Blade says Issue 3 “a bad venture” – Cincy Enquirer says Issue 3 “good for Ohio”
On Wednesday the Toledo Blade offered an early opinion on Issue 3 which is the Casino gambling initiative that Ohio voters will decide this November. Today, the Cincinnati Enquirer offers their opinion on Issue 3. I recommend reading both editorials, Casinos: a bad venture and Finally, A Casino Bid That’s Good For Ohio? Bet On It. The Enquirer has taken an anti-gambling stance in the past with the exception of Learn and Earn, which most of you will remember that voters did not agree with, the Blade did not support Learn & Earn in 2006.
One of the arguments made in support of the Casino initiative is it will keep more people gambling here in Ohio instead of going elsewhere. One of the arguments the Blade editorial cites against this Casino initiative, is one that has been raised in relation to other projects not by the Blade but by others, such as the new arena, that in an area that does not have a lot of entertainment dollars, rather than creating new spending it will just divert dollars away from other local businesses. The Blade cites:
So, the millions of dollars casinos say they’ll pay in taxes will actually be offset by revenue lost when bars, restaurants, theaters, shops, and stores lose customers or are driven out of business. In fact, according to the Web site casinowatch.org, 78 percent of businesses and restaurants near Atlantic City’s gambling district closed their doors after the casinos opened.
Let’s put this another way: Discretionary entertainment spending will simply be diverted from many businesses to one, and profits, instead of staying in the community, will leave the region —and the state — to line the pockets of already-rich casino owners.
The Enquirer cites:
Ohio is one of the largest untapped gambling markets in the nation.
Studies show that if these four casinos are built, Ohio would become the nation’s third-largest casino market. Cincinnati would quickly become one of the Top 20 markets, and each of the four Ohio cities would rival or surpass downtown Las Vegas, just as Lawrenceburg, Ind., now does.
In 2005, a gambling consulting firm’s analysis showed that 90 percent of the “take” at Lawrenceburg’s Argosy (now Hollywood) Casino came from Ohio and Kentucky gamblers – adding $127 million to Indiana’s tax coffers in one year.
I can’t figure out why everyone is missing the biggest problem with issue 3. The tax rate they are proposing is too low. I have heard all the arguments about other states having lower tax rates, but the reality is that Ohio should try to get what we can. In Pennsylvania the tax rate is 55%, and none of the owners there are complaining about it. Guess what, Penn National is one of these owners! Maryland’s tax rate is 67%, but they aren’t getting much response on it, so I think it’s pretty reasonable to expect something more like Pennsylvania. For Issue 3 to propose a rate that’s more than 20% less is ridiculous. If you believe the Issue 3 projections that they bill do $2 Billion per year in revenue, that extra 20% would mean an extra $400 million+ per year the state could take in. I’m sure there are casino operators that would pay the higher rate, so why should we change our constitution to lock in a low rate for these two owners? I’m sure the rest of the issues that everyone is bickering about have some meaning, but none of them can be this significant. I will support casinos in Ohio, but not a bad deal like Issue 3.
September 19th, 2009 at 12:46 pm