Under casino plan, Ohio is a loser

If you like FirstEnergy, American Electric Power and Dayton Power & Light, you'll love State Issue 3. The casino amendment Penn National Gaming and Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert slapped onto November's statewide ballot would entrench another monopoly in Ohio -- this one statewide, on steroids.

[Eva]

WE have too many of them in Ohio - greedy, grasping lobby. By next year's report, OHIO WILL HAVE FOUR OR FIVE CITIES ON THE POVERTY LIST. SHAME.

[Louis]

A state protected monopoly for an entertainment business is insane. The proposal is written by they very people that would benefit from it. There's no way they would put in such things as a fair tax rate or a fair license fee. If we really want casinos in Ohio there are certainly better ways to do it.

[zal8923]

Issue three is not presenting the best way to bring gambling into Ohio. If people are really intrested in bringing gambling into Ohio they should vote no to Issue three and yes to this alternative plan. And Dan Gilbert whose a main person in Issue three's campaign who's previously been arrested for an illegal bookie operation is asking for our trust. I don't think so

[Fee Sees]

Ohio is a loser? Isn't that the whole idea behind casinos? And bankster bailouts

[joshlang58]

How can we be expected to trust Issue three while they are being investigated for possible campaign law violations. Issue three is offering a casino at a huge cost. There is a better option as seen in this article and we need to thank the author for publishing this.

[Haywood Jablome]

"measured, no doubt, by ... flexible ... bookkeeping"

Tax rates shouldn't be set assuming that the party being taxed will cheat. Pure assumption; there's no reason to think the casinos would act illegally.

[goBrowns56]

Wow...so many distortions in this article, from the claims that Dan Gilbert "slapped this one" the ballot (sorry, Tom, state laws don't work that way) to the claim that "A tax on gross casino revenue would produce no real money to balance Ohio's state budget," to the statement that "four other states would write laws that also applied in Ohio." Amazingly biased.

Suddes' own stated figures show that Ohio would get a lot of money out of the casino issue, but apparently "only 33%" doesn't count as actual revenue to him. Well, Tom, how many other Ohio businesses pay a straight 33% out of their gross take? Interesting that you then refer to the gross as the "net amount gambled." Which is it, the gross or the net?

Badly written and unconvincing, if not downright distorted.

[goBrowns56]

Haywood Jablome wrote:

"measured, no doubt, by ... flexible ... bookkeeping"
Tax rates shouldn't be set assuming that the party being taxed will cheat. Pure assumption; there's no reason to think the casinos would act illegally.

Exactly, that one bordered on outright libel.

[sue]

shouldnt matter much who gets rich to me its about our freedoms and to many have been taken already we should have the right to gamble in our own state