|
The Dispatch had several pages this morning on Issue 3 (including op-eds from several other Ohio newspapers).
It seems to boil down to this:
PRO - New jobs, keep gambling spending in state, boost to tax base for state
CONS - Constitutional amendments should not be used to give people monopolies on business, boost to economy would be marginal (as people would shift their discretionary spending away from other things in order to gamble), new jobs would be low paying/temporary, some Ohioans would still gamble out of state.
The thing that stuck out to me the most was the first "con". I absolutely agree that Constitutional amendments should not be written in order to benefit very specific people/businesses. This sets a terrible precedent. It's also telling that in one of Ohio's previous attempts to legalize state gambling, Penn Gaming campaigned AGAINST the amendment (because the proposed casino would provide competition with on of their Indiana based casinos). Now Penn Gaming is FOR the amendment, as they are one of two groups (Dan Gilbert being the other) who get exclusive rights to open casinos per the amendment.
|