Friday, October 23, 2009
Vote NO on Issue 3...
This is an amendment to the state Constitution. Once done, we can't change it.
If we don't get it right this time, we are screwed worse than we are now.
This is a BAD proposal. It also creates a monopoly that is anti-free trade/anti-Capitalism. It buys our future and doesn't pay us enough for the deal. We are screwing ourselves if this is approved.
One of the really bad things is that the police unions, groups supposedly interested in the welfare of Ohioans, are supporting their own little slice of the pie, while knowing that this is a bad deal.
The Columbus Dispatch is opposed, saying, "The Ohio Constitution is no place for such detailed, self-interested amendments. If Ohioans wish to bring casino gambling to the state, the proper way would be to approve a succinct amendment granting the governor and General Assembly the authority to draft statutes, rules and regulations for such enterprises. In this way, the state would retain leverage to properly license, govern and tax casinos. As times and circumstances changed, the state would be able to respond. If State Issue 3 is approved by voters, the amendment would be unalterable by any action of this or future governors and legislatures. Only another statewide vote could change the amendment."
The Toledo Blade is opposed, saying that a gambling casino monopoly should not be enshrined in Ohio's Constitution. "Voters should also remember that the reason it is difficult to amend the state constitution is to avoid having short-term concerns or passions result in wholesale changes that harm the state in the long run. What is given away in haste, such as control over gambling, may be regretted at leisure."
The Youngstown Vindicator is opposed to Issue 3, saying, "We have said before when commenting on other casino gambling issues in Ohio: Gambling is the most successful scheme for the redistribution of wealth ever devised. It takes from the poor and gives to the rich. That’s because, as any gambler can tell you, the house never loses. Don’t be taken in by the promises of easy money being made by Issue 3 proponents. Vote no on Issue 3"
The Akron Beacon Journal is opposed to Issue 3. In an editorial, the board said, "The state estimates the casinos would generate $643 million in annual tax revenue, slightly less than the $651 million claimed by Issue 3 proponents. But studies of gambling's economic impact on communities show that most of the money wagered comes from local residents who quit spending on nearby bars, restaurants and the like. Studies also show an overall negative impact, once the social costs of gambling are included, among them, increased crime, broken homes, bankruptcies and addiction treatment. In other words, casinos are not an engine of economic growth."
In an opinion column published by the Toledo Free Press, Tim Higgins writes that his opposition to the measure is not related to immorality, amount of revenue brought in, or the jobs that may or may not be created for Ohioans. However, Higgins writes: “My objection to Issue 3 is much like it was to Issue 6 before it from the 2008 ballot. It is that both proposed Amendments limit gambling in Ohio by creating a casino monopoly, something that should never be considered in Constitutional politics. As we would never place such a monopoly in the hands of a utility company or a corporate media outlet, neither should we do so for a group operating casinos. Penn National may be a great corporation, but so was the group who failed to get Issue 6 last year; and it does not make them more deserving of such a monopoly.”