Xenia Ohio Citizen Journal

Election 2009 : The Issues

What are the issues?

Xenia

Issue 28
Xenia Community City School District Bond Issue and Tax Levy
Principal amount $34,670,000 to be paid over a 38 year period
Commencing 2009 and ending 2047
And 0.5 mill commencing 2009 with no ending date
For permanent improvements

Shall the Xenia Community School District, Greene and Warren Counties, Ohio be authorized to do the following:

(1) Issue bonds for the purpose of constructing school facilities under the state of Ohio Classroom Facilities Assistance Program and related facilities, including science and community meeting space; renovating, improving, and constructing additions to exiting facilities; furnishing and equipping the same, including enhanced safety and security devices; improving the sites thereof; and acquiring land and interests in land, in the principal amount of $34,670,000, to be repaid annually over a maximum period of thirty-eight (38) years, and levy a property tax outside the ten mill limitation, estimated by the county auditor to average over the bond repayment period two and seven tenths (2.7) mills for each one hundred dollars of valuation, which amounts to twenty-seven cents ($0.27) for each one hundred dollars of valuation, to pay the annual debt charges on the bonds, and to pay debt charges on any notes issued in anticipation of those bonds?

(2) Levy an additional property tax to provide for the acquisition, construction, enlargement, renovation, and financing of permanent improvements for the at a rate not exceeding one-half (0.5) mill for each one dollar of tax valuation, which amounts to five ($0.05) cents for each one hundred dollars of tax valuation, for a continuing period of time, commencing in 2009, first due in the calendar year 2010?

What’s good about it:

Five new elementary schools will replace the present 7 buildings. Xenia High School, Warner Middle School, and Central Middle School will remain; the new schools will be on the current sites at Cox, McKinley, Shawnee and Tecumseh, and between Warner MS and Arrowood.

New schools means higher academic success by students. Higher student success will result from improved lighting, running water in labs, indoor air quality and appropriate temperature control through more efficient mechanical systems. Also facilitating greater academic achievement will be updated technology in every classroom.

The new elementary schools will be fully handicap accessible.

Cameras, sprinkler systems and security and fire alarm systems will ensure greater student safety at all of the new elementary schools.

The cost of building five new schools will be offset by reduced maintenance costs.

The construction of the new schools will produce positive economic impacts for Xenia business and workers. The $54 million project equates to $27 million in construction and an estimated $24 million in labor costs. Ohio School Facilities Commission uses a figure of 11 jobs per million dollars of construction costs. This translate to more than 520 jobs over the course of the project — this means 130 individual jobs could be local workers. Local hotels and restaurants will also see increased projects from construction teams. Indeed, this project could create jobs as well as increased income taxes on workers for the City of Xenia.

Xenia taxpayers will pay only 54 percent of the total amount to rebuild the 5 new elementary schools. The state “tobacco” money will fund the other 46 percent, but this is the last chance to obtain those funds.

A Xenia homeowner whose property is valued at $100,000 will only pay $98 more a year in taxes. Senior citizens and others who qualify for tax roll-backs will pay a little over $73 a year.

What’s bad about it:

The text of the bond issue shows how Xenia school officials have attempted to deceive voters. School officials and supporters have been telling Xenia taxpayers that the state will not fund renovations and repairs of our schools. They claim the state will fund 5 new school buildings. Yet, the above text repeatedly states the $34,670,000 is for renovations, improvements, additions, and other improvements of existing sites. If the state would not fund such projects, they certainly would not have approved the legal spending provisions stated above.

The State of Ohio recently received federal stimulus money. $3 million has been designated for Xenia Schools. This money can be used to repair our schools until the economy actually does recover, which financial advisors say may be 3 to 5 years.

The clause “and acquire land and interest in land also shows the intention of school officials to buy property on St. Rt.. 42 to later build a new high school complex. How much of the $54 million will go to purchase land is not disclosed nor is amount that may be use for intended repairs. Maybe they intend to renovate the central office building. Whatever buildings they use the money to repair, the state obviously doesn’t have a problem with using for that purpose.

Voters should notice that the $34,670,000 is only the principal amount of the bond issue. That means the real amount of the bond will be considerably higher. The higher amount will go to pay dividends to investors who purchased the bonds. If the bond coupon or interest rate is 5 percent, the interest payments incurred by Xenia taxpayers will be approximately $33.7 million over the 38 years. If the rate is only 3 percent, the addition amount paid in taxes will be around $22 million. If, however, zero-coupon bonds are offered to investors, the schools will receive something like $15 million at a 3% return-on-investment and final payout $34.57 million. Those are all good reasons for only stating the principal amount of the bond and the millage amount.

The proponents of the bond issue were careful to state that the economic impacts resulting from the construction of the new schools might produce new jobs. There are no guarantees that any Xenia resident will actually get a job related to their construction. Any jobs, sales taxes, additional income taxes the city might gain or increased profits local businesses might enjoy will be temporary. No new jobs will actually result from the new schools. Building new schools will actually result in jobs lost. There will be two fewer principals, assistant principals, secretaries, janitors, maintenance, food service personnel, and possibly some teachers at Xenia Community Schools. The reduction of jobs will lower costs, but will it really improve the quality of education in Xenia?

It is true that new school building will provide a better physical environment. This might improve learning. The question is whether violating the Ohio Revised Code about building small schools will outweigh creating an improved physical environment. Learning is about adult and child interaction. Small neighborhood schools provide the best learning environment. Various studies of types of schools and districts across the nation have proven that small schools–not just small classes–provide the best environment for both teachers and students. The consolidation plan of the school board violates the parameters of both known educational principles and state law. All which suggests the need for 7 or may 8 elementary schools in every Xenia neighborhood, not fewer.

State funding for the bond issue raises a serious ethical issue. State governments originally sued the tobacco companies to the rising costs to treat cancer patients that one poor southern state was unable cover. The states discovered some unethical advertising practices by the tobacco companies which was used to justify the litigation and the $200 billion dollar settlement. Ohio received around $10 billion. The money was supposed to cover both health care of cancer patients and for cancer prevention. How then does building new school do either. The logical conclusion is states like Ohio extorted money from those companies by force of judicial opinion and legitimates it by funding education. Like the poor, educating children has become a cover for corrupt acts by state officials, which may explain why all communities must build new schools.

Unquestioningly, replacing the oldest schools would benefit Xenia citizens in many ways. So would replacing all of the 40-50 year old homes. Keeping buildings in good repair is the least thing Xenia school officials should do. Yet, if they had fulfilled that obligation, they would have been unable to demonstrate the dire need to rebuild five new schools.

Then, there is the spring underlying the reason for eliminating South Hills neighborhood elementary school. Xenia officials would have voters believe that an underground spring that occasionally overflows through unrepaired cracks in the basement of Spring Hill Elementary renders that site unfit for building a new school. Many schools are built without basements. With the proper landscaping, new buildings are built on sites with underground springs without flooding. School officials do not plan on rebuilding one of the oldest schools in Xenia not because the site is unsafe but because only 5 schools has been approved.

Bond Issue 28 is a no-win proposal. A few may win but many more will lose, but there may be a solution.

If the average homeowner could afford $8 dollars a month to pay for the bond issue, which would be the additional amount he or she would pay for a home valued at $100,000, maybe the same would be willing to pay an average of $12-$14 just to eliminate their dependency on the State. Investors might still get a return on their investment of around 4 percent. Better yet, our levies could be used create an investment fund for building new schools over a 30 year period would grow interest comparable to the amount of debt taxpayers will give to investors in interest. That would really benefit all members of the Xenia community.

Special Election By Petition
Local Option-Sale of Hard Liquor Permit
Xenia City-Precinct #301

Shall the sale of wine and mixed drinks and spirituous liquor be permitted on Sunday between the hours of one p.m. and midnight by E. A. Montes, Corp., dba Los Mariachis Mexican Restaurant an applicant for a D-6 liquor permit who is engaged in the business of restaurant operation at 608 N. Detroit Street, Xenia, Ohio 45385 in this precinct?

What’s good about it?

If passed, Los Mariachis Mexican will increase profits while providing beverages some patrons want.

What’s bad about it:

Allowing this restaurant to sell wine and hard liquor means patrons will be drinking and driving, which in Ohio is illegal.

Greene County

Issue 5
Greene County Mental Health and Recovery Board Renewal
1.5 mills; commencing 2009 and ending 2013
Operating Community Mental Health

Is a renewal of a tax for the benefit of Greene County Mental Health and Recovery Board for the purpose of Operation, Maintenance and Financing Of Mental Health and Recovery Board of Greene County Programs and Facilities at a rate of 1.5 mills for each dollar of valuation, which amounts to $0.15 for each one hundred dollar of valuation, for a period of four years, commencing in 2009, first due in calendar year 2010.

What’s good about it:

Issue 5 is a renewal that will not increase taxes in Greene County.

It will enable the Board to continue providing services like suicide prevention, drug and alcohol services, help for the homeless, counseling, Women’s Recovery Center, services to local schools, police and courts. Over 10,000 residents of the benefit from these services each year. In these stressful times, these services may be needed even more.

What’s bad about it:

Last year, the Greene County Mental Health and Recovery Board tried to pass a 1.5 mil operating levy that would have increased taxes. Now, they want taxpayers to extend the current levy another 4 years.

The Board’s campaign brochure showcases those who have been genuinely helped by their services. Obviously, they will want taxpayers to support the levy, but what about those who have not been helped. No one hears about them. The worst thing about the levy is that there are 10,000 to many needing help. What would eliminate likely reduce a significant number of citizens needing help for metal health issue is a end to what sociologists call state-based structural violence.

Issue 6
Greene County Council on Aging Replacement Levy
1 mill commencing 2009 and ending 2013
Operating Senior Council on Aging

Is a replacement of 0.8 mill of an existing levy and an increase of 0.2 mill to constitute a tax for benefit of Greene County Council on Aging, for the purpose of Providing Service For Senior Citizens Through The Greene County Council on Aging, Including But Not Limited To Emergency Response Systems, Home-Delivered Meals, In Home Care, Adult Day Care Caregiver Support and respite, at a rate not exceeding 1 mill for each dollar of valuation, which amounts to $0.10 for each one hundred dollar of valuation, commencing with 2009, first due in calendar year 2010.

What’s good about it:

What isn’t good about helping seniors. The Council provides needed services to thousands of elderly citizens. With an increasing population of senior citizens, an expansion of services to the elderly is need more than ever.

What’s bad about it:

It will cost taxpayers more money. A taxpayer whose property is worth $100,000 will pay approximately $36 dollars more a year in taxes.

Issue 7
Greene County Library Renewal
1 mill commencing 2010 and ending 2015
Current Operating Expenses

Is a renewal of a tax for the benefit of Greene County Library for the purpose of Current Expenses at a rate not exceeding 1 mill for each dollar of valuation, which amounts to $0.10 for each one hundred dollars of valuation, for five years, commencing in 2010, first due in calendar year 2011.

What’s good about it:

Issue 7 is a levy renewal, which means no new taxes.

The Greene County Public Libraries provide a variety of valuable resources that are available all citizens. They provide families with school aged children with a host of learning materials. The library loan program enables adults as well as children to obtain almost any book, article, or video, or other digital information of interest. The libraries also have needed information of importance to professional in a variety of fields. They are also an valuable source for job hunters and those exploring career options. Moreover, the libraries offers an variety of learning and entertainment programs and facilities for community meetings. All of these services provide local communities benefits that outweigh their non-increasing costs. The social betterment of local citizens is an indirect benefit to all members of a community, one not often acknowledged.

What’s bad about it:

In tough economic times, tax revenues must be maintained for libraries to continue providing the services many taxpayers and their children enjoy. For those who do not use their local library, the cost is greater than the benefit. For some who do use Greene County Libraries, there does seem to be a partisan bias in the selection of political and scientific literature, which is not be acceptable.

Ohio

Issue 1
Proposed Constitutional Amendment to authorize the state to issue bonds to provide compensation to veterans of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts

This proposed amendment would:

1. Authorize the state to issue up to two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) of bonds to provide compensation to veterans of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq conflicts, and to pay for the administration of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts Compensation Bond Retirement Fund and the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts Compensation Fund.

2. Authorize the Ohio Department of Veterans Services to provide compensation to persons who have served in active duty in the United States armed forces at any time during the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq conflicts and who were Ohio residents at the start of active duty services and are current Ohio residents.

As explained in by the Secretary of State, the Ohio Department of Veterans Services would provide stipends of $100 a month for a total of $1,000 for Ohio veterans who served in the noted conflicts. Those did serve in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan or Iraq during those conflicts but who served elsewhere at the time of those conflicts would still receive a $50 stipend a month to a total of $500.

3. Allow certain survivors to receive the same compensation as the person who served in the armed forces would have received, if that person dies or is designated as missing in action or held in enemy captivity.

The family members of qualified deceased Ohio veterans who served during the noted conflicts could apply for a $5,000 death benefit. The same family members possibly could apply for and receive the same stipends in addition to the death benefit.

4. Authorize the state to issue bonds only for the time period from the effective date of this amendment until December 31, 2013.

If approved this amendment would take effect immediately.

What’s good about it:

Proponents of this constitutional amendment want to give a deserved bonus to veterans and their families. Who could argue that Ohio veterans, like many other Ohioans, could use a few extra dollars. Like the rest of us, many veterans and their families have been adversely affected by the on-going recession. Why would anyone not vote to support Ohio veterans?

What’s bad about it:

When state coffers are filled with a sizeable surplus, it makes sense to give some additional financial support to veterans. However, Ohio government is facing a considerable deficit problems, which is one reason to oppose this constitutional amendment. While the state is trying to budget for a $9 billion deficit, adding $200 million plus millions more in interest payments again demonstrates the extent of our politicians’ fiscal irresponsibility. And like the rest of us, other sources and programs already exist to help with financial difficulties, e.g., unemployment. Creating more public debt to give a financial bonus to veterans cannot be justified no matter how much they may deserve it and neither can using veteran bonuses as a cloak to solve state budgetary problems.

According to some media reports, if issue one passes, each Ohio taxpayers will pay between $24 to $50 over the next 15 years according to some media reports. At that rate, communities could create their own funds to support veterans in need without changing the Constitution or creating more public debt.

Issue 2
Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to Establish and Implement Standards of Care for Livestock and Poultry

1. Require the state to create the Livestock Care Standards Board to prescribe standards for animal care and well-being that endeavor to maintain food safety, encourage locally grown and raised food, and protect Ohio farms and families.

2. Authorize this bipartisan board of thirteen members to consider factors that include, butare not limited to, agricultural best management practices for such care and well-being, bio-security, disease prevention, animal morbidity and mortality data, food safety practices, and the protection of local, affordable food supplies for consumers when establishing and implementing standards.

3. Provide that the board shall be comprised of thirteen Ohio residents including representatives of Ohio family farms, farming organizations, food safety experts,
veterinarians, consumers, the dean of the agriculture department at an Ohio college or university and a county humane society representative.

4. Authorize the Ohio department that regulates agriculture to administer and enforce the standards established by the board, subject to the authority of the General Assembly.

If adopted, this amendment shall take effect immediately.

As explained by the Secretary of State, The Amended Substitute Senate Joint Resolution Number 6 (SJR 6) would require the state to create the Livestock Care Standards Board to prescribe standards for animal care and well-being that endeavor to maintain food safety, encourage locally grown and raised food, and protect Ohio farms and families.

The Board would establish standards after considering agricultural best management practices, biosecurity, disease prevention, animal morbidity/mortality data, food safety practices, and the protection of local, affordable food supplies.

The bi-partisan Board would be comprised of thirteen members with expertise in farming, animal care, and food safety issues, and chaired by the director of the state department that regulates agriculture.

The Governor will appoint ten members of the Board, as follows:

• One representing family farmers
• One knowledgeable about food safety in Ohio
• Two representing Ohio farming organizations
• One who is a veterinarian
• The State Veterinarian
• The dean of the agriculture department of an Ohio college or university
• One representing a county humane society in Ohio
• Two representing Ohio’s consumers

The Leaders of the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio Senate will each appoint a family farmer to the Board.

Authority of General Assembly under SJR 6: Standards and rules developed by the Board would be subject to the authority of the General Assembly.

What’s good about it?

Ohioans for Livestock Care Political Action Committee represents the views of proponents like Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Ohio Corn Growers Association, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Grocers Association, Ohio Soybean Association, Ohio Poultry Association, Ohio Cattlemen’s Association, and Ohio Dairy Producers Association. The Committee give seven reasons for voting in favor of Issue 2.

1. Issue 2 is Ohio’s plan to assure excellent care for Ohio livestock and poultry while guaranteeing a safe food supply that is locally grown and reasonably priced. With Issue 2, Ohio will have the most progressive and comprehensive law in the nation to guarantee the well-being of livestock and poultry.

2. The Board created by Issue 2 will bring a wide range of the best Ohio expertise available to establish rules for care of live stock and poultry. These will include experts in animal care, food safety, farm management, veterinary care, academia, humane society operations and consumer interest. The
Board will be required to consider food safety, animal health and mortality, biosecurity, consumer concerns and good farm practices in setting animal care rules.

3. Rules created under Issue 2 are needed to provide for excellent livestock care as well as to protect Ohio’s number one economic contributor, agriculture, which
provides $93 billion and 924,000 jobs to Ohio’s economy, and to protect Ohio’s family farms.

4. The I s sue 2 Livestock Care Standards Board will be fully accountable to voter s through our elected Governor and legislative leaders who make appointments to the Board, and through our senators who must approve Board
nominees. Furthermore, Issue 2 preserves the full right of legislative action and initiative law and constitutional amendments.

5. Issue 2 is a far better plan than extreme measures offered by Washington-based advocates for veganism and “animal rights” who seek extreme, costly, anti-farming regulations that will burden the production of meat, milk and eggs until these products are no longer affordable to Ohioans.

6. Unwise and extreme regulation would drive agriculture from Ohio, putting thousands of Ohio farmers out of work, reducing our local supply of food, and forcing us to rely on food production from other states, and other countries like Mexico and China. Issue 2 will assure a balanced approach to livestock care rules reflecting broad input, rather than input from a single interest group.

7. Meat, milk and eggs account for nearly 70 percent of the protein in Ohio diets, protein essential for growth of our children and health of adults. Large increase s in the
prices of protein that would result from unwise, extreme regulation would hurt Ohio families , and be devastating to poor families and their children. The Issue 2 Board would produce standards and regulations based on science and research, and with the input of all interested parties, including consumers.

What’s bad about it?

The Humane Society offers a good argument against voting for Issue 2. Their argument is made by the following six points.

1. Issue 2 seeks to stop animal welfare improvements. Agribusiness interests are trying to change the Ohio constitution so they can continue cruel and inhumane practices on factory farms—confining animals in tiny cages and crates so small they can’t even turn around. Issue 2 proposes an industry-dominated power grab to protect the status quo: hens crammed into cages so tightly they can’t even spread their wings, breeding pigs confined in tiny barren crates and calves chained by their necks inside veal crates. We wouldn’t force our pets to live in filthy, cramped cages for their whole lives, and we shouldn’t force farm animals to either. All animals, including those raised for food, deserve humane treatment.

2. Issue 2 threatens our food safety and health. Factory farmers have put our health at risk by recklessly telling us that it’s okay to keep animals in overcrowded, inhumane conditions. Cramming tens of thousands of animals into tiny cages fosters the spread of animal diseases that may affect people. For example, the American Journal of Epidemiology reported that people who eat eggs from hens confined in cages are 250% more likely to contract Salmonella. The extreme confinement of animals is also a major factor in the emergence of diseases like H5N1 and H1N1 (bird and swine flu). Passing Issue 2 would be bad for animals—and bad for us.

3. Issue 2 favors large factory farms, not Ohio’s family farmers. Family farmers and groups like the Ohio Farmers Union and Family Farm Defenders oppose Issue 2 because they know that food quality and safety are enhanced by better farming practices. Increasingly, they are supplying mainstream retailers like Safeway and Burger King. Factory farms cut corners and drive family farmers out of business when they put profits ahead of animal welfare and our health.

4. Issue 2 threatens Ohio’s environment. The American Public Health Association has called for a moratorium on new factory farms because of the devastating effects these operations can have on surrounding communities. Factory farms often spread waste on the ground untreated—contaminating our waterways, lakes, groundwater, soil, and air. By helping keep the worst animal confinement practices in Ohio, Issue 2 threatens our precious natural resources—that’s why the Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance and Ohio Sierra Club oppose it.

5. Issue 2 sets Ohio backwards, while other states are moving forward. Seven states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, and Oregon—have banned the use of inhumane confinement devices for farm animals. In the European Union, veal crates are illegal, as are barren battery cages (effective 2012) and gestation crates (effective 2013). Rather than make advances to help farmers, consumers, and animal welfare, Issue 2 will ensure that Ohio lags behind other states and public opinion when it comes to the treatment of farm animals and movement away from the worst factory farming practices.

6. Issue 2 is opposed by leading organizations and experts. Issue 2 is opposed by The Humane Society of the United States, the Capital Area Humane Society, the Cleveland Animal Protective League, the Toledo Area Humane Society, the Ohio Farmers Union, the Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance, Progress Ohio, League of Women Voters of Ohio, Center for Food Safety, the Ohio Sierra Club, Ohio Ecological Food and Farming Association, the Columbus Dispatch, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the Dayton Daily News.

XCJ opposes this issue because it would give factory farms a constitutional cover from the harm their operations consistently cause. How many times has corporations who have polluted the environment with toxic waste that produced disease and death were exposed not by government regulators but by citizens whose lives were adversely affected by corporate malfeasance. Many documented incidence prove factory farms are no different. Passing Issue 2 will inevitable result in types of regulation applicable only to industrial farm production being equally applied to small and medium sized farms (actual family farms). Because the cost of compliance is large, small and medium family farms are driven out of farming. Issue 2 will do greater harm to the entrepreneurial family farm than it will help. It gives big agribusiness constitutionally guaranteed profitability under the façade of protecting our health and happiness. The FDA is an example of political bureaucracy protecting the interest of large corporation over all others. The rights, interests, and health of the general citizenry needs constitutional protection not agribusiness.

Issue 3

Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Allow for One Casino Each in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo and Distribute to All Ohio Counties a Tax on the Casinos

This proposed amendment would:

1. Authorize only one casino facility at a specifically designated location within each of the cities of Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo.

2. Levy a fixed tax of 33% of gross casino revenue received by each casino operator of the four casino facilities.

3. Distribute the casino tax as follows:

• 51% among all 88 counties in proportion to such counties’ respective populations. Half of each county’s distribution will go to its largest city if that city’s population is above 80,000.
• 34% among all public school districts
• 5% among all host cities
• 3% to the Ohio casino control commission
• 3% to the Ohio state racing commission fund
• 2% to a state law enforcement training fund
• 2% to a state problem gambling and addictions fund

4. Require each initial licensed casino operator to pay a single $50,000,000 fee to be used for state job training purposes and make a minimum initial investment of $250,000,000 in its facility.

5. Permit approved types of casino gaming authorized by Michigan, West Virginia, Indiana, and Pennsylvania as of January 1, 2009 or games subsequently authorized by those states.

6. Authorize the casinos to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, at the discretion of the casino operator and require that the casino facilities shall be subject to all state and local laws and provisions related to health and building codes, but that no local zoning, land use laws, subdivision regulations or similar provisions shall prohibit the development or operation of the casinos at the designated sites.

7. Create the Ohio casino control commission which will license and regulate casino operators, management companies retained by such casino operators, key employees, gaming-related vendors, and all gaming authorized by this constitutional provision.

What’s good about it:

The proposal authorizes four first-class casinos, located at specific sites in Ohio’s four largest cities –Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus and Toledo.

The proposal requires a minimum of $250 million in private economic investment in first-class casinos in each of Ohio’s four largest cities – a total of $1 billion in required economic investment.

The state will also receive upfront license fee payments totaling $200 million, specifically designated for job training and workforce development projects.

Gross casino revenues will be taxed at a rate of 33 percent. Based on estimated annual gross casino revenues of $1.97 billion, approximately $651 million in casino tax revenue will be generated each year, with counties and Ohio schools receiving the bulk of those revenues. (See Distribution of Casino Tax Revenues.)

The proposal will create an estimated 34,000 new jobs for the state.

Ohio’s neighboring states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Indiana) as well as New York and the Canadian province of Ontario all have one or more form of legalized gaming generating hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues annually for each.

A bipartisan commission – funded through casino tax revenues – will be created to develop rules for casino gaming in Ohio, license casino operators, and to oversee and ensure the integrity of casino operations.

Portions of the casino tax revenue are also designated for the host cities; for the Ohio State Racing Commission to help revitalize the state’s horse racing industry; for law enforcement training; and for research and treatment of problem gambling and substance abuse.

Primary backers of the proposal are Dan Gilbert (majority owner of the NBA’s Cleveland Cavaliers and Chairman and Founder of Quicken Loans) and Penn National Gaming, Inc., a prominent owner and operator of casinos and racetracks, including Raceway Park in Toledo.

What’s bad about it:

What is so good about limiting casinos to just 4 urban cities? First, people in urban areas are more liberal in their views. The current and past attempts to make casino operations a constitutional right have all been largely favored by liberal legislators and organizations. By limiting introduction of casino gambling into Ohio to the major urban cities, the out-of-state owners and their legislative supporters will have a better chance of winning.

Second, voters outside those 4 major cities will more likely vote for it because they are likely to believe casino gambling will not affect them or their cities. If this strategy succeeds, the problem associated with casino gambling can only spread over time throughout the state as more casinos are built.

Third, if Ohio voters can justify allowing allow big city commercial casinos, casinos anywhere will eventually be justified as well. Fourth, once a casino exits in Ohio, Indians will be able to buy or build their own casinos, which will effectively end all local or state jurisdiction over Indian owned casinos in Ohio. Why? Because property owned by Indians are subject only to federal government jurisdiction according to federal law.

Out-of-state ownership is another problem with Issue 3. The net profits of the proposed casinos will not remain in the state. Millions of dollars will still leave Ohio to those states where the owners reside. If casinos are allowed in Ohio, millions of more local dollars will eventually leave Ohio for foreign countries where foreign owners reside.

Many of the above selling points have been heard repeatedly in television commercials. As many a press article has pointed out, they are misleading.

The $1 billion in economic development not only is limited to the 4 cities but also limited to the development of the casinos. What benefit those funds have on their areas will be short lived. The beneficial economic impacts will limited to the period of construction. After this period, negative economic impacts will begin. Why? Casinos usually have their own hotels, restaurants, recreation facilities, and retail outlets. As a result, other businesses close, wage rates decrease, job loss increases, crime increases, addiction increases, as well as other social problems.

As opponents have repeatedly claimed in their political advertisements, the state will not receive 33 percent of the casinos real gross receipt. They claim a loophole created by the amendment will enable casino owner to avoid paying taxes on wagering. Although the loophole is real, the way opponents state it is a little misleading as well. What the amendment says is that casinos will only have to pay the 33 percent tax on after winnings paid out to gamblers.

“Gross casino revenue” means the total amount of money exchanged for the purchase of chips, tokens, tickets, electronic cards, or similar objects by casino patrons, less winnings paid to wagerers.

Using the term “gross” receipts is an obvious attempt to deceive. Most people would equate gross receipts with gross income or gross sales. Any taxes the state will receive is in fact net receipts (or adjusted gross receipts) and not a true 33 percent of real gross receipts.

The claim of 34,000 new jobs is also misleading. Many of the new jobs related to the construction of the casinos will be temporary. The majority of new jobs at the casinos will pay low wages. As pointed in the Hillcrest College study, no casino employs more than 1,200 employees. Thus, permanent new jobs at the 4 casinos would not be more than 4,600. Based on previous cost-benefit studies, casinos will create significant job loss not only in the 4 cities but also elsewhere in Ohio. They cause decreases in yearly wages and sales revenues as well. (Economic Study of A Omaha, Nebraska Casino, Prepared for the Greater Omaha Nebraska Chamber of Commerce by Ernest Goss, August 12, 2002.)

The estimated annual gross revenue of the 4 casinos is $1.9 billion, which will generate an estimated $651 million. The amount that will be distributed to county governments is $332 million and to public schools will be a little over $221 million. Greene County will receive no more than $539,000. Each school in Greene County will receive no more than $359,000. Those figures are based the assumption that the public will believe they are relatively accurate and not overly inflated. As the Hiram College Study also points out, past estimates have been unreliable. “Keno was projected to have annual revenues $73M, but revenues were less than half of that figure ($30M).”

Many people think casinos will greatly increase out-of-state tourism revenues. Past and present economic studies show this is not the case. The same studies reveal that 70-90 percent of casino patrons are local. That is why casino has major negative economic impact other local businesses and recreational organizations.

Proponents of the Issue 3 did not neglect the negative social impacts their casinos will have on their local communities and the state. They have designated 2 percent or $13 million for training of more police to defend against crime their casinos will produce, and another $13 million for programs and treatment of patrons with gambling and related addictions. In other words, they will pay to help the damage caused by their highly profitable vice. The problem is no amount of money can repair the harm done to reputable businesses, to rape victims, to robbery victims, to families destroyed by gambling, or the damage to the lives of children, spouses, or communities.

Casinos will cost Ohio citizens more than they will benefit. For every $1 dollar spent, casino will cost taxpayers $2 dollars. Those cost fall disproportionately on the middle- and lower socioeconomic classes, and the elderly.

I wonder how Democrats justify their consist support of casino gambling while promising to take care of the poor and now middle class citizens?