Yes ! No (?) and No !

In November Ohio voters will be asked to vote on three issues – here are my thoughts on all three.

Issue 1 – Amend the Ohio Constitution to increase judicial candidate age to 75 from current age from 70 – I tend to have a problem with telling people they can’t do something because of their age – if a judge is in good health and they want to continue serving and there is no good reason for them not to serve then why not let them serve. If this issue goes down to defeat 71 of Ohio’s 718 judges will not have the option to seek a new term. If your wondering about a judges mental acuity – the Ohio Bar says that there are procedures in place to remove a judge if his or her mental status is in question. VOTE YES

Issue 2 – Will change which public employees would be able to bargain collectively and over what issues – Here’s my brother Bob’s post in favor of Senate Bill 5 for my friends on Facebook who don’t access our family blog on a regular basis.

Bob makes a point that he doesn’t think it’s unreasonable to ask public employees to contribute more towards their health insurance and their pensions. I would agree, but according to an Associated Press review of State Employee Relations Board data which shows public employees already pay more than the 15%. If pensions are not funded by public employees because they opted not to take a pay cut for this to be the case shouldn’t we honor that agreement ?

I disagree with Bob’s comment that public employees have more job security than private sector employees based on recent federal job’s reports that show a significant number of public sector workers losing their jobs because of state budget shortages. There is a way to address Bob’s concern about all teachers being essential, vote down the school levy in your particular area. For the first time in my lifetime I will be voting against my local school levy because it doesn’t seem to me that the money we are throwing at education is getting the required results. I am still of the fence on this one, but I will probably VOTE NO.

Issue 3 – Amend the Ohio Constitution to say that no law shall compel a person to participate in a healthcare system – in essence opt out of the affordable healthcare act individual mandate. I’m a proponent of the individual mandate because people who don’t have insurance affect the premiums that we all pay when they need treatment, but a vote one way or the other on this issue will probably be moot as the Supreme Court will most likely take up this issue in 2012. VOTE NO.

Casino Dreams

There has been a lot of news coverage in Columbus lately about the location of the casino that will be built as a result of the passage of the constitutional amendment, Ohio Issue 3, in November.  The casino developer, Penn National Gaming, has finalized its purchase of the property that the Ohio Constitution, thanks to Issue 3, now specifies as the only location for a casino in Columbus.  That location is in the Arena District, an up-and-coming area of businesses, offices, condos, apartments, restaurants, bars, Nationwide Arena (home of the Columbus Blue Jackets), and Huntington Park (home of the AAA Columbus Clippers).  Local leaders don’t want a casino plopped into that vibrant, growing area of town and are trying to get Penn National to locate the casino somewhere else.  Other parts of Columbus, moreover, are eager to welcome a casino and the jobs that supposedly will accompany the casino’s construction and operation.  So far, I have heard reports about The Continent area, which is located north of downtown along I-71, Cooper Stadium, Scioto Downs, and Westland Mall as proposed alternative sites for a casino.

It is sad that there are parts of Columbus that are so desperate for jobs that they would welcome a casino.  I think they are dreaming, however, if they think Penn National is going to change the location without a knock-down, drag-out fight.  After all, the constitutional amendment was written specifically to require the casino to be built in the Arena District location, no doubt precisely because the Arena District is an exciting, busy place with an active night-life and lots of foot traffic.  And, so far as I can determine, Penn National would need to go through the cumbersome legislative and electoral process of undoing the constitutional amendment in order to build the casino at some other location.  Even if the other sites were as attractive as the Arena District site — and they clearly aren’t — why would Penn National want to spend the money to make such a change?

I strongly opposed Issue 3, and I will hate to see a casino built in Columbus.  However, unless civic leaders are willing to play hard ball with municipal services, precipitating a constitutional showdown that pits Columbus’ home rule powers against the constitutional provisions implemented by Issue 3, I think Columbus is just going to have to grit its teeth and accept a casino in the Arena District.

From Craftsmen To Casino Workers

Obviously, I am disappointed in the fact that Ohio voters approved Issue 3, which will result in the construction of full-scale casinos in Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo.  What is really sad about the passage of Issue 3, however, is what it says more generally about The Buckeye State in particular and The American Dream in general.

There is no doubt that that principal reason that Ohio voters backed Issue 3 — after having repeatedly rejected statewide casino gambling initiatives in the very recent past — is that it promised to create 34,000 jobs.  What does it say about our state that the promise of a few thousand jobs as casino workers is enough to cause voters to reverse their longstanding opposition to gambling and welcome casinos to some of our major cities?  I think it clearly speaks of reduced expectations, reduced hopes, and reduced dreams.

Ohio used to be a state that was chock full of good jobs for all.  In the Akron area where I grew up, thousands of citizens were successful blue collar workers in the rubber and auto industries.  They had union jobs that allowed them to buy nice homes, take nice vacations, grill out on weekends, and support the Browns and Indians.  They lived on the same streets as carpenters, shoe repairmen, dentists, lawyers, and car dealers.  Those American workers made tires, furniture, televisions, textile products, glass, and other actual tangible objects that were bought and sold.  They were proud of their jobs, proud of their state, and proud of their country.  All of them hoped and expected that their children would have even better jobs and better lives.

Most of the manufacturing jobs that I remember from my youth have long since left our state.  We can argue about why they are gone — whether it was overly greedy management or overly greedy unions, poor business planning or poor business practices, workers compensation awards that were too generous or tax schemes that were too aggressive, environmental regulation, or general business costs that simply were too high to compete with what businesses will pay in Mexico or China — but there is no dispute that they are gone.  And, as a result, we have in Ohio a population of people who are desperate for a job, any job — even if it is a job wearing a bow tie and a fake smile as you deal cards  to surly, drunken gamblers at a blackjack table at 2 a.m.

Does anyone believe that these desperate people dream The American Dream anymore?  That is what I find so deeply saddening about the passage of Issue 3.  Even sadder, I doubt that the Ohioans who sacrificed their principles and swallowed their misgivings and succumbed to the siren’s song of casino gambling are very much different from millions of desperate Americans in every other state in the union.

Issue 3 Passes

Ohio voters have spoken and (unfortunately) have approved Issue 3 with a 53 percent majority.  Interestingly, voters in two of the casino locations — Cleveland and Cincinnati — voted heavily in favor of the casinos, whereas voters in the Columbus area, where a third casino would be built, rejected the measure.

As seems always to be the case these days, however, the Issue 3 story is not over.  State leaders and other Ohio casino opponents now will consider whether to challenge the constitutional amendment in court, or try to regulate the process so that the casinos are put out to bid, the tax structure for the casinos are modified to be more advantageous to the state, or other changes get made.  If the linked article is any indication, there may we be another casino-related constitutional amendment on the ballot in the next state-wide election.  (In the meantime, we will, thankfully, finally get a break from Mary Ellen Withrow, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the other incessant pro-Issue 3 TV and radio commercials that have dominated the Ohio airwaves for weeks.)

I can understand why many Ohio voters have favored the casino issue.  The state is in the grips of a recession, and casino advocates sold the measure as one that would create thousands of jobs and raise hundreds of millions in tax revenue.  If the casinos do, in fact, get built, I hope that people pay very close attention to whether the casinos actually deliver everything they have promised and hold them to account.  Frankly, I am skeptical of the promises.

Get Out And Vote!

Election Day has come again. I’ll be stopping at my polling place on my way to work. It is in a church on Route 62, and there I will exercise my franchise with respect to a number of local races and statewide ballot issues.

In encourage everyone to get out and vote. It always makes me feel good – and this year I will feel especially good voting against Issue 3. We don’t need or want casino gambling in Ohio! We don’t need to join Indiana and Michigan and West Virginia in a race to the bottom, and we shouldn’t muck up the Ohio Constitution with what is, in reality, special interest legislation unworthy of being memorialized in our state’s most fundamental governing document.

More No On Issue 3

I’m happy to see that some Columbus community development organizations have come out against Issue 3.  Although organizations in Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo have endorsed the proposal, Columbus groups have criticized Issue 3 — correctly, I think — as an obvious effort to line the pockets of special interests and to preclude state or local regulation of casinos by establishing them through a constitutional amendment.  I hope Columbus voters are paying attention.

Constitutions And Casinos

I’ve previously noted my opposition to Issue 3, which would amend the Ohio Constitution to allow casinos to be built in four Ohio cities. One reason for my opposition is that I think the Ohio Constitution should be a constitution, not a statute or a detailed laundry list.  In my view, constitutions should establish broad approaches, goals, aspirations, and prohibitions, and leave the minutiae to be filled in by future legislatures and executives.  The federal Constitution is a good example.  Constitutional provisions like the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause leave lots of room for interpretation.  A good constitution provides a framework that describes how the process of government should work, yet is flexible enough to deal with changing technologies and concepts.  It is the difference between a document that says that the legislature has the power to levy taxes and one that says that all horses used for commercial purposes will be taxed at one ha’penny per biennium.  The former approach has helped to guide more than 200 years of constitutional democracy; the latter would need to be amended repeatedly. 

If you read the text of Issue 3 — and it is available, in PDF format, on the website of the Ohio Ballot Board under the heading Issue 3 — you will see that it is inconsistent with the foregoing notion of what a constitution should be.  Indeed, Issue 3 is extraordinarily detailed.  It is more than five pages long.  It specifies which taxes can be levied on the casinos, at what percentage, and how the funds generated by those taxes will be distributed.  It states the license fee to be charged and how the proceeds of the license fee are to be used.  It specifies that one (and one) casino may be created in each of Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Toledo, and it even specifies the particular properties, identified by their individual tax parcel numbers, on which the four casinos may be developed.

In my view, therefore, Issue 3 is not a constitutional amendment.  A real constitutional amendment on the topic might state, for example, that casino gambling is legal in Ohio and is subject to regulation and taxation by the General Assembly, with the proceeds of such taxes and regulations being distributed as directed by the General Assembly.  Issue 3, in contrast, is legislation that is being offered as a constitutional amendment only because, if it is incorporated into the Ohio Constitution, it could not be overridden by the Ohio General Assembly and could only be modified by another constitutional amendment.

I don’t think casino gambling is a good idea as a matter of social policy, but I also am opposed to junking up the Ohio Constitution with a bunch of detailed regulatory language that could soon be outdated and anachronistic.  I’m against Issue 3 for that reason as well.