014/05/18/casinos-always-gamble-neighboring-home-values/

Doesn’t sound like Tysons is the place for a casino.

The hope is to draw lower-income punters from Maryland and D.C., whose funds will go to Richmond instead of Annapolis or the District.