No On Issue 6

Ohio voters have rejected casino gambling in the past. They should do so again, keeping in mind its false promise
Proponents of casino gambling in Ohio believe in a try, try, try again approach. Actually, voters have decisively defeated three casino gambling issues since 1990. Yet gambling interests are back this year with another proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution, Issue 6 on the statewide ballot. The amendment would permit a single casino near Wilmington, in Clinton County.
We strongly recommend a ''no'' vote on Issue 6 on Nov. 4.
In 1996, supporters of a casino petition drive abandoned their efforts, vowing to return in tougher economic times, pitching a casino resort as a job-development plan and a reliable source of tax revenue. Now they are back, championed by Lakes Entertainment, a Minnesota-based casino operator. The MyOhioNow committee is spending millions on television ads pledging the creation of 5,000 jobs and tax revenues of more than $200 million to be distributed among Ohio counties based on population.
Mind you, none of the money is guaranteed by the amendment, which would grant Lakes Entertainment what amounts to a monopoly license, the profits flowing out of state. In terms of economic impact, the casino would produce a net loss. Even if 5,000 jobs were created in a casino complex with a hotel, restaurants, golf course and theater, most would be low-wage, dead-end service jobs. More, studies of gambling have shown that for every $1 in economic benefits, there are roughly $3 in costs, most notably in the form of families ruined at the gaming tables.
Neither is a 30 percent tax on gross casino receipts, generating $240 million a year, a sure thing. The amendment calls for enactment of a tax of ''up to'' 30 percent. A good bet is, Lakes Entertainment will lobby for a lower rate. Gambling in the Midwest also could hit a saturation point, revenues declining.
Neither are gambling revenues big enough to solve local government needs. MyOhioNow projects Cuyahoga County, the state's largest, would get $26 million a year. Sounds great, but the county is projecting annual budget shortfalls of more than $65 million by 2010. Worse, passage would likely convince Cuyahoga County voters they had solved the crisis, just as passage of the Ohio Lottery wrongly convinced voters school funding had been fixed.
The other loophole in the amendment is created by language that any tax on the Wilmington-area casino cannot exceed the tax paid by another gambling facility in Ohio. How is that a loophole? Approval of casino-style gambling would open the door to an Indian casino, something eyed by the Eastern Shawnee. Under federal law, such an Indian casino could not be subject to any state or local taxes. Thus, the 30 percent rate could fall to zero.
Issue 6 is a dangerous distraction at a time of economic turmoil. Voters should reject this latest gambling scheme and shift their attention to making long-term investments in education and infrastructure that promise true improvement for Ohio.
Proponents of casino gambling in Ohio believe in a try, try, try again approach. Actually, voters have decisively defeated three casino gambling issues since 1990. Yet gambling interests are back this year with another proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution, Issue 6 on the statewide ballot. The amendment would permit a single casino near Wilmington, in Clinton County.
We strongly recommend a ''no'' vote on Issue 6 on Nov. 4.
In 1996, supporters of a casino petition drive abandoned their efforts, vowing to return in tougher economic times, pitching a casino resort as a job-development plan and a reliable source of tax revenue. Now they are back, championed by Lakes Entertainment, a Minnesota-based casino operator. The MyOhioNow committee is spending millions on television ads pledging the creation of 5,000 jobs and tax revenues of more than $200 million to be distributed among Ohio counties based on population.
Mind you, none of the money is guaranteed by the amendment, which would grant Lakes Entertainment what amounts to a monopoly license, the profits flowing out of state. In terms of economic impact, the casino would produce a net loss. Even if 5,000 jobs were created in a casino complex with a hotel, restaurants, golf course and theater, most would be low-wage, dead-end service jobs. More, studies of gambling have shown that for every $1 in economic benefits, there are roughly $3 in costs, most notably in the form of families ruined at the gaming tables.
Neither is a 30 percent tax on gross casino receipts, generating $240 million a year, a sure thing. The amendment calls for enactment of a tax of ''up to'' 30 percent. A good bet is, Lakes Entertainment will lobby for a lower rate. Gambling in the Midwest also could hit a saturation point, revenues declining.
Neither are gambling revenues big enough to solve local government needs. MyOhioNow projects Cuyahoga County, the state's largest, would get $26 million a year. Sounds great, but the county is projecting annual budget shortfalls of more than $65 million by 2010. Worse, passage would likely convince Cuyahoga County voters they had solved the crisis, just as passage of the Ohio Lottery wrongly convinced voters school funding had been fixed.
The other loophole in the amendment is created by language that any tax on the Wilmington-area casino cannot exceed the tax paid by another gambling facility in Ohio. How is that a loophole? Approval of casino-style gambling would open the door to an Indian casino, something eyed by the Eastern Shawnee. Under federal law, such an Indian casino could not be subject to any state or local taxes. Thus, the 30 percent rate could fall to zero.
Issue 6 is a dangerous distraction at a time of economic turmoil. Voters should reject this latest gambling scheme and shift their attention to making long-term investments in education and infrastructure that promise true improvement for Ohio.