Thursday, October 29, 2009

Issue 3: The Best Law Money Can Buy

I listened with great interest when representatives of Penn National were interviewed on Monday on Brian Wilson's show on 1370 WSPD AM. Because I have been rather vocal on the subject, writing columns on the subject for The Toledo Free Press, calling in on WSPD, and commenting on some of the local blogs; I wanted to make sure that I had the facts straight and understood the issue before election day. I was also curious to hear what those most desiring this Issue's passage had to say on the subject. 

I urge you to follow this link to a podcast of this interview on the WSPD website. I attempted to listen with an open mind, and here is what I got from the interview.
  • Yes passage of this issue will provide Penn National with a monopoly on casino gambling, but only in Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo (three of these probably being the best markets in the state).
  • Anyone else who wants a casino can build one, but not in these four cities. They have only to approach the state legislature to build one in another city like Dayton or Youngstown however.
  • These casinos will bring money and employment wherever they go, with jobs galore and tax revenues to help bailout the budgeting process in every bloated city government where they will be (for those of you not paying attention, this is sarcasm).
  • Additional money will get funneled to the state, which likewise still shows no sign of realistic budgeting. Gambling will therefore help to prop up their equally inflated spending practices.
  • Local contractors will be used and a "fair wage" will be paid to all workers. This is what is commonly known as a sop to Democratic, heavily unionized jurisdictions to insure either their silence or their active cooperation through jobs at union scale.
The bottom line here is that sure, this issue will create a constitutional monopoly on gambling in these four cities, but doing so is OK because Penn National has put so much effort and money into getting the issue on the ballot, let alone passed. In other words, a bad law is OK in their book as long as it is properly bought and paid for. (This, for those of you who have not read their history, is the way the the railroads were built to join east to west in this country during the 19th Century. This was not particularly one of this country's shining hours.) 

Issue 3 may not be the best law for providing casino gambling in Ohio, but there is little doubt when listening to those who would benefit most from it, that it is "The Best Law Money Can Buy". 


Roland Hansen said...

I already voted. On this issue as with Issue 2, I voted no.

Tim Higgins said...


Our continued agreement on political subjects is beginning to concern me.

Hooda Thunkit (Dave Zawodny) said...


I also already voted no, as I long ago came to the same conclusion that Penn National, through its actions, has pretty much locked everyone else out of the market and have gotten away with dictating ALL of the terms FOR themselves.

If it passes, Ohio will soon regret not taking a proactive approach that would have given them the right to hegotiate with all interested parties.

This IMNHO is a very bad law for everyone except Penn National. . .

Roland Hansen said...

Well, Tim,

I believe in deciding how to vote on the issues and candidates on their individual merits. I try to use some logical and objective reasoning. I realize you are guilty of the same.

Many people who vote oftentimes do not use their brains. At least, not to the fullest possible extent that the brain power can be utilized. Why in the world would we want to give up rights to an "exclusive" power or entity. While I may favor casinos, although not being a big gambler myself, I see no reason that there should be a monopoly or state-wide geographical and numerical limitation on such enterprises. Nor do I believe I need "Big Brother" to be the protector of any moral or social cause in the specific subject of casinos.

I believe that there certainly is way too much use of state constitutional amendment processes. The constitution should be more an overall guideline and protector of rights as is the national constitution. We have a general assembly with the authority and responsibility of enabling and enacting legislation. That is the methodology that should be followed in regards to the casino issue in Ohio.

Back to that comment of mine about using brains, I wish to make another comment for purposes of slamming a group of folks. NONVOTERS must have no brains or else they would not consciously decide to allow others to exercise such power over their lives.
(oops, does this make me a flaming troll?)

Furthermore, I think our amigo Dave the Z Hooda Thunkit is absolutely correct in his perspective of negotiating with all interested parties.