As economy falls, support for gambling rises

By WILLIAM HERSHEY

Overall, 59 percent of those planning to vote Nov. 3 are backing the amendment.

COLUMBUS — They’ve said “no” four times since 1990, but this year, driven by a promise of new jobs to combat a slumping economy, Ohio voters may be ready to approve casino gambling.

The Vindicator/Ohio Newspaper Poll released today found that 59 percent of registered voters across the state support Issue 3 on the Nov. 3 ballot. An additional 38 percent planned to vote “no,” with 3 percent undecided.

The poll found the strongest support in southwest Ohio (70 percent) and the weakest in the northwest, where voters are almost evenly split on the issue.

The proposed constitutional amendment would permit casinos in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo.

Overall, 56 percent of those who said they will “definitely vote” on Nov. 3 are backing the amendment, according to the poll.

While a majority of the state’s voters support the measure now, early leads for past gambling proposals have vanished by Election Day as opponents successfully created doubts about specifics of the plans, said Eric Rademacher, who conducted the poll.

One difference this year is the economy, said Rademacher, co-director of the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Cincinnati. Ohio’s August unemployment rate was 10.8 percent, nearly four points higher than last November when voters rejected a casino proposed for near Wilmington.

Voters may back casinos this time “if they believe gambling will make a difference in improving Ohio’s economy,” Rademacher said.

On that issue, the poll found voters were more likely to view legalized gambling as a way to improve Ohio’s economy — 55 percent — as opposed to making the economy worse — 23 percent. Nineteen percent said it would have no impact.

In the poll, 713 registered voters were interviewed Sept. 16-22. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percent.

The poll had good news for Gov. Ted Strickland: 62 percent favored his plan to put video lottery terminals at Ohio’s seven racetracks, while just 33 percent opposed it. The plan, which is supposed to raise $933 million over two years to help balance the budget and support K-12 education, is on hold. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled last week that it is subject to a referendum that could come in November 2010.

Other key findings:

U Majorities of both Democrats and Republicans back Issue 3, while independents were more likely to say no.

U Support for Issue 3 isn’t just coming from gamblers. More than 80 percent of the respondents said they would “seldom” or “never” visit the gambling venues.

U A majority of voters — 56 percent — were either “not too concerned” or ”not concerned at all” that both gambling plans would increase gambling addiction. However, those who expressed concern about gambling addiction were far more likely to oppose racetrack slots or say they would vote no on Issue 3.

U 71 percent said they know too little to make a judgment about the taxes casinos would pay if Issue 3 passes.

The tax rate — 33 percent on gross revenues — is a subject of fierce debate between supporters and opponents and a focal point in the advertising campaigns that are already in full swing.

Sponsors of the proposal — Penn National Gaming of Wyomissing, Pa., and Dan Gilbert, majority owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers — emphasize the economic boom they say the casinos would bring, including an estimated 34,000 jobs, $1 billion in private investment, $200 million in licensing fees and $651 million a year to school districts, local governments and state programs.

Opponents, led by MTR Gaming, which operates Scioto Downs racetrack near Columbus and Mountaineer Casino, Racetrack & Resort in Chester, W.Va., dispute the claims and say the casinos largely would benefit out-of-state interests while providing relatively few guaranteed jobs to Ohio.

For voters like Akron native James Jensen, now a lawyer in Columbus, there’s no clear answer yet. Jensen is leaning toward support of the issue for a simple reason: “I like to gamble.”

But Jensen is skeptical about all the claims of economic benefits.

“Frankly, it doesn’t bring any good jobs into an area,” he said. “The tax revenues are really minimal. With casinos invariably come crime and gambling problems. Gambling is no panacea for state budget woes.”

Other places with gambling haven’t been transformed, Jensen said.

“It’s not like Detroit has become a beautiful city now that it has gambling,” he said.

Jobs and tax dollars

The promises of jobs and more tax money appear to resonate with many voters, however.

“It would really boost up Cleveland. We need that shot,” said David Kolarik, Jr., 51, a construction worker from Laborers Local 310 in Cleveland who lives in nearby Medina County. Organized labor is a big backer of Issue 3, with the Ohio AFL-CIO, the UAW and the FOP all providing support.

In Columbus, Gerald Chisolm, 52, agreed with Kolarik.

“You don’t have to go to college to work at a casino. Everybody needs jobs — like right now,” said Chisolm, a customer service representative for the Central Ohio Transit Authority. “This will create janitor jobs, security jobs, a whole lot of jobs.”

Ray Blackerby, an investigator for the state Department of Commerce, also plans to vote for Issue 3.

“If the governor wants to lay me off, it’d be nice to know there are other [job] options out there,” said Blackerby of Hilliard, a Columbus suburb.

In Miami Township near Dayton, Eric Sano, 47, said he supports Issue 3 for two reasons: “Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs and income taxes, income taxes, income taxes, income taxes.”

“I favor anything that will create jobs and produce revenue for the state of Ohio,” said Sano, a long-haul truck driver. “I’m very much for it. I’d love to see a casino in Dayton, in Canton or even southeast Ohio.”

Travis Estell, 21, a senior at the University of Cincinnati, agreed with Sano.

“I think that the state of Ohio is losing a lot of money to other states with legalized gambling that could be kept here,” Estell said.

Casinos and problems

Sarah Yocis, 21, a fourth-year student at the University of Cincinnati, said it’s hard to say no right now to promises of new jobs, but she’s against Issue 3.

“I personally don’t see casinos as a good thing,” said Yocis. She thinks problem gambling will increase in the state if casinos are more conveniently located in Ohio.

“You wouldn’t want a bar next door to someone who is an alcoholic,” she said.

Kris Collier, 23, of Dayton, also plans to vote no. Gambling hurts people financially, said Collier, a software developer for Mound Technical Solutions in nearby Miamisburg.

“They get addicted. That’s not good,” he said.

Poll results

In the poll, voters younger than 30 were more likely than older voters to oppose Issue 3, and also more likely to believe that allowing casinos and slot machines in Ohio would increase gambling addiction.

Bobbi Radeck, 49, of West Chester in Butler County near Cincinnati, also is opposed and is upset that another gambling proposal is on the ballot.

“I think that the voters have voted four times and said no. I’m a little disappointed it’s back up for debate again,” said Radeck, Ohio director of Concerned Women for America, a national conservative, pro-family organization. “Because [gambling] affects the family in such a negative way, I think we will be banding together with other pro-family groups to make sure people know what the facts are.”

The Rev. Donald Perryman, pastor of the Center of Hope Community Baptist Church in Toledo, echoed Radeck.

“When you’re having an economic crisis or poverty situation and you give people false hopes that they can make a lot of money relatively quickly, that’s going to bring about fissures in families,” said Perryman, 57.

What’s Ahead

The poll results track closely with results from a Quinnipiac University poll released Sept. 15 that showed 58-37 percent support for the four-casino plan and 60-34 percent support for VLTs at the racetracks.

Political scientist John Green said this year’s pro-casino campaign appears to be better run than previous efforts, with the bad economy providing a big boost.

However, opponents have a built-in advantage on issue campaigns, said Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron.

“If people have any doubts, they tend to vote no,” he said. “The task of the people who want to defeat Issue 3 is to raise doubts about it.”

It’s likely that opponents will be able to diminish the current level of support shown in the poll, he said. Whether they can defeat it “remains to be seen,” Green said.