Facing a Stacked Deck

Here in the Region Of Waterloo, there's been controversy over a proposal to build a casino.  I don't care that much about the issue personally, but I've found the process rather odd.  Kitchener just decided for a second time to reject the casino, but it may still be built just outside the city.  All this is in spite of public opinion running strongly against the casino.

Obviously, some people will object to a casino on moral grounds.  But even if you do not have a problem with the idea of gambling, you still have to weigh the benefits to the community (taxes and tourism dollars) against the costs (a certain portion of your populace suffering gambling addiction.). For the most part, communities seem to agree that a casino isn't worth it, and have been rejecting the proposal.  But then Woolwich township (right outside the city) surprised everyone by voting in favour of a casino, and shortly after, Kitchener council - who had initially rejected casinos - revisited the idea.  

A lot of people would write this off as typical politicians ignoring their constituents, but you can see where they're coming from:  As I said, people seem to be in agreement that the costs outweigh the benefits, but that's assuming we're talking about one community in isolation.  If you're a rural community on the edge of a larger city (like Woolwich Township) then the balance changes.  You'll get the benefits in taxes, but the costs in addiction will be borne by someone else.  Since destitute gambling addicts aren't likely to wonder the cornfields, pestering farmers for change.  Instead, it will be neighbouring cities like Kitchener that pay the cost.

That in turn, causes Kitchener council to reconsider.  In the same way that a casino in Woolwich is a positive with no negative for them, it's a worst-case scenario for Kitchener.  They'll be bearing the costs of the casino, but not sharing any of the positives.  At this point, they're thinking that if there's going to be a casino in the area whether they like it or not, it might as well be in Kitchener, where they can at least share in the benefits.

A lot of people think of local government as being inherently better than government at any higher level: the closer the decision makers are to the problems, the more they'll know about them, and the more they'll care.  That's often true, but it does have the detriment that sometimes a local government may be making a decision with ramifications beyond their borders.  If the politicians (and their constituents) won't be feeling all the costs and benefits, that may skew their decision making.