dubious positions

The Morning Journal has come out against Ohio Issue 3, which I discuss in detail below.

 

“Well, of course.” you may say.

 

“How could any self-respecting paper support this flawed attempt to permit casino-style gambling under the guise of education subsidies.”.

 

And you would be wrong.

 

Turns out, the Morning Journal’s only objection to Issue 3 is that it doesn’t permit gambling in Lorain county.

 

They don’t care about the social, criminal and interpersonal problems that the introduction of dedicated gambling venues may cause.

 

They aren’t concerned about the state’s sponsorship of special interests.

 

Nope. They just want Lorain to get a piece of the pie.

3 Replies to “dubious positions”

  1. They probably just feel what most of Ohio does, which is that we’re tired of seeing Indiana, West Virginia and Michigan get the benefits of our people gambling in their state. Meanwhile, Lawrenceburg, Indiana reports that employment is up, capital spending is up and crime is down. I’m sure Lorain just wants the benefits that come with the cost we’re already bearing. I don’t blame them. I hope this thing passes.

  2. Although I don’t think the amendment should pass, I do think Lorain County’s point of view is well-taken. The thing that bothers me the most about Issue 3 is the jerrymandering approach its authors have taken. Instead of proposing a general gambling authorization bill (such as: “Slots are now legal; there will be a total of X operating licenses available that operators can bid for”), Issue 3 presents an unbelievably narrow and monopolistic approach! Why does it specifically authorize gambling in existing horsetracks and two named Cleveland locations? Why not authorize slots in general and establish an oversight board to ensure that the most reliable, professional operators can engage in the practice. Or, if you want it a bit more restricted, why doesn’t the issue simply allow Ohio counties to conduct their own votes on whether to allow gambling at all. That would preserve the right to allow/disallow gambling for individual counties.

    –Steve

  3. cmh1234 – Whether ‘most of Ohio’ feels that Issue 3 is a good idea will be revealed on Nov 7th (or Dec 6th, if things go as smoothly as they did in 2004).
    It is also impossible to compare Lawrenceburg, Indiana, population 4800, to the Cleveland Metropolitan area, where most (if not all) of the lucky recipients of this amendment are located. There are a multitude of studies available examining the effects of gambling on Urban areas. While there are undeniably benefits to the increased tax base and limited decrease in unemployment, other social and economic factors come into play. Increases in divorce, child abuse/neglect, alcoholism, and (of course) gambling addiction are generally accepted as common byproducts of legalized gambling.

    Steve – I agree 100%. The state constitution should not be a repository for pork barrel legislation. What’s good for the goose is necessarily good for the gander, and vice versa. By contractually eliminating the possibility for expansion to areas whose economy could benefit more, our state representative show their true allegiances – the wallets of their wealthy contributors.

    So vote no on Issue 3 because it’s to limited.
    Vote no because is poorly written.
    Vote no for moral or social reasons.
    Vote no because you hate college students.
    Whatever your reasoning, vote no.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *