Why oppose state Issue 3? Voinovich counts the ways

By Harold Gwin

Permitting casinos in Ohio would have ill effects on public policy and families, the Republican said.

YOUNGSTOWN — U.S. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, isn’t sure allowing gambling casinos in Ohio is a good way to raise money.

And, he’s more than a little concerned about the social and family problems that can accompany gambling.

The senator visited Youngstown Friday to express his opposition to Issue 3, an issue on the November ballot that would amend Ohio’s Constitution to permit the development of four casinos with table games and slot machines in Ohio. The casinos would be in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus and Toledo.

Voinovich said he opposes Issue 3 on both financial and public-policy grounds.

It’s a “sweetheart” deal for the casino owners, he said, noting they’ll only have to pay $50 million for their casino license (which they could immediately sell at a much higher figure) and a 33 percent tax on gross revenue. Both are too low, he said, pointing out that a license in Indiana for just a slot machine operation is $250 million. In Illinois, it was $400 million for a single casino, he said.

Ohio should handle the casino issue the way Pennsylvania did, put it out to the highest bidder and get the best deal possible for the state. Pennsylvania has a gross revenue tax rate of more than 55 percent, he said.

Even then, Voinovich said he would still oppose casino gambling because of the social ills it could bring.

There is “an enormous downside” to gambling, he said, calling it “a threat to the family.”

Opening casinos exposes a whole new group of people to gambling, and gambling addiction can lead to divorce, embezzlement, bankruptcies and suicides, he warned.

Studies show that someone living within 10 miles of a casino has an 80 percent increase in their chance of becoming addicted to gambling, he said, adding that for every $1 a casino brings in, it creates $3 in social welfare cost.

Voinovich said he doesn’t believe the framers of Ohio’s constitution ever planned for it to be used to create a monopoly, as Issue 3 would do.

Backers of Issue 3 are touting the creation of 34,000 jobs, but that promise is exploiting people who are down and out and looking for work, he said. Looking at casino development in other states shows that not all of those promised jobs ever show up, and most of those that do are relatively low-paying positions. The top jobs pay hourly rates of only $13 or $14, he said.

If people are spending money at the gambling table, what other things are they not spending money on, he asked, suggesting that state sales tax could decline, the arts would suffer and the human cost would be too great.

Supporters of the casino issue say it will keep $1 billion of Ohio money in Ohio, but people are creatures of habit and those traveling to nearby out-of-state casinos aren’t likely to stop those visits, he said.

Casinos don’t draw larger numbers of out-of-state gamblers as backers claim, Voinovich said. Studies show that 80 to 90 percent of a casino’s patrons come from surrounding counties, and they take money from the discretionary budgets of Ohio families, he said.

Allowing casino gambling is just a bad idea, Voinovich said, vowing, “I’ll fight this till the day I die.”

gwin@vindy.com