Since absentee voting has started, might as well start discussing the election some... and we have a couple statewide issues.


ISSUE 1: Extend "Third Frontier" Program
Official Ballot Language
Issue Explanation


ISSUE 2: Relocate Columbus Casino from Arena District to Delphi Plant.
Official Ballot Language
Issue Explanation


(For official arguments for and against the issues, click here.)

I still haven't developed much of an opinion yet, just wanted to get the thread started.

Issue 1 is one of the few things getting bipartisan support, which is unheard of in politics anymore. The Vindicator endorsement said it created 41,000 jobs, and the overall impact far outweighed its cost, but I don't know anything about there being perhaps some unintended consequences where maybe it cost jobs or something too? I'll probably vote yes unless convinced otherwise; I still need to research it.

Unless you are from Columbus, you don't care about Issue 2. But, since the casino amendment was so poorly constructed (I wanted casinos, but the amendment blew ass), we all get to vote on moving their casino. As mentioned, I could not care less where it is put.

What's everyone else thinking?

I fear (and almost hope) that people screw with Issue 2 and force the original site to be used.

Not because I have anything against the West Side (and I do favor casino gambling) but because here was yet another chance to put the whole thing into the hands of a gambling agency and the Ohio Legislature, rather than having to always to go the ballot.

It's a stupid system.

Writerbuckeye wrote: I fear (and almost hope) that people screw with Issue 2 and force the original site to be used.

Not because I have anything against the West Side (and I do favor casino gambling) but because here was yet another chance to put the whole thing into the hands of a gambling agency and the Ohio Legislature, rather than having to always to go the ballot.

It's a stupid system.

I agree the system is stupid, and the amendment was far from optimal. That said, the revised location is better, and as is often said here, it's not even close.

I wonder, if by voting no on Issue 2, it would force the city to play hardball with the casino at the Arena District site. For example, not approving infratstucture, refusing to issue permits, etc.

Actually, the Third Frontier is a fail ............................. hundreds of millions spent / very few jobs ......................... where the Vindy got their numbers I have no idea.

Howdy to all.

After many attempts the casinos have finally got their foot in the door and they want to back away from their commitment to new construction and providing new jobs by renovating an existing structure. They were given permission to enter by the voters because they promised jobs, construction and tax money to the state. It all boils down money, it will be cheaper for the casino and cost the state more.

That existing structure could be better used by a manufacturing company. A company that will hire people and pay taxes.

They think they can get away with cutting costs with this new issue. Vote NO on Issue 2.

May GOD Bless

I noticed that Rep Sandra Williams is 'FOR' Issue 1......

I wonder if those are black jobs that she is for??????

wkfan wrote: I noticed that Rep Sandra Williams is 'FOR' Issue 1......

I wonder if those are black jobs that she is for??????

Clever.

If Issue 1 had any real support, it would pass in the State House and not need to be brought before the voters,

theirishman wrote: Howdy to all.

After many attempts the casinos have finally got their foot in the door and they want to back away from their commitment to new construction and providing new jobs by renovating an existing structure. They were given permission to enter by the voters because they promised jobs, construction and tax money to the state. It all boils down money, it will be cheaper for the casino and cost the state more.

That existing structure could be better used by a manufacturing company. A company that will hire people and pay taxes.

They think they can get away with cutting costs with this new issue. Vote NO on Issue 2.

May GOD Bless

First question I would like to ask you is, do you live in the Columbus area?

Secondly, if you look at the voting, the area where the Casino was going to be built overwhelming voted "NO". It was their doing to get the Casino moved, while what you are saying may be playing in AFTER the fact, you have to side with the people who will have to deal with the Casino in their backyard, not the opinion of people who live 30 minutes away.

Thirdly, I don't know anyone who voted "YES" for the Casinos that did it because of "jobs", they did it because they want to gamble.

LJ wrote:

theirishman wrote: Howdy to all.

After many attempts the casinos have finally got their foot in the door and they want to back away from their commitment to new construction and providing new jobs by renovating an existing structure. They were given permission to enter by the voters because they promised jobs, construction and tax money to the state. It all boils down money, it will be cheaper for the casino and cost the state more.

That existing structure could be better used by a manufacturing company. A company that will hire people and pay taxes.

They think they can get away with cutting costs with this new issue. Vote NO on Issue 2.

May GOD Bless

First question I would like to ask you is, do you live in the Columbus area?

Secondly, if you look at the voting, the area where the Casino was going to be built overwhelming voted "NO". It was their doing to get the Casino moved, while what you are saying may be playing in AFTER the fact, you have to side with the people who will have to deal with the Casino in their backyard, not the opinion of people who live 30 minutes away.

Thirdly, I don't know anyone who voted "YES" for the Casinos that did it because of "jobs", they did it because they want to gamble.

Fourthly, they aren't renovating shit. They're razing the existing structure as we speak, and will be building new (IOW, more construction work, not less).

queencitybuckeye wrote:

LJ wrote:

theirishman wrote: Howdy to all.

After many attempts the casinos have finally got their foot in the door and they want to back away from their commitment to new construction and providing new jobs by renovating an existing structure. They were given permission to enter by the voters because they promised jobs, construction and tax money to the state. It all boils down money, it will be cheaper for the casino and cost the state more.

That existing structure could be better used by a manufacturing company. A company that will hire people and pay taxes.

They think they can get away with cutting costs with this new issue. Vote NO on Issue 2.

May GOD Bless

First question I would like to ask you is, do you live in the Columbus area?

Secondly, if you look at the voting, the area where the Casino was going to be built overwhelming voted "NO". It was their doing to get the Casino moved, while what you are saying may be playing in AFTER the fact, you have to side with the people who will have to deal with the Casino in their backyard, not the opinion of people who live 30 minutes away.

Thirdly, I don't know anyone who voted "YES" for the Casinos that did it because of "jobs", they did it because they want to gamble.

Fourthly, they aren't renovating shit. They're razing the existing structure as we speak, and will be building new (IOW, more construction work, not less).

Good to know, I haven't followed the progress much since they decided to move it.

theirishman wrote: Howdy to all.

After many attempts the casinos have finally got their foot in the door and they want to back away from their commitment to new construction and providing new jobs by renovating an existing structure. They were given permission to enter by the voters because they promised jobs, construction and tax money to the state. It all boils down money, it will be cheaper for the casino and cost the state more.

That existing structure could be better used by a manufacturing company. A company that will hire people and pay taxes.

They think they can get away with cutting costs with this new issue. Vote NO on Issue 2.

May GOD Bless

After reading this I know you are not from Columbus or you would know they have already tore down the old dilapidated GM Delphi plant. Also you would know down town !!DOESNT WANT THE CASINO!! Also it realy cost the casino less to buy the lot and tear the dilapidated plaint down even if issue 2 fails they BOUGHT the lot already and already clearing it and also is working on the down town site. Yes on 2 Bring the west side back to life and let something better go in downtown.

As someone who doesn't live in the Columbus area, I will vote no on Issue 2. My hope is that they will come back with an amendment that will open the possibility to allow more areas of the state to open casionos. I am in favor of casinos in Ohio, but I was against the way the original bill was written to give monopolies to a few sites in the state instead of establishing a commission that could issue licenses to people who qualified for them. My main reason for being in favor of the casinos is keep Ohio money in Ohio instead of having it go to all of the bordering states.

Al Bundy wrote: As someone who doesn't live in the Columbus area, I will vote no on Issue 2. My hope is that they will come back with an amendment that will open the possibility to allow more areas of the state to open casionos. I am in favor of casinos in Ohio, but I was against the way the original bill was written to give monopolies to a few sites in the state instead of establishing a commission that could issue licenses to people who qualified for them. My main reason for being in favor of the casinos is keep Ohio money in Ohio instead of having it go to all of the bordering states.

I would have preferred it being tied in more with the lottery and having a commission distributing the licenses s they saw fit, but most likely they would still have only issued 4-5 licenses, and in pretty much the exact same places as now.

Youngstown area will never get one because there are too many other casinos within reasonable distance (Erie, Pittsburgh, Chester WV, Wheeling, and soon Cleveland), market is already saturated. The only people that would go to a Youngstown one would be those living within 15 minutes of Youngstown, and that's not enough to succeed. Sure, you don't want people going out of state, but it's too little, too late in terms of stopping that along the PA and WV borders.

Southeast Ohio doesn't have enough people to justify putting one closer than Columbus or Cincinnati. They have Wheeling and Tri-State as well.

The locations and the number of casinos they picked make sense to me. But yes, the original amendment was crap.

ts1227 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: As someone who doesn't live in the Columbus area, I will vote no on Issue 2. My hope is that they will come back with an amendment that will open the possibility to allow more areas of the state to open casionos. I am in favor of casinos in Ohio, but I was against the way the original bill was written to give monopolies to a few sites in the state instead of establishing a commission that could issue licenses to people who qualified for them. My main reason for being in favor of the casinos is keep Ohio money in Ohio instead of having it go to all of the bordering states.

I would have preferred it being tied in more with the lottery and having a commission distributing the licenses s they saw fit, but most likely they would still have only issued 4-5 licenses, and in pretty much the exact same places as now.

Youngstown area will never get one because there are too many other casinos within reasonable distance (Erie, Pittsburgh, Chester WV, Wheeling, and soon Cleveland), market is already saturated. The only people that would go to a Youngstown one would be those living within 15 minutes of Youngstown, and that's not enough to succeed. Sure, you don't want people going out of state, but it's too little, too late in terms of stopping that along the PA and WV borders.

Southeast Ohio doesn't have enough people to justify putting one closer than Columbus or Cincinnati. They have Wheeling and Tri-State as well.

The locations and the number of casinos they picked make sense to me. But yes, the original amendment was crap.

Maybe the free market would have determined that only 4 or 5 would work, but I find that doubtful. There are many states with a population much smaller than Ohio that have more than 4 casinos. I would just rather see the free market determine it than have it built into the issue. If they would have included some type of provision regarding that, I would vote for the issue this time. As it is, I am voting no with the hope that they come back with a different version for the fall.

Al Bundy wrote:

ts1227 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: As someone who doesn't live in the Columbus area, I will vote no on Issue 2. My hope is that they will come back with an amendment that will open the possibility to allow more areas of the state to open casionos. I am in favor of casinos in Ohio, but I was against the way the original bill was written to give monopolies to a few sites in the state instead of establishing a commission that could issue licenses to people who qualified for them. My main reason for being in favor of the casinos is keep Ohio money in Ohio instead of having it go to all of the bordering states.

I would have preferred it being tied in more with the lottery and having a commission distributing the licenses s they saw fit, but most likely they would still have only issued 4-5 licenses, and in pretty much the exact same places as now.

Youngstown area will never get one because there are too many other casinos within reasonable distance (Erie, Pittsburgh, Chester WV, Wheeling, and soon Cleveland), market is already saturated. The only people that would go to a Youngstown one would be those living within 15 minutes of Youngstown, and that's not enough to succeed. Sure, you don't want people going out of state, but it's too little, too late in terms of stopping that along the PA and WV borders.

Southeast Ohio doesn't have enough people to justify putting one closer than Columbus or Cincinnati. They have Wheeling and Tri-State as well.

The locations and the number of casinos they picked make sense to me. But yes, the original amendment was crap.

Maybe the free market would have determined that only 4 or 5 would work, but I find that doubtful. There are many states with a population much smaller than Ohio that have more than 4 casinos. I would just rather see the free market determine it than have it built into the issue. If they would have included some type of provision regarding that, I would vote for the issue this time. As it is, I am voting no with the hope that they come back with a different version for the fall.

Just another example of someone isn't affected by this bill screwing those that are.

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

ts1227 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: As someone who doesn't live in the Columbus area, I will vote no on Issue 2. My hope is that they will come back with an amendment that will open the possibility to allow more areas of the state to open casionos. I am in favor of casinos in Ohio, but I was against the way the original bill was written to give monopolies to a few sites in the state instead of establishing a commission that could issue licenses to people who qualified for them. My main reason for being in favor of the casinos is keep Ohio money in Ohio instead of having it go to all of the bordering states.

I would have preferred it being tied in more with the lottery and having a commission distributing the licenses s they saw fit, but most likely they would still have only issued 4-5 licenses, and in pretty much the exact same places as now.

Youngstown area will never get one because there are too many other casinos within reasonable distance (Erie, Pittsburgh, Chester WV, Wheeling, and soon Cleveland), market is already saturated. The only people that would go to a Youngstown one would be those living within 15 minutes of Youngstown, and that's not enough to succeed. Sure, you don't want people going out of state, but it's too little, too late in terms of stopping that along the PA and WV borders.

Southeast Ohio doesn't have enough people to justify putting one closer than Columbus or Cincinnati. They have Wheeling and Tri-State as well.

The locations and the number of casinos they picked make sense to me. But yes, the original amendment was crap.

Maybe the free market would have determined that only 4 or 5 would work, but I find that doubtful. There are many states with a population much smaller than Ohio that have more than 4 casinos. I would just rather see the free market determine it than have it built into the issue. If they would have included some type of provision regarding that, I would vote for the issue this time. As it is, I am voting no with the hope that they come back with a different version for the fall.

Just another example of someone isn't affected by this bill screwing those that are.

Not affected by this at all? The issue makes gambling illegal in my part of the state. Did you vote in favor of the last bill that screwed this part of the state? Why not pass a bill that treats everyone fairly?

I am for gambling, but voted against the original bill.

I'm just saying, you would have ended up with the exact same end result in terms of casino distribution based on the population centers (not that it makes what passed acceptable).

Everyone in the state could still be to a casino with a 1-2 hour drive, which is basically the same distribution pattern as any state with casinos. No matter what passes, they aren't going to just drop one down every 20 miles so that no one has to drive.

Maybe it will be expanded eventually to get a couple machines in bars to hold people over like WV? Who knows. I wouldn't count on it considering how long it took this state to pass casino gambling at all.

But anyway, don't let the fact that you can't be within walking distance of a casino change your opinion on the Columbus thing.

ts1227 wrote: I am for gambling, but voted against the original bill.

I'm just saying, you would have ended up with the exact same end result in terms of casino distribution based on the population centers (not that it makes what passed acceptable).

I was recently on a trip to Wisconsin. They have 16 casinos and a population that is less than Ohio. There are many states with smaller populations than Ohio, that have more than 4 casinos.

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

ts1227 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: As someone who doesn't live in the Columbus area, I will vote no on Issue 2. My hope is that they will come back with an amendment that will open the possibility to allow more areas of the state to open casionos. I am in favor of casinos in Ohio, but I was against the way the original bill was written to give monopolies to a few sites in the state instead of establishing a commission that could issue licenses to people who qualified for them. My main reason for being in favor of the casinos is keep Ohio money in Ohio instead of having it go to all of the bordering states.

I would have preferred it being tied in more with the lottery and having a commission distributing the licenses s they saw fit, but most likely they would still have only issued 4-5 licenses, and in pretty much the exact same places as now.

Youngstown area will never get one because there are too many other casinos within reasonable distance (Erie, Pittsburgh, Chester WV, Wheeling, and soon Cleveland), market is already saturated. The only people that would go to a Youngstown one would be those living within 15 minutes of Youngstown, and that's not enough to succeed. Sure, you don't want people going out of state, but it's too little, too late in terms of stopping that along the PA and WV borders.

Southeast Ohio doesn't have enough people to justify putting one closer than Columbus or Cincinnati. They have Wheeling and Tri-State as well.

The locations and the number of casinos they picked make sense to me. But yes, the original amendment was crap.

Maybe the free market would have determined that only 4 or 5 would work, but I find that doubtful. There are many states with a population much smaller than Ohio that have more than 4 casinos. I would just rather see the free market determine it than have it built into the issue. If they would have included some type of provision regarding that, I would vote for the issue this time. As it is, I am voting no with the hope that they come back with a different version for the fall.

Just another example of someone isn't affected by this bill screwing those that are.

Not affected by this at all? The issue makes gambling illegal in my part of the state. Did you vote in favor of the last bill that screwed this part of the state? Why not pass a bill that treats everyone fairly?

Issue 2 deals with nothing but the casino in Columbus. This doesn't affect you.

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

ts1227 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: As someone who doesn't live in the Columbus area, I will vote no on Issue 2. My hope is that they will come back with an amendment that will open the possibility to allow more areas of the state to open casionos. I am in favor of casinos in Ohio, but I was against the way the original bill was written to give monopolies to a few sites in the state instead of establishing a commission that could issue licenses to people who qualified for them. My main reason for being in favor of the casinos is keep Ohio money in Ohio instead of having it go to all of the bordering states.

I would have preferred it being tied in more with the lottery and having a commission distributing the licenses s they saw fit, but most likely they would still have only issued 4-5 licenses, and in pretty much the exact same places as now.

Youngstown area will never get one because there are too many other casinos within reasonable distance (Erie, Pittsburgh, Chester WV, Wheeling, and soon Cleveland), market is already saturated. The only people that would go to a Youngstown one would be those living within 15 minutes of Youngstown, and that's not enough to succeed. Sure, you don't want people going out of state, but it's too little, too late in terms of stopping that along the PA and WV borders.

Southeast Ohio doesn't have enough people to justify putting one closer than Columbus or Cincinnati. They have Wheeling and Tri-State as well.

The locations and the number of casinos they picked make sense to me. But yes, the original amendment was crap.

Maybe the free market would have determined that only 4 or 5 would work, but I find that doubtful. There are many states with a population much smaller than Ohio that have more than 4 casinos. I would just rather see the free market determine it than have it built into the issue. If they would have included some type of provision regarding that, I would vote for the issue this time. As it is, I am voting no with the hope that they come back with a different version for the fall.

Just another example of someone isn't affected by this bill screwing those that are.

Not affected by this at all? The issue makes gambling illegal in my part of the state. Did you vote in favor of the last bill that screwed this part of the state? Why not pass a bill that treats everyone fairly?

Issue 2 deals with nothing but the casino in Columbus. This doesn't affect you.

It is an amendment to a state issue that gave certain regions of the state an economic advantage. As a resident of Ohio that does effect me. Don't you think everyone should be treated fairly?

Al Bundy wrote: It is an amendment to a state issue that gave certain regions of the state an economic advantage. As a resident of Ohio that does effect me. Don't you think everyone should be treated fairly?

This issue does one thing. If passed, a casino will be built on the west side (is the best side) of Columbus. If voted down, a casino will be built in the Arena District of Columbus. I don't see a vote one way or the other sending some sort of message, other than perhaps spite.

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

ts1227 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: As someone who doesn't live in the Columbus area, I will vote no on Issue 2. My hope is that they will come back with an amendment that will open the possibility to allow more areas of the state to open casionos. I am in favor of casinos in Ohio, but I was against the way the original bill was written to give monopolies to a few sites in the state instead of establishing a commission that could issue licenses to people who qualified for them. My main reason for being in favor of the casinos is keep Ohio money in Ohio instead of having it go to all of the bordering states.

I would have preferred it being tied in more with the lottery and having a commission distributing the licenses s they saw fit, but most likely they would still have only issued 4-5 licenses, and in pretty much the exact same places as now.

Youngstown area will never get one because there are too many other casinos within reasonable distance (Erie, Pittsburgh, Chester WV, Wheeling, and soon Cleveland), market is already saturated. The only people that would go to a Youngstown one would be those living within 15 minutes of Youngstown, and that's not enough to succeed. Sure, you don't want people going out of state, but it's too little, too late in terms of stopping that along the PA and WV borders.

Southeast Ohio doesn't have enough people to justify putting one closer than Columbus or Cincinnati. They have Wheeling and Tri-State as well.

The locations and the number of casinos they picked make sense to me. But yes, the original amendment was crap.

Maybe the free market would have determined that only 4 or 5 would work, but I find that doubtful. There are many states with a population much smaller than Ohio that have more than 4 casinos. I would just rather see the free market determine it than have it built into the issue. If they would have included some type of provision regarding that, I would vote for the issue this time. As it is, I am voting no with the hope that they come back with a different version for the fall.

Just another example of someone isn't affected by this bill screwing those that are.

Not affected by this at all? The issue makes gambling illegal in my part of the state. Did you vote in favor of the last bill that screwed this part of the state? Why not pass a bill that treats everyone fairly?

Issue 2 deals with nothing but the casino in Columbus. This doesn't affect you.

It is an amendment to a state issue that gave certain regions of the state an economic advantage. As a resident of Ohio that does effect me. Don't you think everyone should be treated fairly?

You obviously don't understand issue 2. A "YES" gets a Casino built on the West Side of Columbus. A "NO" gets the Casino built in the Arena District, in Columbus. In other words, it doesn't do any of what you said. Columbus is getting a Casino either way. Your severe misinformation is going to cause you to vote in a way, on an issue that affects you none, that affects tons of other people, in a city you don't even live in.

Not sure about Issue 1.

Issue 2 gets a big "NO" vote from me. I voted "yes" on the amendment I wanted, and that's what I will stick with.