There’s four main issues on the ballot today (more info on those here), but the one that has caused the most commotion is the current incarnation of the Casino proposal. I don’t really like to tell other people how to vote, but I thought it might be worth my time to explain why I’m voting NO on this one.
Personally, I’m not opposed to gambling. It’s something I rarely do, but I’m hardly opposed to telling people how they should spend their money.
The problems with Issue 3 lie more with the way this is being structured, and the type of outcome it will most certainly present.
- Issue 3 is a constitutional amendment that essentially grants one Pennsylvania-based company the right to a monopoly on Casinos in the state of Ohio. This is not a healthy business practice. There is no other industry sector that we regulate in this manner. If we’re going to allow Casinos in our state, why should we only allow a single out-of-state company to control the entire sector?
- Issue 3 gives this Casino company a very low tax rate compared to other state structures. Collecting tax money is great, but when Ohio will only be bringing in 33% of the Casino revenue as income while other states bring in as much as 55% to 67%, I feel like we’re really selling ourselves short.
- Issue 3 does not guarantee that we will get a sexy, glamourous “Vegas-style” casino. Whenever I talk to anyone who is a casual un-researched proponent of Issue 3, I generally hear them gleefully explain that they’re looking forward to a bit of Vegas coming to Ohio. Unfortunately, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Casino proponents have been very quiet with details about what these businesses will look like, most likely due to the fact that people would be turned off if they saw what they are going to be getting. We already know that the Columbus Casino would be branded as a Hollywood Casino, which would be housed in a single-story building near Huntington Park in the Arena District. There would be no luxury hotel attached. There would be no first-class entertainment space for shows. The in-house restaurants would include some generic buffet-style eateries. There is nothing “Vegas” about any of this.
- Issue 3 would place a Casino in the heart of the Arena District, which is already one of the most thriving mixed-use neighborhoods in the central city. If anything, this area deserves something first-rate… the last thing this area needs is to be cheapened with a second-rate Casino. The parcel of land that is slated for development if this issue passes has already been proposed as a 22-acre site for additional residential development by current landowners Plaza Properties. They’ve already moved forward with these plans, which includes a $750k government cleanup grant to prep the site for redevelopment. Many times we’re not faced with an “either/or” decision like this, but we’re actually voting tomorrow on whether or not Downtown could use a second-rate Casino, or an additional 1,000+ unit residential development. When you add a critical mass of new residents, the area will be much better off than by adding a Casino of any caliber.
Over the past few months, I’ve heard just about every “pro” and “con” argument on this issue, and I’ve done quite a bit of research on the topic… even going so far as conducting a phone interview with Bob Tenenbaum, the chief spokesperson for the Casino proposal.
After all is said and done, I feel that there are just too many problems with the proposal for anyone to consider it to be a good idea for our city, our Downtown, or our state.
I’m voting NO on Issue 3 today.
Thanks for this post. I’ll be honest–I haven’t taken the time to research this Issue and therefore had planned on skipping this one when I voted today. I appreciate this well laid out information. Wouldn’t it be nice if the TV ads were this reasonable?!
Thanks for this… I will be sharing this with a ton of people.
A lot of your arguments against Issue 3 seem to be that it’s “not good enough.” It sounds like if everyone was allowed to build a casino anywhere in the state and if the tax rate was higher, you’d be for it.
But this doesn’t block other groups from putting an issue on the ballot next year to allow them to build casinos as well. If someone else wants to build a casino, they can go through the same process.
The tax rate is higher than what we’re current getting — zero percent of the dollars spent out of state. A couple of other states that have higher tax rates, but those states (like Pennsylvania) only have slot machines! Slot machines don’t create as many jobs. They bring in more revenue than table games and the casino doesn’t have to pay workers’ taxes because there aren’t any workers.
These WILL BE Vegas-style casinos. That’s one of the reasons the licensing fee is lower. And what is written in the amendment is that it will be new construction - not just rehabbing an old warehouse - and it will be a minimum construction investment of $250 million per casino.
Jeremy, I would be in favor of Casinos if some of these issues were addressed. But they’re not. We can do better than this proposal.
I also think it’s ridiculous to require business registration through constitutional amendment, so the argument that other casino developers could in theory do the same thing is absurd. Why not require WalMart to amend the state constitution every time they want to open a new store?
Sorry, but nothing I’ve seen indicates that these will be first-rate casinos. You can take a look at the Hollywood Casino Indiana website for a glimpse of what we’d be getting. celebrity impersonators and generic buffet dining. Thanks but no thanks.
It is true that some people currently go outside the state to gamble, and it could be said that we’re losing out on that money. But the same argument could easily be made that we’re not plagued with the crime and societal problems that are incurred with gambling addictions and casino development, so we’re not only saving money there, we’re keeping our quality of life higher than in those neighboring locations.
Ohioans should have higher standards than this. If we want Casinos, let’s do it right. There’s really no reason we should have to settle for something less than optimal.
I have serious problems with amending the constitution for something that should certainly be a legislative question.
However, I find trouble with the way you approach the issue. The benefits of having a state that is permissive of entrepreneurial activity isn’t that we can loot their profits and redistribute them.
For example, I don’t approve of the hipster hangouts you love and review, but I wouldn’t want to make it illegal for them to exist.
It sounds like you’re trying to insult me with the “hipster hangouts”, but It’s also apparent that you don’t know me at all. It’s somewhat amusing, but it also cheapens the value of your opinion on this topic.
Do you always try to cast judgement on others when offering your two cents?