se-alum wrote: 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.

So all you care about is what you want and don't care what the people who will have to live with it day in and day out want?

Issue 2 had better fail. Once the Blue Jackets leave which is very likely given their unfortunate money situation, what will Arena district have?

CinciX12 wrote: Issue 2 had better fail. Once the Blue Jackets leave which is very likely given their unfortunate money situation, what will Arena district have?

Lots of bars and restaurants and probably the only downtown living worth a damn besides Miranova. There was no hockey saturday night and the Arena Distrcit was slammed.

LJ wrote:

se-alum wrote: 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.

So all you care about is what you want and don't care what the people who will have to live with it day in and day out want?

I want what is best for all of the people of Ohio. It is a state issue. I could live it being a local issue, but you have to give each community the option to determine whether or not they want gambling in their boundaries. You can't make it a state issue when it is to your benefit (denying other areas the opportunity), and then make it a local issue when that better serves your purpose.

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

se-alum wrote: 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.

So all you care about is what you want and don't care what the people who will have to live with it day in and day out want?

I want what is best for all of the people of Ohio. It is a state issue. I could live it being a local issue, but you have to give each community the option to determine whether or not they want gambling in their boundaries. You can't make it a state issue when it is to your benefit (denying other areas the opportunity), and then make it a local issue when that better serves your purpose.

Your post makes no sense at all. The casino will be in the city of columbus, PERIOD.

Let me break this down more for you. The location is in the State Constitution, so the ballot has to be awarded to the whole voting population. If you vote "YES" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on West Broad Street, Columbus Ohio. If you vote "NO" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on Nationwide Blvd, Columbus Ohio.

LJ wrote: Let me break this down more for you. The location is in the State Constitution, so the ballot has to be awarded to the whole voting population. If you vote "YES" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on West Broad Street, Columbus Ohio. If you vote "NO" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on Nationwide Blvd, Columbus Ohio.

Unless they come back with another proposal on the November ballot. Vote No on Issue 2.

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote: Let me break this down more for you. The location is in the State Constitution, so the ballot has to be awarded to the whole voting population. If you vote "YES" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on West Broad Street, Columbus Ohio. If you vote "NO" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on Nationwide Blvd, Columbus Ohio.

Unless they come back with another proposal on the November ballot. Vote No on Issue 2.

????

And what is your reasoning? The residents of the 1st site don't want it, and the residents of the second site DO want it. If you care about the people that this issue is ACTUALLY affecting, vote YES on issue 2. There will still only be 1 casino in the city of Columbus. Your reasoning is flawed.

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote: Let me break this down more for you. The location is in the State Constitution, so the ballot has to be awarded to the whole voting population. If you vote "YES" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on West Broad Street, Columbus Ohio. If you vote "NO" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on Nationwide Blvd, Columbus Ohio.

Unless they come back with another proposal on the November ballot. Vote No on Issue 2.

????

And what is your reasoning? The residents of the 1st site don't want it, and the residents of the second site DO want it. If you care about the people that this issue is ACTUALLY affecting, vote YES on issue 2. There will still only be 1 casino in the city of Columbus. Your reasoning is flawed.

If they come back with another proposal in the fall, you will get more statewide support. Why shouldn't a state issue be about what is good for most of the state instead of just one city in the state?

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote: Let me break this down more for you. The location is in the State Constitution, so the ballot has to be awarded to the whole voting population. If you vote "YES" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on West Broad Street, Columbus Ohio. If you vote "NO" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on Nationwide Blvd, Columbus Ohio.

Unless they come back with another proposal on the November ballot. Vote No on Issue 2.

????

And what is your reasoning? The residents of the 1st site don't want it, and the residents of the second site DO want it. If you care about the people that this issue is ACTUALLY affecting, vote YES on issue 2. There will still only be 1 casino in the city of Columbus. Your reasoning is flawed.

If they come back with another proposal in the fall, you will get more statewide support. Why shouldn't a state issue be about what is good for most of the state instead of just one city in the state?

?????????? I don't see how forcing an area to take something they don't want vs an area that does want it change what is good or bad for the STATE? Like I said either you don't understand what is happening, or you are just using extremely flawed reasoning.

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote: Let me break this down more for you. The location is in the State Constitution, so the ballot has to be awarded to the whole voting population. If you vote "YES" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on West Broad Street, Columbus Ohio. If you vote "NO" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on Nationwide Blvd, Columbus Ohio.

Unless they come back with another proposal on the November ballot. Vote No on Issue 2.

????

And what is your reasoning? The residents of the 1st site don't want it, and the residents of the second site DO want it. If you care about the people that this issue is ACTUALLY affecting, vote YES on issue 2. There will still only be 1 casino in the city of Columbus. Your reasoning is flawed.

If they come back with another proposal in the fall, you will get more statewide support. Why shouldn't a state issue be about what is good for most of the state instead of just one city in the state?

?????????? I don't see how forcing an area to take something they don't want vs an area that does want it change what is good or bad for the STATE? Like I said either you don't understand what is happening, or you are just using extremely flawed reasoning.

If this is voted down, there could be a better option on the ballot in the fall.

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote: Let me break this down more for you. The location is in the State Constitution, so the ballot has to be awarded to the whole voting population. If you vote "YES" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on West Broad Street, Columbus Ohio. If you vote "NO" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on Nationwide Blvd, Columbus Ohio.

Unless they come back with another proposal on the November ballot. Vote No on Issue 2.

????

And what is your reasoning? The residents of the 1st site don't want it, and the residents of the second site DO want it. If you care about the people that this issue is ACTUALLY affecting, vote YES on issue 2. There will still only be 1 casino in the city of Columbus. Your reasoning is flawed.

If they come back with another proposal in the fall, you will get more statewide support. Why shouldn't a state issue be about what is good for most of the state instead of just one city in the state?

?????????? I don't see how forcing an area to take something they don't want vs an area that does want it change what is good or bad for the STATE? Like I said either you don't understand what is happening, or you are just using extremely flawed reasoning.

If this is voted down, there could be a better option on the ballot in the fall.

or, more likelihood, you are going to dick over the people that this ACTUALLY affects, not just some theoretical idea bouncing around in your brain.

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote: Let me break this down more for you. The location is in the State Constitution, so the ballot has to be awarded to the whole voting population. If you vote "YES" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on West Broad Street, Columbus Ohio. If you vote "NO" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on Nationwide Blvd, Columbus Ohio.

Unless they come back with another proposal on the November ballot. Vote No on Issue 2.

????

And what is your reasoning? The residents of the 1st site don't want it, and the residents of the second site DO want it. If you care about the people that this issue is ACTUALLY affecting, vote YES on issue 2. There will still only be 1 casino in the city of Columbus. Your reasoning is flawed.

If they come back with another proposal in the fall, you will get more statewide support. Why shouldn't a state issue be about what is good for most of the state instead of just one city in the state?

?????????? I don't see how forcing an area to take something they don't want vs an area that does want it change what is good or bad for the STATE? Like I said either you don't understand what is happening, or you are just using extremely flawed reasoning.

If this is voted down, there could be a better option on the ballot in the fall.

or, more likelihood, you are going to dick over the people that this ACTUALLY affects, not just some theoretical idea bouncing around in your brain.

I'm not "dicking over" anyone. Come back with an issue in November that says each municipality in Ohio can determine if and where they want a casino. I would vote for it in a heartbeat. I am against the current issue the way it is written.

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote: Let me break this down more for you. The location is in the State Constitution, so the ballot has to be awarded to the whole voting population. If you vote "YES" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on West Broad Street, Columbus Ohio. If you vote "NO" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on Nationwide Blvd, Columbus Ohio.

Unless they come back with another proposal on the November ballot. Vote No on Issue 2.

????

And what is your reasoning? The residents of the 1st site don't want it, and the residents of the second site DO want it. If you care about the people that this issue is ACTUALLY affecting, vote YES on issue 2. There will still only be 1 casino in the city of Columbus. Your reasoning is flawed.

If they come back with another proposal in the fall, you will get more statewide support. Why shouldn't a state issue be about what is good for most of the state instead of just one city in the state?

?????????? I don't see how forcing an area to take something they don't want vs an area that does want it change what is good or bad for the STATE? Like I said either you don't understand what is happening, or you are just using extremely flawed reasoning.

If this is voted down, there could be a better option on the ballot in the fall.

or, more likelihood, you are going to dick over the people that this ACTUALLY affects, not just some theoretical idea bouncing around in your brain.

I'm not "dicking over" anyone. Come back with an issue in November that says each municipality in Ohio can determine if and where they want a casino. I would vote for it in a heartbeat. I am against the current issue the way it is written.

This has nothing to do with "if", it has everything to do with 1 casino in 1 city. Voting "yes" or "no" is not going to get you more casinos. See, the problem is, the casino CITY is already determined, Columbus is going to get their money. If this is voted down, they are going to build the Casino in the Arena District. You are not going to get your "better ballot" that you dreamt up. You are "against" this issue for the wrong reasons, and I am still not even sure you understand the issue. So in other words, if you vote "no" you are voting against the wishes of the people where the Casino will be built, no matter what.

I will make you a bet. If issue 2 gets voted down, I bet you $100 that there is no issue in November that would allow any number of casinos in the state of Ohio. Deal? Or are you just taking a theoretical stand against something that ultimately won't affect you?

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote: Let me break this down more for you. The location is in the State Constitution, so the ballot has to be awarded to the whole voting population. If you vote "YES" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on West Broad Street, Columbus Ohio. If you vote "NO" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on Nationwide Blvd, Columbus Ohio.

Unless they come back with another proposal on the November ballot. Vote No on Issue 2.

????

And what is your reasoning? The residents of the 1st site don't want it, and the residents of the second site DO want it. If you care about the people that this issue is ACTUALLY affecting, vote YES on issue 2. There will still only be 1 casino in the city of Columbus. Your reasoning is flawed.

If they come back with another proposal in the fall, you will get more statewide support. Why shouldn't a state issue be about what is good for most of the state instead of just one city in the state?

?????????? I don't see how forcing an area to take something they don't want vs an area that does want it change what is good or bad for the STATE? Like I said either you don't understand what is happening, or you are just using extremely flawed reasoning.

If this is voted down, there could be a better option on the ballot in the fall.

or, more likelihood, you are going to dick over the people that this ACTUALLY affects, not just some theoretical idea bouncing around in your brain.

I'm not "dicking over" anyone. Come back with an issue in November that says each municipality in Ohio can determine if and where they want a casino. I would vote for it in a heartbeat. I am against the current issue the way it is written.

This has nothing to do with "if", it has everything to do with 1 casino in 1 city. Voting "yes" or "no" is not going to get you more casinos. See, the problem is, the casino CITY is already determined, Columbus is going to get their money. If this is voted down, they are going to build the Casino in the Arena District. You are not going to get your "better ballot" that you dreamt up. You are "against" this issue for the wrong reasons, and I am still not even sure you understand the issue. So in other words, if you vote "no" you are voting against the wishes of the people where the Casino will be built, no matter what.

I will make you a bet. If issue 2 gets voted down, I bet you $100 that there is no issue in November that would allow any number of casinos in the state of Ohio. Deal? Or are you just taking a theoretical stand against something that ultimately won't affect you?

I understand the issue, and I am against it. If Columbus wants to make the casinos a local issue, they need to change the language that they have. Ohio agreed to a deal last November. If we are going to redo the deal for a state issue, shouldn't we look at redoing it for the whole state instead of one city?

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote: Let me break this down more for you. The location is in the State Constitution, so the ballot has to be awarded to the whole voting population. If you vote "YES" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on West Broad Street, Columbus Ohio. If you vote "NO" on Issue 2, the Casino will be built on Nationwide Blvd, Columbus Ohio.

Unless they come back with another proposal on the November ballot. Vote No on Issue 2.

????

And what is your reasoning? The residents of the 1st site don't want it, and the residents of the second site DO want it. If you care about the people that this issue is ACTUALLY affecting, vote YES on issue 2. There will still only be 1 casino in the city of Columbus. Your reasoning is flawed.

If they come back with another proposal in the fall, you will get more statewide support. Why shouldn't a state issue be about what is good for most of the state instead of just one city in the state?

?????????? I don't see how forcing an area to take something they don't want vs an area that does want it change what is good or bad for the STATE? Like I said either you don't understand what is happening, or you are just using extremely flawed reasoning.

If this is voted down, there could be a better option on the ballot in the fall.

or, more likelihood, you are going to dick over the people that this ACTUALLY affects, not just some theoretical idea bouncing around in your brain.

I'm not "dicking over" anyone. Come back with an issue in November that says each municipality in Ohio can determine if and where they want a casino. I would vote for it in a heartbeat. I am against the current issue the way it is written.

This has nothing to do with "if", it has everything to do with 1 casino in 1 city. Voting "yes" or "no" is not going to get you more casinos. See, the problem is, the casino CITY is already determined, Columbus is going to get their money. If this is voted down, they are going to build the Casino in the Arena District. You are not going to get your "better ballot" that you dreamt up. You are "against" this issue for the wrong reasons, and I am still not even sure you understand the issue. So in other words, if you vote "no" you are voting against the wishes of the people where the Casino will be built, no matter what.

I will make you a bet. If issue 2 gets voted down, I bet you $100 that there is no issue in November that would allow any number of casinos in the state of Ohio. Deal? Or are you just taking a theoretical stand against something that ultimately won't affect you?

I understand the issue, and I am against it. If Columbus wants to make the casinos a local issue, they need to change the language that they have. Ohio agreed to a deal last November. If we are going to redo the deal for a state issue, shouldn't we look at redoing it for the whole state instead of one city?

No, because those cities have not petitioned for a ballot issue. It's that simple.

I don't get what's so hard about this.

Just vote "yes" and stop acting like this has any affect on you.

There is not going to be another Casino ballot, they aren't going to redo the whole damn thing because look how long it took to get this (less than perfect) one passed.

I Wear Pants wrote: I don't get what's so hard about this.

Just vote "yes" and stop acting like this has any affect on you.

There is not going to be another Casino ballot, they aren't going to redo the whole damn thing because look how long it took to get this (less than perfect) one passed.

Why would I vote yes, if I am against it?

You are against moving the Casino to a different part of Columbus?

This ballot isn't about the Casino legislation that was already passed. All it is about is the location of the Columbus casino. Voting "no" will do nothing but keep the casino in the arena district.

I Wear Pants wrote: You are against moving the Casino to a different part of Columbus?

I am against the issue the way it is written.

Al Bundy wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: You are against moving the Casino to a different part of Columbus?

I am against the issue the way it is written.

That's not what's on the ballot. On the ballot is "hey guys, can we move the casino from the arena district to this other place? -Thanks, Columbus". That's it.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: You are against moving the Casino to a different part of Columbus?

I am against the issue the way it is written.

That's not what's on the ballot. On the ballot is "hey guys, can we move the casino from the arena district to this other place? -Thanks, Columbus". That's it.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/publications/election/Issues10_primary.pdf

Page 13 does a great job giving the reason to vote NO on Issue 2

Al Bundy wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: You are against moving the Casino to a different part of Columbus?

I am against the issue the way it is written.

That's not what's on the ballot. On the ballot is "hey guys, can we move the casino from the arena district to this other place? -Thanks, Columbus". That's it.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/publications/election/Issues10_primary.pdf

Page 13 does a great job giving the reason to vote NO on Issue 2

No it doesn't. It gives a reason to be pissed about the orig. amendment.

Nowhere in the official language does that make the "vote no" piece valid. Nowhere does it say "this is the only change that can ever be made" rather, it says "this is the only change that this amendment currently makes"

Al Bundy wrote:
If this is voted down, there could be a better option on the ballot in the fall.

Has there been any indication from anyone that this is a real possibility?

If this passes, there could be a better option on the ballot in the fall as well.
If this vote ties, there could be a better option on the ballot in the fall as well
If they withdraw it from the ballot in the next week, there could be a better option on the ballot in the fall as well.

What are you trying to prove? Every time you try to add to your argument, you just take away from it.