Friends, foes of casino issue wager high on its outcome

By Marc Kovac

Both sides are pumping tens of millions of dollars into the election campaign.

COLUMBUS — Proponents of allowing casinos in Ohio’s four largest cities believe their plan may be the economic-development jolt Ohio is seeking, with promises of tens of thousands of jobs and billions in revenues for cash-starved governments.

But opponents of state Issue 3 say the plan is the last thing Ohio needs and will lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and further strains on an already-stretched-too-thin state budget.

Both sides are pumping tens of millions of dollars to convince voters that their side is right as part of what has become the most visible campaign among the three statewide issues to be decided next month.

Issue 3 is a constitutional amendment that would allow one casino each in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus and Toledo.

They would be built by Dan Gilbert, majority owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers, and Penn National Gaming, which operates other casinos and gaming facilities, including a horse racing track in Toledo. The two have options on specific sites in the four downtown areas.

Each casino would have to pay the state an up-front $50 million licensing fee, plus commit to investing at least $250 million in each facility. The amendment would levy a 33 percent tax on gross casino revenues, with 85 percent of the proceeds going to counties and school districts. Collections also would be earmarked for commissions to oversee casinos and racetracks, law enforcement training and gambling addiction services.

Supporters — namely, the Ohio Jobs and Growth Committee, online at www.yesonissue3.com — commissioned a study from the University of Cincinnati on the plan. According to the results, the casinos would create 34,000 jobs, including construction-related positions and full-time casino workers.

Supporters also believe the casinos would generate $651 million a year in tax revenues and pump $11 billion into Ohio’s economy over the next five years.

And they say having gambling options within the state would help to keep Ohioans in Ohio, instead of taking more than $1 billion in casino proceeds to gaming locations out of the state each year.

Organized labor and law enforcement groups, including the United Auto Workers and the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, have endorsed the casino plan.

“There are tough times for local governments all over the state,” Mark Drum, a retired member of the Delaware Police Department, told Statehouse reporters earlier this summer in announcing the police group’s support of Issue 3. “We are seeing communities all over Ohio struggle with declining revenues that have forced them to consider drastic cuts in the public safety services. ... The Ohio Jobs and Growth plan meets that problem head-on.”

But opponents — including a coalition of groups calling itself TruthPAC, online at www.truthpac.org — commissioned their own study, from Hiram College, that concludes the casinos would have the opposite effect on the economy, leading to a decrease in jobs and tax revenues.

They also say casino operators have rigged the issue language in their favor, with lower licensing costs and tax rates compared to casinos in other states and loopholes to avoid paying taxes on some gaming activities.

And they cite increased crime, gambling addiction and other social impacts that come with casino gambling.

Groups opposing Issue 3 include Citizens for Community Values, Progress Ohio, lawmakers who support expanded gambling in Ohio and church groups that do not.

“This is just going to increase taxpayer costs across the board,” said John Kindt, a University of Illinois professor who has studied the impact of gambling. “It hurts the economy. These are special interests coming in and utilizing their clout to have gambling facilities which only are ultimately going to benefit themselves.”