Will You approve license to operate in your region in exchange for Trust funds

[cabron]

They could still [preserve the heritage alongside the progress of the city. As long as the casino does not destroy the historic structures, it will bring development to the region and probably increase the value of the properties.

I think they will question who is behind the casino because it is probably the issue. It's like who will greatly benefit from this project. When the Chinese investors tried developing casinos in my area, people were also protesting. Now that Chinese have moved to another city, they want them back.

[Hispo]

...
I think they will question who is behind the casino because it is probably the issue. It's like who will greatly benefit from this project. When the Chinese investors tried developing casinos in my area, people were also protesting. Now that Chinese have moved to another city, they want them back.

Because they were not initially aware of the massive influx of money and jobs they were going to create within the community I guess. Something similar happens with the Chinese community in my city, when they began to come from China over a decade ago people were kind of skeptical of their true intentions and there was distrust, they were quite closed to having contact with the local people of the region, nowadays people have understood the Chinese have come here for the same reason we have also moved to another country: to get a better life and do business.
Even though it could sound as a stereotype there are many asian in this city who are indeed very active gamblers and participate in it very often, as it stands for now, they have their own dedicated casinos and gambling floors with slots, the local people prefer sport-betting instead of going straight for slots and other casino games, which appeal more to our asian neighbors.

[Slow death]

It's funny that here in my country the government has been constantly saying the following: "we need to attract many casinos to our country, to improve tourism in our country, so as a government we are giving tax exemption to all casinos that come to operate in our country". I don't have data on the real impact that the casinos that are in my country are causing, but from what I have seen is that the many casinos that are in my country are improving tourism in my country and creating jobs. That's why in my opinion it would be good if they accepted the casino

[iv4n]

When there are already so many casinos in my country, then it would be nice if they set aside some money for some smart things... More or less, the casinos here have investments in various socially useful things, I already wrote about that, in the end it is also way of advertising for them, whatever they do the name of the casino is written all over it.

When there are already so many casinos in my country, then it would be nice if they set aside some money for some smart things... More or less, the casinos here have investments in various socially useful things, I already wrote about that, in the end it is also way of advertising for them, whatever they do the name of the casino is written all over it.

[AmoreJaz]

When there are already so many casinos in my country, then it would be nice if they set aside some money for some smart things... More or less, the casinos here have investments in various socially useful things, I already wrote about that, in the end it is also way of advertising for them, whatever they do the name of the casino is written all over it.

When there are already so many casinos in my country, then it would be nice if they set aside some money for some smart things... More or less, the casinos here have investments in various socially useful things, I already wrote about that, in the end it is also way of advertising for them, whatever they do the name of the casino is written all over it.

We can't deny the fact that the business of these casinos can create a lot of jobs or money to where it is operational. However, as you increase the number of this kind of business, it means, there will be more gamblers who are hoping to win. Let us admit the fact that only few can win on this game at the end of the day. So more people are on the losing side if you say, there will be more casinos existing on a particular area. Yes, there will be more jobs, however, there will be more problematic gamblers who are being produced in this scenario.

[BitMaxz]

I agree with some of the posts here; it would also provide opportunities for those looking for work, as well as help families who live near the casino by opening a restaurant, selling snacks, and a small store. That would be a huge help, but I would like to preserve the cultural heritage because it attracts not only locals but also tourists.

Why not accept the casino and then preserve the cultural heritage? I don't think there is a problem having both of them? Unless the place where they want to establish this casino is exactly in the place where the cultural heritage is?

[Callido]

If you are part of the community, which side will you be on?
Preserving the cultural heritage or developing the region for a more robust economy

According to the research I got from Google on Wikipedia, I was made to understand that "Coney Island is a neighborhood and entertainment area in the southwestern section of the New York City borough of Brooklyn. A neighborhood bounded by Brighton Beach to its east, Lower New York Bay to it's south and west, and Gravesend to the north"., and located on a land area of 1.790 Kilometers per square, having a population of 119,482 people and also known to have a total number of 5million visitors yearly, as a tourist and entertainment city. Hence, if I was to choose between "preserving the cultural heritage of my city or developing the region for a more robust economy" I will go about maintaining preserving it's culture, since Coney island is not underdeveloped, and also generate lots of revenue from the number of visitors that comes in yearly, because just as the second person stated, the establishment of a casino could drive up housing costs, create a permanent state of overcrowding and congestion. But though, everybody is entitled to their opinions.

I see the reason why it is difficult to come into agreement, any selected choice will have positive impact on both but one is retaining what has been and the other are trying to keep mutualism between what they offer and what they get. I will also stick with retaining culture, the gambling industry trying to balance might be supplying them quantity as agreed but in contrary, they are actually worth more than what the casino wants to offer. Losing the cultural heritage when lost can never be recovered, once developments begins more habitants added there will be fewer distribution of wealth among them.

Those who will also prefer the landing of casino literally have their own advantage to visualize and how it will impact them, a choice will be made and either way they are attached to benefits.

[Ojima-ojo]

I agree with some of the posts here; it would also provide opportunities for those looking for work, as well as help families who live near the casino by opening a restaurant, selling snacks, and a small store. That would be a huge help, but I would like to preserve the cultural heritage because it attracts not only locals but also tourists.

Why not accept the casino and then preserve the cultural heritage? I don't think there is a problem having both of them? Unless the place where they want to establish this casino is exactly in the place where the cultural heritage is?

The majority of those who are kicking against the development are either none gamblers or even someone that has high religious self-practice because the impact of having a casino in an environment is more positive than it is negative, I know many are concerned about its impacts on the financial life of those around the casino.


But mind you, one can still have a physical casino in a place and still not allow their activities outside the casino, so most times you won't even know that there is a casino in such a place, so its environmental impact is very low compared to the gains.

[Text]

If I were part of the community I would prioritize heritage preservation. However if the project would benefit the majority why not consider it especially if it’s possible and negotiable to move forward with the project without compromising the identity of the area? For example setting terms that help preserve some or most aspects of the cultural heritage while still accepting the funds. I would advocate for strict guidelines and protections to preserve the cultural identity of the region. This could include allocating part of the trust fund specifically for heritage preservation and ensuring that any development is community-focused and aligns with local values. Community input throughout the process should be mandatory.

[Mia Chloe]

It's funny that here in my country the government has been constantly saying the following: "we need to attract many casinos to our country, to improve tourism in our country, so as a government we are giving tax exemption to all casinos that come to operate in our country".

Sometimes it actually depends on the casinos and the laws of those countries. Some countries have too strict laws and rules that regulate gambling and as a result it can be stressing for casinos to trend properly in regions like that. One of the things that can actually influence the availability of some casinos in different regions is actually the religion in some countries especially if a vast majority of the people there practice one religion that is strongly against gambling.
In as much as casinos make sure to keep their customers happy they also aim for profit because that's is essential what keeps them running.

[bias]

The offer is actually very tempting. But you know what’s the reality, if they offer that huge amount, then that would mean the effect could be massive to the community. In other words, it can be an advantage on the casino, but it could create the worst effect scenario on part of the people in the community. So my stance is not to approve their offer, but to retain the cultural heritage of the people. Any region may chose the progress and welfare of the community, without setting divisions that could play a hindrance on the overall anticipated region’s welfare and progress.

It's like that. Those guys won't build something small but an entire mountain. I believe that nobody is outside reality and such big plans and structures affect massively literally everything. Especially when we are talking about casinos, their influence is huge.
Let's not forget that casinos bring with them a lot of bad things and only one good thing, money. Simply put, the cheese they threw away is nice, but we've seen (and we know) the trap! So I would say no to a casino in their area. Let them keep the money and leave the residents in their peace.

[Zoomic]

I would choose development over hypocrisy. I said hypocrisy because these very group of people who are strongly against the casino operating in their area do even worse things than gamblers. We are in an era where gambling is no longer hidden to anyone. Some persons who are members of that community may even gamble online in secret so people don't know. The world has really evolved, so some certain restrictions on adults in the name of tradition or heritage are no longer necessary because people would always find a way to do what they like.

Since the casino will bring development to the community, they should seize the opportunity to make life easy for themselves, while also putting in place some rules and regulations the casino must follow.

[Furious 7]

Who's side will you be if one casino applies for a license to operate in your region in exchange for setting up a trust fund to develop your area? And your area is known to have cultural heritage to protect, the community is divided on this; one part of the community is okay with the trust funds, and the other part is against it as it may lose the cultural heritage of the region it is known for in exchange for a more revitalized community.

When the goal is to develop the region for the better then why not but in the end it just becomes a condition with some notes in it.
First, maybe we have to look at the views of the people around because even though for example the area or place that will be used as a casino is a place that has been purchased or contracted but in the end we have to see the response whether the area is welcoming or not with gambling because not all places will welcome gambling.

In addition, we must see in terms of regulation whether in our country in the end legalize something like this (casino) or not because after all this is an important thing that must be considered.
The most likely problem is licensing because in the end, even though in our area we may be in control with the people around us, but still licensing is an important thing from local officials.

As long as it is safe then it is not wrong for me to give permission to operate but when some of the things I said are not fulfilled then it will only make the situation more chaotic and even the intention in developing the area with guarantees it will never be implemented properly because there will always be pros and cons that will be encountered.

[EluguHcman]

If you are part of the community, which side will you be on?
Preserving the cultural heritage or developing the region for a more robust economy

Believe it or not, excessive practices of cultures and traditions are mostly lead to awkwardness with an immunity to just stay contented even when there comes opportunities to provide a better and advanced new changes such as the economical situation and infrastructural developments that would play crucial roles of empowerments and technologies.

Take it this way... Cultures does not out foods on the table so it can just get scrapped or behind let a trend of development come through.

Of course we need the production of technologies and strategies to grow my mindsets to merge the the trends of economy than upholding a religious culture which does not feasibly provide our needs.

[Lida93]

Now, on this opposing sides, people's opinion about the subject would heavily depend on their perception towards change. For the conservatives in nature they would consider to side the group that wants to have their culture maintained and intact which a trust fund given the approval of the casino on their soil could really alter a lot of things in their environment and definitely thats what development is about. Development comes at a cost which conservatives finds it difficult to embrace.

Lending my stance on this matter as a lover of development, especially sustainable development that gives vantage attention to both the present and future needs of a people, supporting a license to the casino in this subject on ground of the  plans they present would be where my side is found.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

         - Having a casino in our region have negative and positive effect in our community.
the target of the casino will be one of the people in your community or might be in your family.
but that  not the problem of that business, it is on the control of the money owner.

I will let them hve their casino but in a condition that it mush be a hotel and casino. this will not just attract gamblers but tourist.
Which will benefit the businesses around that establishment, especially tourst spots.

The trust funds should be use to maek the region a better place and imporovement on every sector should be a MUST!

trust funds should be transparent to the people of that regiong!

[mammusu]

What the OP said often happens in an area where development will eventually give rise to polemik in the community because it interferes with cultural heritage, it is undeniable that many of the world community are current very thick in defending their customs and culture so I think it is necessary to take a more and wise approach to make the community believe that the development will benefit them,  I think it is very important for everyone involved to be able to maintain the existing cultural heritage but still development can also continue, because after all these two things are very important for the community, because development can provide many benefits for the community, but cultural heritage is also very valuable and cannot be replace so far.

[taufik123]

I agree with some of the posts here; it would also provide opportunities for those looking for work, as well as help families who live near the casino by opening a restaurant, selling snacks, and a small store. That would be a huge help, but I would like to preserve the cultural heritage because it attracts not only locals but also tourists.

This is a good enough economic turnaround so that people who are near the casino get benefits from the casino business,
but this policy must also be regulated by the government fairly and can benefit both parties.

Why not accept the casino and then preserve the cultural heritage? I don't think there is a problem having both of them? Unless the place where they want to establish this casino is exactly in the place where the cultural heritage is?

Regarding preserving culture, it certainly depends on every culture in every place. Some countries prohibit gambling or even the establishment of Casino Businesses because it has a lot of negative impact when those who play just want to win and continue to spend money on casinos.

But if casinos are a culture of the past in some places, this may be a place that must be preserved ,
But of course with strict regulations and government involvement to regulate casinos so that they do not become a terrible place for some people.

[viljy]

Of course, I am far from this problem, but purely hypothetical, it seems to me that the development of the district's economy is more important for its residents than the abstract cultural heritage of this place. Why abstract? Well, I can hardly imagine what kind of valuable cultural heritage there could be that would sacrifice the well-being of local residents for this. If the cultural heritage currently benefits the local people (for example, from tourism), this is one side of the question, but if not, who is ready to compensate the locals for the refusal to build a casino in order to preserve cultural heritage? In general, can't this issue be resolved at the municipal level? Or by some kind of vote?