Ohio State Issue 3: Casinos

So yet again, there is an issue on the ballot with a goal of legalizing gambling in Ohio. This time around it'll put a casino each in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Toledo.

There are a lot of numbers about how much money this proposal would bring into Ohio in both up front fees and tax revenue. Not to mention how it'll keep gambling dollars in Ohio, instead of to all the neighboring states and Canadian provinces (oh yes, because I totally go to Toronto to play my Texas Holdem). They also point out how the primary backers are prominent Ohioans with interests in the state.

Yes On Issue 3.com (Pro)

The opposition points out some good points, like how the deal isn't good enough for Ohio (taxes are capped lower than in other states, cash betting slips under the tax radar, the hidden cost of infrastructure). I am less concerned about the lack of "Buy Ohio" rules written into the bill...that's capitalism, baby. If Ohio business can't compete, then it's not up to Columbus to make up the difference. At the same time...we shouldn't be screwing ourselves just so we don't have to drive as far for a slot machine. I do like the arguments about "net job creation," which points out some good facts on how studies aren't always what they seem.

Truthpac.org (Against)

Final Amendment Language (Informative)

Official Argument For (Informative)

Official Argument Against (Informative)

My take? We've gotten along just fine without casinos, and I don't think this is the best way to go about introducing them now. I'm not sure this is a good deal for Ohio, and really...that's all we should be looking at, not convenience, not short term budget problems. I'd vote no.

Ohio State Issue 2: The Livestock Care Standards Board

In addition to the comment on Thursday's comment by the Buckeye Voice, I've heard some disturbing things about the Livestock Care Standards Board proposal from the Ohio Statehouse News Bureau.

1. The board would be appointed. The distance from the public it's supposed to serve bothers me, 'cause that's when the lobbyists can work best.
2. The money is very, very lopsided...millions of dollars raised to support the amendment, as opposed to a few thousand raised to oppose it. That smacks of corporate interest to me.
3. Small, "niche" farmers are feeling threatened all over the state. At first, I figured that wasn't a big deal (if you aren't up to snuff you go out of business, fact of life)...until I listened to the interview with a farmer who delivers fresh (within 48 hours) milk to his customers with a minimum of processing. I can see why big farmers would want him shut down, and could use the new board to make this farmer comply to standards that eliminate his competitive edge and skyrocket his costs.
4. The supporters don't seem to be proposing this to correct problems. They seem to just want to put another regulator into the stream of business to "make sure everything is well and good"...and that just sounds fishy to me.
5. It's an amendment to the state constitution, making it very, very hard to undo once put into law. Why be so permanent about this?

At first blush, it makes a lot of sense. "Let's put some vets and farmers on a board to figure out how to take care of the animals!" Until you realize...this isn't solving a problem or addressing specific concerns. There's no real voice for the opposition. And the board would be appointed and thus safe from any feedback the public has.

The more I think about this one, the less I like it. But it's YOUR vote, dammit, so decide for yourself. Here are some links...

Safe Local Food.org (Pro)

Human Society (Against)

Columbus Dispatch (Informative)

PDF of the Amendment (Informative)

Check it out. Do some digging. Decide if I'm being paranoid or am on to something.

PS: Sorry for the late post!