Will do Grasscat.  The old articles were never posted before.  Actually, it seems only the negative articles are posted currently.  Since you're posting the negative ones, I'll try to keep up with the positive ones.

 

I'm posting ALL of the articles that are appearing in papers in the state of OHIO.  ALL OF THEM. 

 

All of these stories are relevant to the state of Ohio and Issue 3.

 

I also do not find all of these stories to be negative.

 

Please limit postings in this topic only to stories that are:

a) timely

b) relevant to Ohio

c) legible

 

Posts failing to meet these criteria are subject to deletion.

 

 

 

  As much as I wish it weren't true....I think this thing will go down..AGAIN..unfortunately the South of the Ohio Mason Dixon (Mansfield)line bible belters, "He'll keep us safe" (Bush Backers) will decide what is good for everyone else once again...damn I wish this could be voted on in a regional manner...

Bashing residents of the state goes against the spirit of this board.

 

Would you like to attempt that last comment again?

 

JDD941,

 

    Unfortunately you may be right.  I'm not bashing any residents, but anyone in Columbus can feel the effect of the Dispatch owner's opinion.  We really don't have another voice in this town.  I'm also not saying that gambling would be the cure of all our problems.  I just hate the fact that we send so much money into the states around us.  The gambling is already here!  Let's hope we're wrong and it passes.

  I don't think  bashed anyone at all...I just described what I see as a political and social divide between the Northern and Southern parts of this state (in general)...

Okay, then, what was your post based on?  Because that's not the first time you've made such a comment regarding the people of southern Ohio.

 

It seems to be based on bias and not on facts.  Here are a couple of facts for you:

1) 1990: Lorain casino vote goes down 62%-38%.

2) 1996: Gambling amendment loses 62%-38%.  It goes down to defeat in ALL 88 COUNTIES.

 

I believe the political and social landscape in Ohio wasn't so very different when those events occurred.

 

Bashing residents of the state goes against the spirit of this board.

 

 

What!??! We can still bad mouth West Chester and Mason, right? ;-)

 

I am very curious how Ohioans will vote on this issue. After years of being surrounded by casinos and enjoying them has the tide turned.

 

 

The problem is we're drawing from our own friggin population. It works for Indiana because they're exporting something to US. They are taking from us. We are by far the largest portion of the population center. We would mostly be taking from ourselves. Why is this so hard to grasp? Cleveland is only slightly different.

David

 

    I think we're really talking about taking it back.  Right now, we're paying their employees and their taxes/benefits.  If it's Ohio residents doing it, shouldn't we be keeping the money here?  I'm sure if it's in Ohio, then more Ohioans will be doing it, but I think that's going to happen anyway whether it's the fact that Indiana, West Virginia and Michigan's businesses are increasing every year, Pennsylvania just made it legal or the internet, which even though the federal government just passed the law banning it, the projections still say it will increase!  It's almost like these other states have imposed a tax on Ohio residents.  That's what I really can't stand.  If casinos were only in Vegas and Atlantic City, then I would oppose this thing, but those days are long gone.  I'm voting yes.

The problem is we're drawing from our own friggin population. It works for Indiana because they're exporting something to US. They are taking from us. We are by far the largest portion of the population center. We would mostly be taking from ourselves. Why is this so hard to grasp? Cleveland is only slightly different.

 

Well, there's a little state called Kentucky that would be drawn to a casino in Anderson Township. I bet Westsiders will still stick with Indiana. It's still closer and less of a hassle.

 

EDIT: And your still glossing over the jobs that will be created. They won't be minimum wage McDonald's type jobs. That why I thought it was a shame the DT Cincy got shafted. I can deal what the few hundred gambling addicts the casinos may or may not create. I rather have that than drug dealers and addicts on every corner and just as many social service agencies ready to hold their hand.

it wont pass and frankly imo nothing should pass re gambling if its not a full-on casino gambling allowance. only that will effectively stem the tide of gambling money that leaves the state. some half-azzed measure is pointless.

 

also, i'd hope that if and when ohio does get some measure of typical casino gambling (hopefully limited to a few scattered casinos) that the state lottery commision would step up and be fully in charge. whoring ohio gaming off to vegas and trump would be utterly pointless. let ohioans build run it all and be self-responsible for their own gaming -- fully and totally.

 

 

It seems to be based on bias and not on facts.  Here are a couple of facts for you:

1) 1990: Lorain casino vote goes down 62%-38%.

2) 1996: Gambling amendment loses 62%-38%.  It goes down to defeat in ALL 88 COUNTIES.

 

 

hmm grasscat maybe you are being a bit biased yourself here -- my recollection is is that the wacky earlier lorian bill passed in the ne quadrant of the state, but went down hard in southern ohio. at least thats how i recall it was reported. i'd quickly add rightly so tho -- the story is the casino bill sponsor was local lorain developer alan spitzer who was holding the former amship site redevelopment hostage to getting a casino, but in the end built the nice "harborwalk" developemnt there anyway in conjunction with zaremba (these days zaremba is known as the developer of "the avenue" in downtown clev). the way that all played out strongly says to me gambling is not necessarily important in urban redevelopment. something to think about.

 

 

hmm grasscat maybe you are being a bit biased yourself here -- my recollection is is that the wacky earlier lorian bill passed in the ne quadrant of the state, but went down hard in southern ohio.

 

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find county-by-county vote totals for this one.  But I couldn't believe that it would fail so overwhelmingly unless it failed all over the state.  Say NE Ohio voted for it, maybe 55%-45% or something.  That would mean that the rest of the state would have to be somewhere around 80%-90% "no" for it to fail that badly.  I doubt this was so. 

 

After all, the Lorain proposal was a pilot project that could have led to gambling for the entire state.  So there were supporters outside of the Greater Cleveland area, I'm sure.

 

I think it was probably a situation similar to the 1996 vote.

 

If someone can find those numbers, that would be great.

 

  As much as I wish it weren't true....I think this thing will go down..AGAIN..unfortunately the South of the Ohio Mason Dixon (Mansfield)line bible belters, "He'll keep us safe" (Bush Backers) will decide what is good for everyone else once again...damn I wish this could be voted on in a regional manner...

 

Interestingly, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer editorial page is the only major newspaper in Ohio that supports Issue 3.  Youngstown, Akron, Toledo, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton all had scathing editorials against.  Check out this interesting blog on the issue... it's the Oct. 21 post on Cleveland 2.0: Moving to an Innovation Economy: http://www.i-open.org/cleveland2/

 

Here's the Plain-Dealer editorial: http://www.cleveland.com/editorials/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1160815171295090.xml&coll=2

From the Cincinnati Enquirer:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061027/EDIT01/610270333/1090

 

 

Editorial: A 'yes' on Issue 3 amendment

 

It makes sound economic sense for Ohio voters to approve Issue 3, a constitutional amendment that would allow slot machines at seven horse tracks, including two locally, and let two full casinos open in Cleveland.  For Cincinnati, it's a win-win situation. Our local economy would get an infusion of cash every year from casino and slots operators without having full casinos in Cincinnati.

 

Cleveland and Cuyahoga County have pushed legalized casino gambling in Ohio, and the Cleveland area will benefit most; however, it is projected that all state municipalities would share in the wealth that would come from casinos.  It is estimated that Cincinnati and Hamilton County would receive $22 million each year to their general fund and an additional $100 million over 10 years would go from the operators to local developers.

From the Cincinnati Enquirer

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061027/EDIT02/610270336/1090

 

 

ISSUE 3 CRUCIAL FOR OHIO STUDENTS, ECONOMY, DEVELOPMENT

BY CINCINNATI BUSINESS COMMITTEE MEMBERS

 

On Nov. 7, Greater Cincinnati voters will have the opportunity to move our city, region and state forward by voting for Issue 3, the Ohio Learn and Earn program. Among its many benefits, Issue 3 would provide more than $850 million each year in college tuition assistance for Ohio's students.

 

While area government, community and business leaders often work together on good ideas that would advance our city and surrounding communities, a lack of critical funding presents a consistent challenge. The economic and community development funding provided by Issue 3 offers an unprecedented opportunity to immediately jump-start stalled projects and priorities.

Weren't they saying that the Ohio lottery was gonna save our public school systems or provide scholarships but they ended up using the money for something else?

Weren't they saying that the Ohio lottery was gonna save our public school systems or provide scholarships but they ended up using the money for something else?

 

I remember looking up this a couple years ago, I think the conclution was that the lottery had contributed to education greatly, but the state had cut its appropriations to education, so education dollars were not necessarily going up as much as the lottery contributed.

 

This seems to be common in government, Middletown & Hamilton councils pull it all the time. For instance, Middletown recently recieved a $20,000 grant earmarked for the bus system. The city then reduced their appropriation for the bus system that year by $20,000, and spent the money somewhere else. Its a loophole in the system.

That's exactly what happened with the lottery money.  I don't think most people really understand it.  The government says the lottery money goes to education, but they are able to reduce their education expenses by the amount contributed from the lottery proceeds.  That's what I like about Issue 3.  The language specifically doesn't allow them to do that.  I think that's why a lot of politicians, especially the conservatives, are opposed.  If the lottery suffers from slot machine competition, then they will have to devote more to education funding.  Maybe even leading to education funding reform, which they obviously don't want anything to do with. 

Well that's just pure #$%^ing awesomeness to the fullest extent.

Of course the Enquirer would endorse it.  They're deeply entrenched with the business community that runs this town.  You know, the same folks who were paid off millions of promised dollars for their support.

 

Enquirer endorsements don't mean much.  They've endorsed Blackwell.

 

 

Is there a thread about actual casino proposals?

 

 

Issue 3 could boost downtown

Developers putting money on proposal for gambling

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Voter approval of Issue 3 would not only open Ohio to casino-style gambling, it also would pump up key-but-struggling downtown properties owned by two of Greater Cleveland's most prominent developers. 

 

Forest City Enterprises Inc. and Jacobs Entertainment Inc. have spent several million dollars in support of Issue 3, which would allow up to 3,500 slot machines at each of Ohio's seven racetracks and at two riverside sites in downtown Cleveland.  Those sites are behind Forest City's Tower City Complex and at businessman Jeff Jacobs' Nautica Entertainment Complex, on the west bank of the Flats.

 

More at http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer

"If we can't revitalize Cleveland's waterfront entertainment district, we may as well rezone the land to agricultural use and plant corn," the e-mail said.

 

But that should make the land ideal for development. At least that's the case in Ohio, which loses more farmland to development than any other state in the union (and possibly any place on the planet)!

 

What happens if this disingenuously marketed Issue 3 fails? Does that mean no casinos in Cleveland? I've heard that an Indian casino could come in, and the local or state governments couldn't do a thing about it since Indian reservations are federal issue. Can anyone here comment on the legal viability that?

 

Here's an interesting piece I found on the subject...

__________________

 

These are excerpts from an article found at the following location...

 

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc/research/nagaming.html

 

....The Federal-State-Tribal Triangle

 

Federally-recognized Indian tribes are grouped under the legal status of "defeated nations." (Several non-recognized tribes, including some thought defunct for almost two centuries, are currently seeking official recognition, for a variety of motivations. Without such a designation, constitutionally they are little more than private associations). These tribes, both as collective units and their individual members, are wards of the federal government, which has a legal responsibility for their protection and the promotion of their welfare. As such, they enjoy rights, or suffer restrictions, not applicable to other Americans. For example, reservation land is not owned by the tribes or their members but instead is held in trust by the federal government. And reservations are virtually off-limits to state and local laws and authorities, even though reservation members vote in state elections. This triangular relationship between individual tribes, the respective states, and the federal government forms the center of the debate over Native America gaming, and is never absent from any aspect of it.

 

...As part of this contest, the image of reservations for many has changed from being places in which the residents were involuntarily confined to being places of protection from outside forces, especially against the several state governments, traditionally seen as hostile to Native American rights (The federal government, despite all of its possible benign neglect -- and the Hollywood image notwithstanding -- has traditionally been regarded as their protector). ....

 

Creating the Industry

 

The Supreme Court, in the so-called Cabazon decision of 1987, in effect removed virtually all existing restrictions on gambling on Indian reservations. What had previously been a relatively small and isolated phenomenon suddenly began growing rapidly. In response, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988, which in effect authorized casino gambling on Indian reservations and provided a regulatory framework and oversight body for the industry in the form of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC). ....

 

Gambling as a Panacea

 

In addition to purposes such as regulating an industry recently brought into existence and beyond the reach of state regulators, IGRA's proponents wanted to use gambling as a means of providing money for financing tribal governments, which often had little or no tax base, and also as part of a general effort to promote the economic self-sufficiency of the tribes. ....

 

State-Tribal Conflict

 

Under federal law, the individual states have little or no authority over Indian reservations, including the ability to tax or regulate gambling or any other activity. For example, state officials, including the police, cannot exercise their authority on a reservation without tribal permission. Although in theory the several states can ban any form of gambling throughout their territory, in practice the lack of authority of state officials over reservations makes enforcement difficult there. Because the Supreme Court's decision in Cabazon threatened to create islands of virtually unregulated gambling throughout the U.S., IGRA included the provision that tribes wishing to conduct Class III gaming had to sign a "compact" with the respective state (or states: reservations often overlap state borders) which typically includes measures for state regulation and for sharing of revenues. Other issues may be included. For example, states have typically required tribes to surrender any outstanding land claims in return for approving the compact. ...

 

The Power to Regulate

 

Indian gaming also directly concerns both the legal and actual power of the federal and states governments to regulate economic and social activities. States may be powerless to prevent gambling activities on reservations that the citizens and legislature of the state have decided to ban or to regulate, and the federal government may be unwilling or unable to assist this effort.

 

 

what are the chances that if Issue 3 passes that the law could be amended or changed in the future to include casinos in Cinci and columbus?

what are the chances that if Issue 3 passes that the law could be amended or changed in the future to include casinos in Cinci and columbus?

 

   It would take another constitutional amendment, i believe, to change anything related to the gaming industry.  The legislature couldn't alter the amendment, so i'm betting they wouldn't be able to pass legislation saying it's ok for Cincy and C-bus to pursue gaming because our constitution will say only seven racetracks and downtown Cleveland can have gaming of any sort. I'm gonna hold my nose when i vote yes for this one. It's pretty bad overall, but there is the chance Cleveland will greatly benefit. 

Looks like a long shot for Issue three http://www.cleveland.com/weblogs/openers/index.ssf?/mtlogs/cleve_openers/archives/2006_11.html#201180

 

A new Plain Dealer poll suggests that a proposed minimum wage hike will be overwhelmingly approved when Ohioans go to the polls next week, but a plan to open slots parlors around the state seems doomed.

 

Seventy-one percent of those polled this week say they plan to vote for the minimum wage hike, while only 24 percent oppose it.

 

Only 34 percent of those questioned say they intend to vote for Issue 3, which gambling interests have spent millions promoting, while 57 percent oppose it.

 

The poll also has good news for anti-smoking advocates. Issue 5, which would ban smoking in nearly all public places, is ahead 53-38, while Issue 4, the less restrictive rival plan than would also overturn local no-smoking laws, trails 59-32.

 

More on the statewide ballot issues -- and the race for U.S. Senate -- in tomorrow's Plain Dealer.

 

The poll, conducted for The Plain Dealer by Mason-Dixon, involved interviews with 625 respondents over three days this week and has a 4 percent margin of error.

 

--Ed.

You all have to cater to your bums somehow I guess.

Nah, gambling just creates new ones...

""The notion of any business proposing a constitutional amendment for their own personal benefit is offensive," says David Zanotti, president of the Ohio Roundtable, a Strongsville-based group that promotes Judeo-Christian values in public policy.

 

"These guys are spending millions to buy their way into the constitution."

 

It's no more offensive than a group proposing a constitutional amendment to legitimate their own personal bigotry. F#cking hypocrites.

Looks like a long shot for Issue three http://www.cleveland.com/weblogs/openers/index.ssf?/mtlogs/cleve_openers/archives/2006_11.html#201180

 

A new Plain Dealer poll suggests that a proposed minimum wage hike will be overwhelmingly approved when Ohioans go to the polls next week, but a plan to open slots parlors around the state seems doomed.

 

Seventy-one percent of those polled this week say they plan to vote for the minimum wage hike, while only 24 percent oppose it.

 

Only 34 percent of those questioned say they intend to vote for Issue 3, which gambling interests have spent millions promoting, while 57 percent oppose it.

 

The poll also has good news for anti-smoking advocates. Issue 5, which would ban smoking in nearly all public places, is ahead 53-38, while Issue 4, the less restrictive rival plan than would also overturn local no-smoking laws, trails 59-32.

 

More on the statewide ballot issues -- and the race for U.S. Senate -- in tomorrow's Plain Dealer.

 

The poll, conducted for The Plain Dealer by Mason-Dixon, involved interviews with 625 respondents over three days this week and has a 4 percent margin of error.

 

--Ed.

 

 

Reposting the new poll. Personally, I think this is a good thing as it gets this red herring off our back. Gambling wasn't going to fix Cleveland. Now lets focus on stuff that will!

From the 10/24/06 Dispatch:

 

Issue 3 debaters hit usual points

Backer talks of aid for college; foe points to ills of gambling addiction

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

James Nash

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH  

 

Ohioans shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking of their state as a gambling-free zone, a proponent of a measure to bring thousands of slot machines to the state said yesterday. Thousands of Ohioans already gamble in neighboring states, over the Internet and at 1,100 charitable gaming enterprises in Ohio, as well as by playing the state lottery, said lobbyist Neil S. Clark, who is supporting state Issue 3. All told, 252,000 Ohio residents are classified as gambling addicts, he said.

 

Clark presented that snapshot of gambling in Ohio to more than 200 members of the Columbus Rotary Club yesterday during a debate on Issue 3 with David P. Zanotti, cochair of the No On Casinos campaign. Zanotti argued that allowing 31,500 slot machines in Ohio would create thousands of new problem gamblers with dubious benefits to the state. Thirty percent of revenues would go toward tuition aid for aspiring college students.

 

Full article at http://www.dispatch.com/news/news.php?story=dispatch/2006/10/24/20061024-D1-03.html

 

---

From the 10/24/06 Toledo Blade:

 

Slots backers receive a challenge

Guarantee scholarships for college with your own cash, opponents say

By JIM PROVANCE

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

 

COLUMBUS - Opponents of a slots-for-scholarships ballot issue yesterday challenged owners of proposed slots parlors to wager their own money to "guarantee" promises that the cash will be there when students need it.  "If [beulah Park President Charlie] Ruma were here, I would ask him one simple question," said gambling foe David Zanotti, president of the Ohio Roundtable.  "Will he and the other eight owners personally put their net worth and wealth at risk and be bonded to guarantee the promises that they're making on television if the numbers aren't there for real?" he asked.

 

The gambling industry didn't take him up on the challenge, but defended its numbers that at least $853 million a year will go into the scholarship fund.  Holding up a full-page, pro-Issue 3 newspaper ad stating that the money would be "guaranteed," Mr. Zanotti noted that the "G-word" appears nowhere in the text of the proposed constitutional amendment.  Yesterday's debate before the Columbus Rotary marked the first public debate between major players on the issue.

 

Full article at http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061024/NEWS09/610240354/-1/NEWS

 

From the 10/25/06 PD:

 

Debate makes clear the odds are slim that slots issue adversaries will agree

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Two masters of spin worked opposite sides of the national casino experience to buttress arguments for and against electronic slot machines in Ohio.  Frank Fahrenkopf Jr., the point man for commercial casinos, went toe-to-toe Tuesday morning with Tom Grey, the Methodist minister whose anti-gambling zeal has drawn scorn from casino operators.  The two men drew on the same issues - and the same states - to make contrary points during 90 minutes of debate that riveted some 350 business leaders at the Renaissance Cleveland Hotel.

 

Full article at http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1161765037260920.xml&coll=2

 

From Business First of Columbus, 10/26/06:

 

Think tank: Slots proposal shorts Ohioans

Business First of Columbus - October 26, 2006

 

If Ohio voters give the OK for slot machines in the Nov. 7 election, they'll be getting shortchanged on their investment, says a think tank opposed to the gambling proposal.  State Issue 3 would allow for as many as 3,500 slot machines at each of Ohio's seven horse racing tracks, including Scioto Downs and Beulah Park in the Columbus area, and permit the development of two casino-type gaming parlors in Cleveland.

 

Calling the right to run slots parlors a "license to print money," the Columbus-based Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions says the Learn & Earn initiative wouldn't distribute enough of the potential gaming profits to the state's education system or government, based on gambling receipts in other states.  "Our analysis of Issue 3 is that the measure would be a bad deal for the state," the opinion says. "The handful of gambling interests which wrote Issue 3 and would benefit ... set far too low a price for the state's gambling market asset."

 

Full article at http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2006/10/23/daily29.html?surround=lfn

 

---

From the 10/26/06 PD:

 

Akron mayor backs slots gambling

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Karen Farkas

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Akron - Any misgivings Mayor Donald Plusquellic may have had about a state issue to allow gambling were overcome by the need to support economic development in Cleveland and college education.  Plusquellic said Wednesday that he supports Issue 3. He was approached by Cleveland politicians and leaders in business to take a stand on changing the Ohio Constitution to allow up to 31,500 electronic-slot machines at Ohio's seven racetracks and two sites in downtown Cleveland. Thirty percent of slots revenue would go to college grants and scholarships.

 

Full article at http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/summit/116185193696840.xml&coll=2

 

---

From the 10/26/06 Canton Repository:

 

Voinovich shows his cards, hopes Issue 3 will flop

BY TIM BOTOS

REPOSITORY STAFF WRITER

 

JACKSON TWP. In his 30 years as a politician, U.S. Sen. George Voinovich said he has never seen an issue as ugly as the state gambling amendment on the Nov. 7 ballot.  During a press conference Wednesday, he spewed adjective on top of superlative to describe Issue 3. If approved, it will allow slot machines at seven horse-racing tracks and two stand-alone casinos in Cleveland, with some profits returned to the state.

 

In Voinovich's words, Issue 3 is a: Terrible deal. Deceit. Greed. Cruel. A hoax. Brazen. Flimflam. Rip-off.

 

In fact, the Manila folder he carried to the lectern at Four Points Sheraton Hotel is called the "Deceit & Greed Master File." The Republican senator from Cleveland joined Dave Zanotti of the American Policy Roundtable and Canton Mayor Janet Weir Creighton in an effort to energize opposition to the issue, which appears on the Nov. 7 ballot.

 

Full article at http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?Category=9&ID=315555&r=3&subCategoryID=

 

From the 10/27/06 PD:

 

$18.5 million raised in slots campaigning

Friday, October 27, 2006

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

The relentless effort for slot machines has become one of the most expensive issue campaigns in Ohio's history, with some $18.5 million raised so far, reports filed Thursday showed.  Issue 3 would allow up to 31,500 slots, spread among Ohio's seven horse tracks and two sites in downtown Cleveland, owned by Forest City Enterprises Inc. and investor Jeff Jacobs.  Each of the tracks has given substantial sums, including $500,000-plus from Northfield Park and $1.5 million from Thistledown.

 

Forest City has given $1.2 million, and Jacobs' companies $2.08 million, records showed.  The Greater Cleveland Partnership - Cleveland's chamber of commerce - has contributed $52,000.  The group working against Issue 3 has raised $671,000 - meaning it has been outspent by more than 20-to-1.

 

Full article at http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1161938055225110.xml&coll=2

 

From the 10/28/06 Mount Vernon News:

 

 

Issue 3 would expand gaming in Ohio

By Cheryl Splain, News Managing Editor

Friday, October 27, 2006

 

MOUNT VERNON — When voters go to the polls Nov. 7, they will decide whether gaming will be expanded in the state of Ohio. State Issue 3, known as Learn and Earn, is a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow up to 31,500 slot machines at seven horse racing tracks and two Cleveland non-track locations, and permit expanded gaming in the four Cuyahoga County locations if approved by the county’s voters.

 

Proponents say passage of the issue, known as Learn and Earn, would provide money for scholarships, would create jobs in Ohio, and would keep money in Ohio which would otherwise be spent in gaming locations in surrounding states. Ohio is ranked 49th in affordability of higher education.

 

Full article at http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/06/10/28/issue.3.html

 

From the 10/30/06 Dispatch:

 

 

GAMBLING MEASURE

Politicians too busy to fight Issue 3

Monday, October 30, 2006

James Nash

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

For something that would generate millions of dollars for college scholarships and economic development while creating thousands of gambling addicts, state Issue 3 has created barely a ripple of interest among statewide politicians.  Prominent Ohio politicians are united in opposing the measure, but they aren’t barnstorming the state to speak out against it.

 

Many, of course, are busy defending their positions against a tide of voter dissatisfaction. One who isn’t, Gov. Bob Taft, is so unpopular that Issue 3 backers are promoting the issue by bashing him in their advertisements.  That leaves a ragtag army of opponents to counter a $21.5 million advertising push to persuade voters to approve as many as 31,500 slot machines at nine locations across Ohio.

 

The army is led by U.S. Sen. George V. Voinovich, who also played a key role in defeating gambling-related measures in 1990 and 1996. But even Voinovich admits he’s pulled between advocating against Issue 3 and supporting fellow Republicans Mike DeWine for Senate and J. Kenneth Blackwell for governor, both of whom are trailing in the polls.

 

Full article at http://www.dispatch.com/news/news.php?story=dispatch/2006/10/30/20061030-B1-02.html

 

From the 10/31/06 Toledo Blade:

 

 

ELECTION 2006

Foes of Ohio slots take to airwaves

TV ads portray backers of gambling proposal as untrustworthy

By JIM PROVANCE

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

 

COLUMBUS - Likely to be outspent 20 to 1, opponents of a slots-for-scholarships ballot issue yesterday launched a series of TV ads designed to convince Ohioans that a "yes" vote would be a bad bet. 

 

The series of commercials is designed to portray backers of Issue 3 as untrustworthy; two feature background music that one would usually expect to accompany TV villains.  One simply focuses close up on Pinocchio's growing nose as a narrator accuses the gambling industry of making empty promises about the availability of college scholarships for every student under its proposed constitutional amendment.

 

Full article at http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061031/NEWS09/610310396/-1/NEWS

 

From the 11/1/06 Marion Star:

 

 

On the ballot: Issue 3

By KURT MOORE

The Marion Star

 

MARION - On election day, a group of gambling advocates will be asking you to place a wager.  Opponents say it's a game of chance that the state shouldn't be playing.

 

Voters will decide on Issue 3, a proposed amendment to the state constitution that if passed would allow up to 31,000 slot machines at seven horse racing tracks including Scioto Downs in Columbus and two non-track locations in Cleveland. Ohio Learn and Earn proponents said the program would generate about $853 million a year for college grants and scholarships as well as raise extra money for local governments and treatment of gambling addiction.

 

"Lawmakers have failed miserably," said spokesman Michael Caputo, who said legislators would not be able to redirect Ohio Learn and Earn proceeds as critics alleged they had with proceeds from the state lottery authorized by the 1973 Lottery Amendment. "We put together what we believe is a solid business-oriented solution to the problem (of college affordability). You'll find talking to any parent, the vast majority will tell you it's incredibly expensive."

 

Full article at http://www.marionstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061101/NEWS01/611010301/1002/rss01

 

From the 11/2/06 Dispatch:

 

School-funding foes both against gambling issue

Thursday, November 02, 2006

J.N.

 

Two key adversaries in Ohio’s school-funding debates of the 1990s came together yesterday to denounce state Issue 3 as a false solution to the problem of college affordability.  William G. Batchelder, a Medina Republican and former Ohio House speaker, and William Phillis, executive director of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, said the promise of more than $850 million a year for college-tuition aid is illusory.

 

The two clashed in the 1990s over funding public schools, with Phillis advocating increased money, especially for poorer districts, and Batchelder arguing for the status quo.  Both said yesterday that state Issue 3 — which would earmark 30 percent of revenues from nine gambling parlors for college scholarships — would no more solve the state’s funding problems than the state lottery has.

 

Full article at http://www.dispatch.com/news/news.php?story=dispatch/2006/11/02/20061102-D10-09.html

 

From the 11/4/06 Hamilton JournalNews:

 

Slot machine issue may be gamble

Issue 3 would establish up to 31,500 slot machines across Ohio.

By Simon Cheung

Staff Writer

Saturday, November 04, 2006

 

OXFORD — A testament to the political sparring and backbiting of the campaign season, Issue 3 heads into the final stretch as one of the most controversial votes on the ballot.  Also known as Ohio Learn and Earn, the proposed constitutional amendment would establish up to 31,500 slot machines across Ohio.  They would be distributed at seven horse racing tracks as well the Nautica Entertainment Complex and Tower City, both located in Cleveland.

 

Thirty percent of the gross revenue from the slot proceeds would go toward college scholarships and grants for Ohio students. Both public and private school students would be eligible for the funds, but they must attend an Ohio college or university. The Ohio Board of Regents would control these funds and manage scholarship accounts, awarding each student credits as they meet requirements from grades kindergarten through 12.

 

Full article at http://www.journal-news.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2006/11/04/hjn110406issue3.html

 

From the 11/5/06 Dispatch:

 

 

CAMPAIGN AD WATCH

Ohio Learn and Earn (State Issue 3)

Sunday, November 05, 2006

 

Producer:

Stevens-Schriefer Inc., Washington, D.C.

 

Ad text:

(Image of Nathaniel Jones in office, with text "Judge Nathaniel Jones, Court of Appeals [Ret.] " Jones: "I’m Judge Nathaniel Jones. For 23 years I served on the Court of Appeals. (Image of Judge Jones in court. Text: "Issue 3 provides real college assistance.") "I reviewed Issue 3, Ohio Learn and Earn. It provides real college assistance for all Ohio children. The language is very specific. The program is guaranteed in the Ohio Constitution." (Text: "Guaranteed in the Ohio Constitution.") Jones: "Politicians must use the money — over $850 million a year — to fund college scholarships." (Text: "Politicians MUST use money to fund college tuition." Image of young woman in graduation gown and mortarboard hugging parents.) Jones: "It’s guaranteed — period." (Image of Jones talking, followed by video of children running.) "Supporters say a lot of good will come of this, including a reduction in the high dropout rate. In my opinion, they’re correct." (Text: "Reduction in the high dropout rate." Image of Jones smiling.)

 

Analysis:

This spot lends a legal imprimatur to State Issue 3 proponents’ arguments that proceeds from slot machines would be earmarked for college tuition aid. Jones, a federal judge from 1979 until he retired in 2002, has become a prominent spokesman for the Issue 3 campaign. A former general counsel to the NAACP, Jones has worked for black and youth causes in the Cincinnati area for years. It isn’t clear what kind of legal analysis Jones applied to Issue 3. The ad doesn’t say, and Jones hasn’t responded to requests for comment. His statements are largely verifiable, though. Issue 3 would amend the Ohio Constitution to allow slot machines at seven racetracks and two Cleveland locations, with 30 percent of their profits going toward tuition aid. The amendment prohibits that share of the profits from going toward any other purpose. The $850 million-a-year figure is debatable, however. The Ohio Office of Budget and Management estimates the figure to be about $324 million a year.

 

— James Nash

[email protected]

 

http://www.dispatch.com/news/news.php?story=dispatch/2006/11/05/20061105-C12-03.html

 

From the 11/6/06 DDN:

 

Issue 3:

— Permits up to 3,500 slot machines at each of seven race tracks and at two nonracing sites in downtown Cleveland.

 

From the proceeds:

—55 percent would go to the slot and casino operators

—30 percent for scholarships

—8 percent to local governments

—6 percent to racetrack purses

—1 percent each to gambling addiction services

 

The Ohio Office of Management and Budget estimates:

—Annual revenues in 2009 would be $1.08 billion

—$594 million kept by gambling facility owners

—$324 million to fund two college scholarship programs

—$86 million for local governments

—$65 million for racetrack purses and $11 million for addictive services.

 

Arguments for Passage

—Ohioans now leave Ohio to gamble; slots and casinos in Ohio would keep tax revenues in the state.

—Scholarships for higher education, including students from low-income families, would offset high costs for degrees and not supplant the legislature's obligation to provide funds for higher education.

—Local governments would get money for economic activities.

—Addiction services would receive additional funding.

—Fund distributions are assigned in the amendment and cannot be reallocated by the legislature.

 

Arguments Against Passage

—The majority of funds benefits a few business interests.

—For an amendment, there are too many details including specific locations in downtown Cleveland for the location of the two nonracing casinos.

—Rates of compulsive gambling increase with proximity to casinos and gambling machines.

—Financial return to the state is limited to 30 percent for higher education; 8 percent to local government and one percent for regulating gambling services.

—Gambling revenues would be exempt from state and local taxes.

—No specific language regarding funding education scholarships after 12 years.

 

For ballot language, the entire text of Issue 3, arguments for and against Issue 3 and an analysis of Issue 3 by the Ohio Office of Budget and Management, go to this Web site: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/ElectionsVoter/results2006.aspx?Section=1856

 

Full article at http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2006/11/05/ddn110606protest.html

 

Could someone refresh me on the last gambling issue?  Was it an issue that would allow municipalities/counties to decide for themselves on gambling?  Obviously it lost, but does anyone know by how much

 

God I hate humans.  This Issue is going down for mostly the wrong reasons and it's why democracy sucks.

I voted yes on Issue 3.

Could someone refresh me on the last gambling issue?  Was it an issue that would allow municipalities/counties to decide for themselves on gambling? 

 

I can't find the specific ballot language, but the proposal was for the establishment of riverboat casinos.  There were 8 locations mentioned, but I don't remember them.  That was in November, 1996.

 

The measure lost 62%-38%, going down in all 88 counties:

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results1990s.aspx?Section=344

 

 

Oh man, Learn and Earn is getting stomped right now. Looks like my dream of having a martini and a hotdog on a stick together downtown is years away........ Oh, the sweet sound of bells and sight of blinking lights.

I am glad this failed, I am all for full fledged casinos in Ohio, as long as Cincy has at least one downtown!  But not this half-assed slots only thing in certain cities.

^I'm sure the regions had something to do with the vote.

It'll be interesting to see how the vote broke down by county.  I'll wait to see that before passing judgement on why it didn't pass.

 

All of the casino proposals have been flawed in some way.  I'd like to see how a straightforward casino proposal would do.

 

I'm not anti gambling.  However I don't want to see casinos popping up all over Ohio either.  I don't feel there should be special interests ever getting exclusive deals to pursue casinos and have that written into the constitution.  I would be for very limited gambling without the bs of trying to tell us that it will solve the school funding issue.  Issue 3 was way too sleazily written and promoted.  Ohio voters don't want confusing to understand amendments and laws.  I wouldn't have a problem with a law that allowed additional gambling at race tracks.  The understanding is that the state will get a percentage of that and schools will get a percentage as well.  The special interests didn't want to be left out of the fun so they had to hijack the issue to twist it to their wants.