Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

2009 Ohio Issues 1,2 and 3

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ 2009 Ohio Issues 1,2 and 3
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Nov 10, 2009 10:43 PM
Want to keep track of the Casino's being built?

Want to complain about Strickland's livestock board appointments?

Talk about it here
Nov 10, 2009 10:43pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Nov 10, 2009 11:00 PM
I don't have a problem with people gambling, I was just kind upset that the state of Ohio is essentially creating a monopoly.
Nov 10, 2009 11:00pm
Trueblue23's avatar

Trueblue23

BASEDgod

7,463 posts
Nov 11, 2009 2:21 PM
When are the casinos supposed to be finished? I've heard early 2011.
Nov 11, 2009 2:21pm
C

CincyRedRider

Senior Member

101 posts
Nov 11, 2009 2:32 PM
Does anyone know if there will be a sportsbook at the casino's?
Nov 11, 2009 2:32pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Nov 11, 2009 5:39 PM
1. bonuses for vets
2. shaft for peta
3. casino gambling

three great choices by ohio voters
Nov 11, 2009 5:39pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Nov 11, 2009 7:14 PM
CincyRedRider wrote: Does anyone know if there will be a sportsbook at the casino's?
Sports betting is only allowed in the states Grandfathered in by the U.S. government.
The sports lotteries conducted in Oregon and Delaware were exempt, as well as the licensed sports pools in Nevada. In addition, Congress provided a one-year window of opportunity from the effective date of PASPA (January 1, 1993) for states, which operated licensed casino gaming for the previous ten-year period to pass laws permitting sports wagering. The latter exception was clearly crafted with New Jersey in mind. However, New Jersey failed to take advantage of this opportunity and carve out an exception for itself. Also excluded from the reach of PASPA are jai alai and parimutuel horse and dog racing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_and_Amateur_Sports_Protection_Act_of_1992
Nov 11, 2009 7:14pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Nov 11, 2009 9:45 PM
I don't really understand how people can be against issue 3. If you don't gamble, don't go, but its silly to leave all that tax money outside of the state just because you don't want to gamble. The minimum cost of each casino has to be 250 million, with a licensing fee of 50 million. That's a large investment just for 1 casino, not to mention the tax revenue and casino jobs that will be generated from having NEW casinos.
Nov 11, 2009 9:45pm
Jughead's avatar

Jughead

Senior Member

1,261 posts
Nov 12, 2009 11:59 AM
The only issue I had with 3 was the low percentage of money that would be collected by the state (30% or so), compared to other neighboring states (near 40%). Other than that, I'm all for gambling.
Nov 12, 2009 11:59am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 12, 2009 10:11 PM
jordo212000 wrote: I don't have a problem with people gambling, I was just kind upset that the state of Ohio is essentially creating a monopoly.
It isn't the monopoly part that's troublesome. We create and have monopolies in several areas. One of the most prominent being the sale of liquor in Ohio is a state held monopoly.

What was troublesome about the bill was that it was an actual amendment to our state constitution which makes it more complicated to change or undo it. Other than that there is really little room for objection on it.
Nov 12, 2009 10:11pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Nov 12, 2009 10:36 PM
Not offering an opinion on anything, but gambling was banned in our state Constitution, so an amendment was needed to allow gambling, no matter the circumstances.
Nov 12, 2009 10:36pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 12, 2009 10:39 PM
Yeah, I meant that the monopoly itself was built into said amendment. Should have been more clear. This isn't a problem until we decide we have a problem with the people running the casinos (hopefully it runs smooth and we never have problems) and then have to jump through hoops to remove them.
Nov 12, 2009 10:39pm
C

CincyRedRider

Senior Member

101 posts
Nov 12, 2009 10:47 PM
LJ wrote:
CincyRedRider wrote: Does anyone know if there will be a sportsbook at the casino's?
Sports betting is only allowed in the states Grandfathered in by the U.S. government.
The sports lotteries conducted in Oregon and Delaware were exempt, as well as the licensed sports pools in Nevada. In addition, Congress provided a one-year window of opportunity from the effective date of PASPA (January 1, 1993) for states, which operated licensed casino gaming for the previous ten-year period to pass laws permitting sports wagering. The latter exception was clearly crafted with New Jersey in mind. However, New Jersey failed to take advantage of this opportunity and carve out an exception for itself. Also excluded from the reach of PASPA are jai alai and parimutuel horse and dog racing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_and_Amateur_Sports_Protection_Act_of_1992
Thanks LJ, I thought so but wasn't quite sure. You the man (or should I say you the MOD)!
Nov 12, 2009 10:47pm
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Nov 12, 2009 11:29 PM
I would have preferred a model where a gambling license is sold, and there is a more of a free market aspect to it. However, this amendment passed, and I hope it works out well.
Nov 12, 2009 11:29pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 12, 2009 11:38 PM
Al Bundy makes an excellent point.

I find it interesting that this was around the 7th (?) time that casinos were put to vote in Ohio and all other attempts failed pretty easily and they didn't even have the monopoly restrictions that the current bill has. Guess any tax revenue looks good right now.
Nov 12, 2009 11:38pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Nov 13, 2009 12:54 AM
LJ wrote: Not offering an opinion on anything, but gambling was banned in our state Constitution, so an amendment was needed to allow gambling, no matter the circumstances.
I agree. How long were we going to wait for the "perfect" Issue to be on ballot? This is a start.

Do I honestly care if there is a monopoly on casino gambling in OH? I'm never going to own a casino. How many people were planning on opening one? Guess you'll have to go to another state. LOL
Nov 13, 2009 12:54am
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Nov 13, 2009 2:06 AM
Al Bundy wrote: I would have preferred a model where a gambling license is sold, and there is a more of a free market aspect to it. However, this amendment passed, and I hope it works out well.
This is a great point. This is actually what I'd of like to have seen, but issue 3 was the only option I had and it was too good to not pass.
Nov 13, 2009 2:06am
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Nov 13, 2009 6:22 AM
Had the economy not tanked, i dont think Issue 3 would have passed this time either.
Nov 13, 2009 6:22am
O

oldtriple

Member

47 posts
Nov 13, 2009 8:03 AM
It sounds like I may be one of the few here opposed to Issue 3, and it is not because I am against gambling. I visit a casino 2 or 3 times a year. My issue is that I hate to see a once thriving industrially based economy in Ohio built on a house of cards. Unfortunately when dealing with stand alone type casinos (as opposed to Vegas where there is a ton of competition), a large percentage of the patrons are "locals." Many of these "locals" can ill afford to loose the money they gamble away.

I understand the draw to keep tax money and revenue within the state However, people act like the casinos are the magic solution to financial woes. I remember back in the 1970's when The Lottery was billed as the savior for Ohio's schools. Thirty-five plus years later, I have yet to see where the Lottery has done a whole lot for the schools.

Several people above address the constitutional aspects of Issue 3. My general feeling is if casino gambling is going to be voted in by the majority (which does not include me), I would rather have the state Constitution amended to permit casino gambling, and then use statutory law to permit a free market system of competition. Additionally, gambling should be a local county option beyond that. How silly is it that the vote in Franklin County was against Issue 3, but the people in Columbus are going to get stuck with a casino anyway?

I cannot help but feel that we have created some problems by constitutionalizing a monopoly. There is little doubt in my mind that someone is going to make big money before this is all over. However,one only needs to look north to the thriving city of Detroit to see what a remarkable impact casino gambling can have on a community's economy.
Nov 13, 2009 8:03am
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Nov 13, 2009 9:09 AM
oldtriple wrote: Unfortunately when dealing with stand alone type casinos (as opposed to Vegas where there is a ton of competition), a large percentage of the patrons are "locals." Many of these "locals" can ill afford to loose the money they gamble away.
I liked your post, even though I disagree with your stance, but I wanted to focus on this statement. The 'locals' you speak of that can't afford to lose their money are responsible for their own finances. We should not have to worry about them and their fiscal irresponsibility. If they go out and blow their life savings, casinos are NOT to blame, the gambler is to blame IMO.
Nov 13, 2009 9:09am
F

fortfan

Senior Member

339 posts
Nov 13, 2009 1:14 PM
I voted against Issue 3. There could be a casino across the street from me and I wouldn't gamble. I have heard the argument that I should just not go...but there were other things that concerned me too. The statement that it would create 34,000 jobs is just not correct. 19,000 of them were construction jobs? that is not "creating" new jobs-just creating work for 19,000 people that already have jobs. All the talk about it raising millions of dollars...yeah, where does that money come from? People losing...and in most cases people that can't really afford to be losing. With this economy, everybody complaining about not having enough money to buy necessities, how can so many people afford to lose money gambling?

Oh well, they will build the casinos...we'll see how well people support them.
Nov 13, 2009 1:14pm
ontheline's avatar

ontheline

Senior Member

188 posts
Nov 13, 2009 4:49 PM
isadore wrote: 1. bonuses for vets
2. shaft for peta
3. casino gambling

three great choices by ohio voters
Can't agree with #3. Especially because we incorparted it into the Ohio constitution? Just my opinion...got to live with it now.
Nov 13, 2009 4:49pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 13, 2009 5:50 PM
fortfan wrote: I voted against Issue 3. There could be a casino across the street from me and I wouldn't gamble. I have heard the argument that I should just not go...but there were other things that concerned me too. The statement that it would create 34,000 jobs is just not correct. 19,000 of them were construction jobs? that is not "creating" new jobs-just creating work for 19,000 people that already have jobs. All the talk about it raising millions of dollars...yeah, where does that money come from? People losing...and in most cases people that can't really afford to be losing. With this economy, everybody complaining about not having enough money to buy necessities, how can so many people afford to lose money gambling?

Oh well, they will build the casinos...we'll see how well people support them.
Ok, so it still creates 15,000 jobs. That can't be seen as a bad thing.

The people who will be gambling were probably already gambling in the out of state casinos. And no one forces people to gamble, so if someones down on their luck financially they should probably conclude that gambling isn't a wise decision. But that's not our job to make that choice for them.
Nov 13, 2009 5:50pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Nov 13, 2009 10:11 PM
fortfan wrote: All the talk about it raising millions of dollars...yeah, where does that money come from? People losing...and in most cases people that can't really afford to be losing. With this economy, everybody complaining about not having enough money to buy necessities, how can so many people afford to lose money gambling?
do you have any sources that you can cite to support the statement
"in most cases people can't really afford to be losing." or is it just a reflection of a need to justify your effort to force your personal morality on your fellow citizens.
Nov 13, 2009 10:11pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Nov 13, 2009 10:24 PM
Is that our old Isidore???!!???
Nov 13, 2009 10:24pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Nov 13, 2009 10:48 PM
could very well be, its either that or a very close facsimile.


Hope you and your pets are well.
Nov 13, 2009 10:48pm