Wednesday, October 15, 2008


This is the most hotly debated constitutional amendment in the state, and there are some interesting arguments either way and I'm not fully convinced on my own position here, but I'm goign to say this:

Why? Not because this particular casino is the best thing in the world. In fact, I would argue it's probably not. The amendment is written strangely and, even though I'm no legal scholar, I can definitely see the argument that it's possible, in the future, the taxes could be lowered to zero. But make sure you read exactly what is being said: it could be lowered, and it's possible.

Not that it is. 

Here's my point: how many times has Ohio been given the opportunity to move forward? We've said no to slot machines before -- for the love of god -- and we've said no to public transportation -- which is silly, now -- and we've said no to gay marriage (and probably would have said no to equal rights had it come to the ballot in 2006). We keep saying no on simply going forward with our lives.

Rather, we want to wait to be the final state in the country to do anything. I think this is a chance we should take as a state. I think the huge successes of the out of state casinos should be used as a model of how beneficial this could be. After all, what does it say that Argosy is running the No on 6 campaign? Says to me that they are scared that people from Ohio will stay in Ohio. 

Both sides are funded by rich businessmen. Both sides are trying to get your money one way or another.

To my mind, I would rather the money stay in Ohio. Even if the taxes go down later (which would mean more casino's have opened, which means more money, btw), there are still jobs to consider, and lets talk about peripheral businesses. Gas stations, what? Restaurants? Hotels? Other entertainment venues??? 

If you are so hot on economic development, this is what we call a tax break to spur development, and it's crazy that we should be opposing it just because maybe sometime in the future there may be fewer taxes generated. That's not an argument, that's a scare tactic. Even for the first year, we could see upwards of $800million or more raised from people doing nothing more than simply throwing cash at a machine. We've raised money in more complicated manners in the past.

Let's stop fighitng it, and let's grow up, Ohio. 

Yes on 6. 


Michi said...

I don't know sweetheart, I mean I can't vote or anything, BUT I think No on 6 is the way to go. They want to build it in one of the poorest counties in the state no? -- and the same proposition was supposed to 'revitalize' Detroit-- look where that got THAT city. *shrugs* I could be wrong on this one, but I have a feeling, given the opportunity to participate in this crazy thing called the democratic process, I would vote no.

Miss you and love you so much, let's skype date soon.


Unknown said...

My response: so we allow a company build a business, hire people, and conduct business. I'm confused about the problem. I don't understand why it's such a big deal to let people build a business that is likely to be successful.

You know?

Anonymous said...

because when you say 'let's stop fighting it,' the 'it' in this case is ONE very specific, geographically-based casino. There's something about amending a state's constitution to--in essence--establish a 'special economic zone' in an effort to circumvent previous ballot initiatives that seems to continue a dangerous precedent.

Let's STOP the abuse of constitutional amendments, and set up a referendum on the issue, and then I'm all for it.

Not Important said...

Jazmine reflects my views pretty accurately. I plan to vote no for two main reasons. First, I've become very distressed by the number of issues that become constitutional amendments in this state, when they really should be laws, so I'm voting against those kinds of amendments on that principle. Second, this issue would allow one, and only one, casino in Ohio with very specific rules.