11
Emanuel Graça Editor-in-Chief
emanuel.graca@
macaubusiness.com The Cotai debate
IT CAUGHT ALMOST EVERYONE BY SURPRISE. Sociedade de Jogos de Macau’s (SJM) bold declaration of interest in Cotai parcels 7 and 8 was the topic of conversation among leaders in the gaming industry last month. Sands China marked the land as theirs
By itself, the political decision to turn Cotai into Macau’s equivalent of the Strip in Las Vegas may be easily justifiable. The real issue is how that was
coordinated with other macro-level policies to create a better city. In short, it wasn’t
years ago. Although Sheldon Adelson’s company is still waiting for the offi cial grant, the government has allowed the gaming operator to fence off the land and authorised some preparatory works. SJM’s move is even more surprising
taking into account common business practices in Macau. Disputes are often solved in back-room negotiations, informally sponsored by the government, and through hushed deals. SJM is no newcomer to the territory
and its boss Stanley Ho Hung Sun is regarded as one of the most successful deal makers. Such a direct and confrontational approach was unexpected. Skipping the discussion on how
successful SJM’s move may be, it has made the public realise one thing: development on the Cotai Strip is far from being a done deal.
Three years after the Venetian Macao
opened and with casinos mushrooming on the peninsula and in Taipa, the time has come to ask how the city has benefi ted from handing over Cotai to the casinos. Yes, gaming revenues are up but how has that helped create a better Macau?
Quid pro quo By itself, the political decision to turn Cotai into Macau’s equivalent of the Strip in Las Vegas may be easily justifi able. The real issue is how that was coordinated with other macro-level policies to create a better city. In short, it wasn’t. Infrastructure in Cotai is under
stress and it appears that will continue for some time, especially in terms of transport. Gaming concessionaires with interests there have been forced to step in and partially cover the shortcomings
by operating bus and ferry services. These are roles far removed from their core businesses and that translates into economic ineffi ciencies. The result of the lack of planning has
been bad for both the casinos and the wider population, with signifi cantly increased traffi c jams all over the city and reduced mobility. When handing over Cotai to the
casinos, the government was unable to implement a realistic trade off. The gaming industry got Cotai but Macau has not received the long-term gains in quality of life it could have expected in return. Instead, the city won short-term economic benefi ts. There were no casinos – or any other
substantial operations – transferred to Cotai to ease the crowded conditions on the peninsula, increase the city’s green areas or create new public amenities.
Planning ahead The debate over how Macau should maximise the one-off benefi ts from Cotai’s development is more relevant today than ever before as the territory prepares to reclaim another 350 hectares of land. By now, the government should have
realised that Macau is too small to allow for urban planning to be done piecemeal, zone by zone and sector by sector. Unfortunately, it seems the lesson is still to be learned. For the sake of the people and the
prosperity of industry, an integrated approach is urgently needed. If that had existed before developing Cotai perhaps today’s outcome may have been more successful for all the stakeholders, gaming operators included. Instead of looking at the eye-catching
short-term economic gains, we should also be celebrating the long-term benefi ts of living in a sustainable and pleasant city. We can live with casinos but not with casinos only.
OCTOBER 2010
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148