The Casino Rolls Ahead

Slowly, but surely, the casino on the west side of Columbus is moving toward completion.  Recently the developer unveiled plans and architect drawings for the Hollywood Casino, which is what the casino will be called.  Nearby residents apparently were impressed.  The casino will be a 300,000 square foot, one-story structure that will have thousands of slot machines, dozens of table games, a poker room, and restaurants.  From the architect renderings, it looks about what you would expect a casino to look like, both inside and outside.  It is currently slated to open in mid-2012.

In the meantime, City of Columbus officials and the casino developers are scrapping about whether the city made certain promises when the casino moved from the Arena District to the west side of town — a move that city leaders desperately wanted.  Each side thinks it has leverage.  The casino developer’s west side land is in Franklin Township, not the city of Columbus, and if the casino developer doesn’t seek annexation Columbus would lose $24 million a year in casino taxes.  On the other hand, Columbus says it won’t provide water to the site unless it is annexed.  The areas in dispute seem to revolve around tax breaks and some form of compensation for the losses the casino developer apparently incurred when it agreed to move the casino location.

Another issue to be resolved is the membership of the state commission that is supposed to regulate the casinos.  The members nominated by outgoing Governor Ted Strickland have not been confirmed, and Governor-elect John Kasich wants to make his own appointments to the body.  The individuals appointed by Strickland, however, say that if they don’t move forward deadlines will be missed and the construction of the casinos could be delayed.

There are always going to be some snags when you are starting up a new, heavily regulated business in a place like Columbus, Ohio — and casinos are no different.

Advertisements

An Ohio Sweep And A National Message

Although there are still some races that are too close to call, the general outlines of the 2010 election are clear. It was a bad night for Democrats at the hands of voters who wanted to send a message — and did.

In Ohio, the entire slate of statewide offices went RepublicanJohn Kasich ousted Governor Ted Strickland in a very close contest.  I think Strickland was generally perceived to be a good man who was caught up in larger forces not of his making, and the fact that the contest was as close as it was reflected that.  Now Kasich will need to grapple with the state’s pressing budget issues.  The Republican sweep means that Republicans will control the state redistricting process and also means that other capable officeholders, such as Attorney General Richard Cordray, will be leaving office.

In federal races, the results in Ohio mirrored those in America as a whole.  The Republicans handily won the race for the U.S. Senate seat in Ohio and knocked off a number of Democratic incumbents in contests for seats in the House of Representatives.  Nationally, the Republicans picked up at least six Senate seats and 60 House seats.  Although some Democratic Senators, like Majority Leader Harry Reid, managed to hold on to their seats, a series of long-time Democratic Representatives went down to defeat.

The voters have served their message to their representatives, and the ball is now in President Obama’s court.  He will begin to respond at a press conference today, although the real test will come when the talking ends and the governing begins — and that includes the decisions that are made in any post-election, “lame duck” session of the current Congress.

I hope the President avoids the temptation to rationalize the results as a reflection of a “know-nothing” electorate or to blame the results on economic conditions caused by others and instead sincerely accepts the undeniable fact that American voters are not happy with the direction in which the President is steering this country and want him to change course.   They think he has overreached.  His challenge now will be to find areas of common ground with the voters and members of Congress who are worried about overspending, explosive growth in our national debt, and intrusive government.

Ohio, The Swing State

As the night progresses, we’ve seen significant swings in the Ohio Governor’s race.  In early returns, Republican John Kasich led, then incumbent Democratic Governor Ted Strickland surged into the lead, and now Kasich has moved into a slight lead.

In Ohio, the issue of where the votes have been counted can be highly significant.  Although Ohio, as a whole, is a swing state, the Buckeye State really is a bunch of enclaves.  When you consider interim statewide results, you must consider whether it is Democratic strongholds that been counted or Republican areas that have been tallied first.

Here in central Ohio, the Stivers-Kilroy case in the 15th District has not been called, although Stivers has a significant lead with more than half of the votes counted.  In our district, the 12th, about a third of the votes have been counted and Republican incumbent Pat Tiberi has a surprisingly small lead over Democratic challenger Paula Brooks.

As of 10:20 p.m. Eastern time, there is still a lot to be decided.

An Election (And A Map) In The Balance

We’re now less than a week from Election Day, and the furious last-minute push of radio and TV ads, mailings, and get out the vote calling and canvassing is underway.

In Ohio, the marquee races are a gubernatorial contest between incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland and Republican challenger that appears to be close and a U.S. Senate race between Republican Rob Portman and Democrat Lee Fisher that polls are indicating will be a Portman blowout.  Along with those two headline races, Ohioans will vote for a full slate of statewide offices, Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court, the U.S. House of Representatives, and members of the Ohio Senate and Ohio House.  It will take a while to complete our ballots come Tuesday.

Although they haven’t commanded as much attention, two statewide races, for Secretary of State and Auditor, will have great long-term significance.  The occupants of those two offices, along with the Governor and one representative each of the Republican and Democratic parties, will form the Apportionment Board that will redraw the map of Ohio’s legislative districts after the 2010 census results are released.  The results of the Auditor’s race and the Secretary of State’s race therefore will determine whether the Ohio legislative districts are gerrymandered to benefit Democrats, or gerrymandered to benefit Republicans — or maybe, just maybe, drawn to reflect logical geographical and social factors in a way that results in more fairly competitive races for the Ohio House and Ohio Senate.  (But who am I kidding?)

Edited to correct my mistake in the original post, which stated that the Apportionment Board redraws Ohio’s congressional districts.  Instead, it redraws Ohio’s state legislative districts.  The redrawing of congressional districts is reserved for the Ohio General Assembly.  Thanks to the Philosopher King of the Fifth Floor for steering me in the right direction on an embarrassing error.

The Bloom On The Education Rose

In Ohio, at least, a common charge by Democratic candidates is that their Republican opponents would cut spending on education, resulting in the layoff of thousands of teachers.  Governor Strickland’s supporters have made such arguments about John Kasich, and similar charges have been made against the Republican candidate for the Ohio House District that includes New Albany.  I expect that, at some point, focus group testing indicated that, if you wanted to oppose spending cuts, a safe way to do so was to claim that the cuts would hurt teachers and education.

I wonder whether that perception still holds true.  We know that teachers are highly unionized and very active politically.  We know that, at least in some areas, teachers receive subsidized health care benefits and pension benefits far beyond what is available to most employees in the private sector.  We know that, for the most part, adding more teachers apparently hasn’t resulted in any meaningful improvement in how the children who are the product of public schools perform in science and math.  We have heard about incompetent and disinterested teachers, and we’ve read about the so-called “rubber rooms” in New York City where teachers who have been accused of misconduct draw paychecks while doing nothing.  (More recently, the bad publicity about the “rubber rooms” has caused the teachers to be assigned to menial clerical work, for which they will nevertheless be paid their full salaries.)

I wonder whether these kinds of stories, coupled with the crushing budget deficits that are looming in Ohio and many other states, have taken a bit of the bloom off the education rose.  When significant cuts must be made to bring the state budget into balance, why shouldn’t education and teacher positions be on the table just like every other budget item?  And given the oppressive budget reality, is it really advisable to elect candidates who are so beholden to teachers’ unions that they won’t even consider such cuts?

 

 

What Is “Nonpartisan,” Anyway?

We continue to be bombarded by campaign mailings, and it seems like we are getting more brochures, fliers, and other literature than in any prior election.

One piece of literature in particular caught my eye.  Labeled “Ohio Education Voter Guide” with a cover featuring a smiling teacher with an apple on her desk, it purports to be a “nonpartisan” guide to the positions of Ted Strickland and John Kasich, the competing candidates for Governor, on education issues.  It doesn’t really look much like the kind of gray, content-heavy, nonpartisan guides we typically see from the likes of the League of Women Voters, however.

Inside the brochure, you find pictures of a smiling Ted Strickland and a frowning John Kasich, whose face is largely in shade.  In a chart below their photos, the candidates’ “positions” are compared in only three categories: “school improvement,” “school funding,” and “college affordability.”  The descriptions of Governor Strickland’s positions are phrased in pretty glowing terms.  For “school improvement,” for example, the brochure states:  “Governor Strickland’s new education reform law invests in teaching and learning in the classroom, greater accountability, more equal funding for students across the state, and stronger parent, school, and community partnerships.”  The description of John Kasich’s position in that same category, in contrast, states:  “John Kasich’s education plan would provide vouchers to attend private schools and increase competition between schools” and cites a January 2009 article from the Youngstown Vindicator.  In the “college affordability” section, the brochure cites a two-year-old news article reporting on Governor Strickland’s college tuition freeze and compares it, in something of a non sequitur, to Kasich’s 1995 votes against “expanding student loan programs and against tax breaks on college tuition.”

It’s hard to read the brochure without coming to the conclusion that whoever prepared it favors Governor Strickland’s position.  The brochure is put out by “Communities for Quality Education” and lists a Washington, D.C. address.  The organization’s website FAQ page doesn’t tell us anything about how they are funded, other than to say that the group is “building our fundraising base with the help of individuals and organizations that share our goals and our priorities.”  Although it is unclear whether teachers’ unions provide funding for Communities for Quality Education, the organization evidently works with the Ohio Education Association and the Ohio Federation of Teachers.  The Communities for Quality Education website states that it, and those two entities, were all part of a coalition supporting the “Speak Out for Ohio Schools” initiative.  Communities for Quality Education also is listed on the OEA website as a “national education advocacy group” that works with the National Education Association “and others inside and outside the education community who share the common goal of building better public schools for every child.”  The Ohio Secretary of State’s website also shows that the Communities for Quality Education made contributions in 2007 to the “NEA Fund for Children and Public Education Non-Federal Itemized Account-Ohio.”

I don’t mind organizations and unions advocating for causes they believe in, and I certainly think it is fair to compare the positions on education of the Ohio gubernatorial candidates.  My only question is:  when is a  political publication that is sent to voters fairly and properly labeled as “nonpartisan”?

Debatable

Kish and I watched the Strickland-Kasich Ohio gubernatorial debate tonight.  Here are some off-the-cuff reactions on various weighty debate-related topics:

Haircut and makeup:  Kasich’s cow-licked coiffure looks a bit like his wife used a home barber shop kit to give him his latest cut.  Strickland had a much more sprayed down look, but his makeup seemed too corpse-like.

Obligatory Ohio State football references:  Kasich managed to quote Woody Hayes and Jim Tressel in the first 10 minutes; Strickland suggested Kasich may have rooted for Miami in Saturday’s Buckeyes-Hurricanes game.  I think Strickland’s comment may have come across as below-the-belt to Buckeyes fans.  It’s one thing to accuse someone of being a greedy Wall Street geek, but quite another to unfairly tar an Ohio politician who actually worked for years at The Ohio State University with rooting against Ohio State.  Come on!  Governor, have you no decency?

Apparent themes:  Strickland — Wall Street, Wall Street, Lehman Brothers, Wall Street, Ohio is great.  Kasich — Jobs, Jobs, Business friendly, Jobs, Ohio can be great again.

Obvious focus group buzzwords:  Growth, small business, empowerment, cutting taxes, refining, Ohio values, responsible decision-making

Odd personal information about the candidate:  Kasich’s parents apparently began every statement to him by saying “Johnny, . . . .”; Strickland has paid for his own health insurance for 18 years.

Who won the debate?  Who knows?  Strickland seemed much more the overt aggressor, which seems odd given that he is the incumbent.  It leaves the impression that he thinks he is far behind and can prevail only by tearing Kasich down.  In any case, he repeatedly brought up Lehman Brothers, Wall Street, Kasich’s salary and bonus, and Kasich’s pay from Ohio State.  Kasich didn’t seemed bothered by such comments, calling them the politics of distraction, and I don’t feel like they had much impact.

Kasich’s statement that he liked being out of the public eye and that he decided to run for office because he and his wife decided Ohio needed him to fix its problems seemed pretty egotistical.  I also dislike it when politicians talk about how they can “create jobs” (as opposed to creating a climate where businesses can create jobs).  Strickland’s contention that Ohio has the sixth fastest growing economy may be true based on the results of one recent quarter, but it is going to be a hard sell in a state where hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost and everyone knows that unemployment is very high.

Kasich’s opening and closing seemed scattershot, but once he started responding to questions he was single-minded in beating the “jobs” drum — even managing to turn a question about the death penalty into a discussion about jobs.  Strickland had some odd pauses, apparently because he thought his time was running out, but made a nice move by shaking Kasich’s hand.  Kasich’s flat statement that he would quash the “white elephant” high-speed rail project came across as a decisive statement that buttressed his argument that he would make the tough choices to balance the budget.  Strickland’s closing about Ohio being a great state was lyrical, but could ring a bit hollow given the state of the economy and the amount of suffering in Ohio.  Kasich’s statement to Strickland that “you’re a good guy, but you just don’t get it” may end up being the statement people remember most — and whether they end up agreeing more with the first part of the sentence or the second part may decide who ultimately wins the election.

There will be another debate in  month — more than enough time for the pundits and spinmeisters to instruct us on who really won this first debate.