BestCraps.com

Charity Gambling Funds Allocation Becomes Issue in Alberta

Posted on October 15th, 2010

News Sponsored by Online Vegas Casino

Rated 5 Stars by BestCraps.com

Read Review

Visit Casino

Download Software

————————————————

In Canada, revenue generated by casinos has been so much of a hot topic that the recipients are currently on pins and needles. A number of sectors have been pushing for the redistribution of the casino funds, much to the anxiety of those already comfortable enough to be reliant on the funds funneled to them by the gambling facilities. Charities in Alberta, Canada have been overly dependent on the money given to them by casinos that altering the current manner of doling out revenue by casinos would heavily affect them. This may also be the reason why a report on the outcome of gambling for charity will be. This report was not really given the attention it deserves by the province, as the report allegedly suggests that the amount charities receive by casino hosting amounting to almost $200 million should be redistributed to other uses.

The executive director of the Edmonton Chamber of Voluntary Organizations, Russ Dahms, was quoted in saying, “There are no funding alternatives for those organizations that will see a shortfall as a result of the change. You’ve got to sell a lot of chocolates and kielbasa to make the kind of money you can make at a casino. They will have to cut clients, cut services, cut back — and they’ll point their fingers right at the provincial government.” Furthermore, he added that the number of organizations that have become heavily reliant on casino funds every years as part of their funding has been increasing, so the result could be very adversely affect a lot of these groups.

The report was completed more than six months ago, and was only given to the public last Tuesday. It contains 86 pages and was commissioned to address the issues of the charities about the uneven allocation of gambling incomes across the entire province of Alberta. The report showed a huge discrepancy in the allocations from charitable gambling. For two years, from 2007 to 2009, charities in Edmonton got almost $78,000 on the average, while those on St. Albert got a little over $18,000. The report claims the difference is due to the manner the system of allocation has been organized. According to the report, all of the 7,000 charities that are qualified to be in charge of casinos are designated to a region. Each casino region’s profits are gathered every quarter and divided equally among the charities that have a casino during that quarter.

In the case of the Edmonton region, it has 336 charities to be divided to its five casinos. St. Albert meanwhile, only has one casino and has 420 charities in it. The higher ratio also means that a charity has to be in line for a longer time to be allowed to run a casino. It would take 22 months in Edmonton while in St. Albert, it would take 28 months. The wait times, when added to the differences in casino size, population and conditions of the economy in the area ultimately means charities in St. Albert receive less funding. Thus, the report recommends that the boundaries be redrawn around the casinos. In this manner, the allocation of the casino income would be given in a more equitable manner.

Solicitor General Frank Oberle did not agree with the solution presented by the report. He added that the government will continue on working on the problem by formulating other solutions. He did not confirm any date on when a new report would be available. Some opine that the issue goes deeper than just the concern about boundaries. According to Garry Smith, Alberta Gaming Research Institute research specialist, “There’s a hierarchy of charities, too. It’s not official, but if you look at what they do, some causes are more worthy than others. Some are life-and-death issues, some are recreational things.”

The definition of what a charity is in the province is also questionable. The broad definition of the term may be blamed for some areas getting small allocation, because it seems every organization can qualify as a charity. Smith thinks, “They all have certain worthy causes that benefit the community, but some are obviously more important than others. Government would have difficulty wading into that and saying some charities are more important than others and therefore they should get more money.”