Issue 3 polarizes local, state groups

By DAVID J. COEHRS

Enterprise Staff Writer

Depending on which group is asked, amending the legalization of several casinos into the Ohio constitution would be either a tremendous boon or a terrible mistake.

The hot button topic on the Nov. 3 ballot has polarized many state, regional and local organizations. Some laud the opening of casinos in Ohio's four major cities as welcome relief for both a stagnant economy and struggling employment numbers. Others say it gives away too much to special interests or shouldn't be a constitutional concern.

Ohio Issue 3, or the Four Casinos Initiative, is a proposed initiated constitutional amendment scheduled for the Nov. 3 ballot. It would amend the state constitution by allowing the construction of casinos in Cincinnati, Toledo, Columbus and Cleveland. The initiative requires a majority vote for approval.

According to the ballot language, the amendment would authorize one casino each to be built in the aforementioned cities. A fixed tax of 33 percent of the gross casino revenue received by each casino operator would be levied.

The tax would be distributed as follows:

* 51 percent shared by all 88 counties in proportion to the respective populations. Half of each county's take will go to its largest city if that city's population is above 80,000.

* 34 percent shared by all public school districts.

* 5 percent shared by all host cities.

* 3 percent to a state casino control commission to be created.

* 3 percent to the state racing commission fund.

* 2 percent to a state law enforcement fund for training.

* 2 percent to a state fund for gambling problems and addictions.

The Office of Budget and Management and Department of Taxation projects that Fulton County would receive $1,2,32,541 in overall revenue. The school districts would split an estimated $1,030,348 as follows: Swanton, $160, 892; Wauseon, $255,301; Archbold, $160,892; Evergreen, $158,667; Pettisville, $66,606 and Pike-Delta-York, $173,990. A share for the Gorham-Fayette school district was not listed.

In addition, the initial licensed casino operators will be required to pay a once-time $50 million fee to be used in state training, and a minimum $250 million initial investment in their facility. The 24/7 casinos would not be subject to zoning laws, land use laws, subdivision regulations or similar regulations.

Ohio AFL-CIO Chief of Staff Tim Burga said the union sees the amendment as part of the solution to current economic woes.

"Six hundred and fifty million dollars in tax revenue and 34,000 in jobs is why we're supporting this. We're in desperate need of good jobs," he said.

Burga said the casinos' private investors have struck an acceptable balance between what is good for them and what is salable to the state's voters. He said the proposal should be embraced, considering the length of time Ohio's policy leaders have gone without taking the initiative.

"Given the history in Ohio with this issue, no, I don't have a problem with the private investors asking the voters of Ohio to vote on this," he said.

Worries about the casinos attracting criminal activities or becoming a catalyst for gambling addictions are overstated, Burga added.

"The criminal element is proven to be false. There's so much evidence out there," he said. "(And) adults are going to find ways, if they want, to gamble. People are going to our border states. I don't think it does anything to cause any sort of great hardship above and beyond what's already there."

Burga said he has been involved with three gambling campaigns in Ohio, and the present campaign is the best he's witnessed.

The Ohio Fraternal Order of Police endorses Issue 3 because the funding mechanism allows tax revenue to go to local communities and government rather than state coffers, spokesperson Mark Drum said.

"We're talking about 34,000 jobs at a time when our economy desperately needs it. And it's guaranteed money to local schools," he said. "We're looking at a minimum of a billion dollars in investment going into those four cities."

Drum said the FOP is also pleased the money will remain in Ohio, and will be used, in part, to help individuals with gambling addictions.

He said a 2001 Department of Justice study concluded no evidence shows casinos influencing crime, although people carry that perception. He said police departments at casino sites find them good for their communities.

"They all said it's really not any different than law enforcement preparation for any large event," Drum said. "If law enforcement is prepared appropriately, we don't see any reason why casinos can't come in."

Not everyone is as enthusiastic. TruthPAC, a non-profit organization created specifically to oppose Issue 3, calls it a sweetheart deal for the casinos that will harm the state.

Citing the casinos' proposed one-time $50 million fee, spokesperson Sandy Theis noted the case of an Illinois casino that willingly paid a $435 million fee.

"Casinos know just how profitable these licenses are. If we're going to sell our constitution we should get a fair price for it," she said.

She is also angry with a 33 percent tax revenue, saying earlier this year Three Rivers Casino in Pennsylvania agreed to a 55 percent tax deal.

"That's what happens when you have the casinos writing a plan for themselves," Theis said. "I would love to write myself a tax rate and put it in the constitution. If we're going to get into the casino business, let's get a fair price and a fair licensing fee."

What especially irks TruthPAC is a clause in the amendment that would disallow churches from running traditional charity casino nights.

"The other side will tell you that's wrong, but that's baloney," Theis said. "Issue 3 is a total rip-off."

The League of Women Voters of Ohio believes the state constitution shouldn't serve as a collection of Post-It notes for various issues, Executive Director Deidra Reese said.

The LWV has no official stand on casinos in Ohio. But it feels the constitution is a more significant document than should be used for approving this issue, Reese said.

"It should deal with issues that are really relevant," she said. "This type of thing should not be in the constitution. It should be handled by legislators."

Despite its close proximity to Toledo, Swanton Police Chief Ron Moore doesn't think a Toledo casino will hold any consequences for the village.

"We're probably going to have traffic going through here to there, but I really haven't thought too much about it. I don't think we're close enough to really be affected," he said.

Pastor Dan Schilling, of Wilkins United Methodist Church in Swanton Township, said an area casino would be a detriment.

"When you think of what kind of business you want to have in your community if you're a family person, a casino is not it," he said.

Not only would individuals and families be more vulnerable to gambling addiction, but a casino would "lower the overall level of integrity" of an area trying to attract new business, he said.