Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Family found dead in Ohio home
Man gets 3 years in prison for having sex with horse
Sex-toy study at Duke University raises some eyebrows
Robbers order bar patrons to empty pockets
Akron man turns himself in after authorities turn up heat
Man appears alive at own funeral
Take comfort in knowing Browns could be bigger losers
Blogs:
Pets:
Not 101 Dalmations…but close!
The Heldenfiles:
Friday Notebook
Patrick McManamon:
For your perusal
Akron Zips:
The morning after
Tribe Matters:
Tribe makes roster moves
Cleveland Browns:
Lewis doesn't like boycott
Kent State Sports:
Kent State falls to Akron, 20-28
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs at Knicks
Buckeye Blogging:
Weekly ‘B’ Deck Report – New Mexico St.
Varsity Letters:
Wrestling, bowling teams prepare for season
All Da King's Men:
If It Looks Like Islamic Terrorism…
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Dems Message To Women: Don't Enjoy The Sex
Akron Law Café:
Health Care Financing Reform: (62) The Stupak Amendment
See Jane Style:
Muffle Your Muffler
Car Chase:
Perfect Weather for an Autumn Drive
Let's Talk Real Estate:
RUMORS: Downtown Restaurant Explosion
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Jack is looking for a trip to Southern Ohio the week of November 16.
Sound Check:
The Black Keys to perform benefit concert at Musica on November 27
HRLite House:
Personal Rant – Why People Do Not Live in Northeast Ohio
Akron Gamer:
New 'Call of Duty' could set entertainment record
Looking for a reason to oppose state Issue 6?
Published on Monday, Oct 20, 2008
Weighing in last week was the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a conservative think tank based in Columbus. The institute's report was written by Jeffrey Hooke, a Virginia-based corporate finance consultant who has authored many studies on the economics of gambling.
Hooke's conclusion? Issue 6 amounts to a ''giveaway'' by Ohio taxpayers.
Passage of the amendment would grant a monopoly license to a few wealthy individuals from the Cleveland area and their partner, Lakes Entertainment, a Minnesota-based company that manages Indian casinos. The text of the amendment allows the state to set an initial licensing fee of as much as $15 million, but that amount is fully refundable.
Other states auction gambling licenses, in much the same way the federal government auctions permits for oil exploration. Such a license could be auctioned for $1 billion in cash, Hooke calculated, based on market demographics in the Wilmington area and the experiences of other states.
More, there is absolutely nothing in the amendment to prevent the gambling partnership MyOhioNow from immediately selling the license. No wonder MyOhioNow is willing to spend millions of dollars on television ads. The return would make a payday lender blush.
The other telling point in the Buckeye study is that estimates of casino income, jobs and tax revenue must be viewed in light of a limited amount of disposable income. Sure, some Ohioans going out of state to gamble will be lured back. What happens when residents who don't gamble now choose to spend time and money at the casino?
Hooke drives home the essential point that gambling doesn't create wealth. It just shifts wealth around. Many of the entertainment dollars dropped at the casino will be siphoned from the local economy, bowling alleys, movie houses and restaurants suffering. A decline in state lottery revenue will also result, based on the record in other states.
Vote No Casinos, an alliance concerned with the social effects of gambling, upped the ante last week by previewing its TV ad against Issue 6. The group also has prepared yard signs, campaign literature and a video in which Clinton County governmental, religious and business interests express their opposition.
Sen. George Voinovich, a strong opponent of previous gambling issues, stressed the devastating impact gambling has on families whose resources are drained away, forcing them to turn to social service agencies for help. Voinovich rightly described the $240 million that casino backers estimate will be generated by a 30 percent tax on gross receipts from gambling (an amount in no way guaranteed by the amendment) as little more than ''salt in the soup'' when distributed across 88 counties.
Voinovich asked: ''Why in the world would anyone want to amend the constitution and put a monopoly in . . . ?'' Great question.
Get the full article here.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
