A statewide battle centered around four proposed casinos in Ohio could come to an end when voters take to the booths Nov. 3.
Issue 3 proposes an amendment to Ohio’s constitution allowing one 24-hour casino in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo. Under the proposal, the casinos would be taxed 33 percent on their revenue to be distributed throughout the state’s 88 counties, public schools, law enforcement training programs and other state institutions.
The casinos would be licensed and regulated by an Ohio Casino Control Commission and would be required to pay a one-time licensing fee of $50 million, along with an initial investment of at least $250 million.
If the issue is passed, the proposed casino in Columbus would be located in the Arena District on the western-most section of Nationwide Boulevard, about two blocks from Huntington Ball Park, said Bob Tenenbaum, a spokesman for Ohio Jobs and Growth Committee, a political action group that supports the bid for casinos.
Proponents say casinos would pump money back into Ohio’s economy, giving $651 million a year to local governments and school districts and creating 34,000 new jobs. A recent ad campaign pushing for the casinos contends that the amendment would help Ohio retain billion dollars of revenue that leaves the state when residents go to casinos in neighboring states.
A casino in the Arena District would bring a source of year-round revenue, Tenenbaum said, while Huntington Park and Nationwide Arena are only open about 110 nights a year.
Opponents of the amendment are led by the bipartisan committee TruthPAC. The group’s argument is that casinos will not bring viable economic benefits to the state. They say the 33 percent tax rate is low compared to what casinos in other states pay. Any amendment to raise taxation would require another vote, according to the group’s Web site.
Sandy Theis, a spokeswoman for TruthPac, said the casinos could add a social cost with a potential increase in the need for addiction services.
Ohio State does not have a position on Issue 3, said Jim Lynch, an OSU spokesman.
However, both supporters and the opposition say that the issue will affect college students.
Tenenbaum said students would be able to take advantage of job opportunities at casinos, and would benefit from the potential boost in the state’s economy.
Theis says this isn’t likely.
“Because of the way this is structured, and it’s tilted so far in favor of the casinos, it has the potential to suck money out of the economy and be a net drain on the economy,” she said.
That drain, Theis said, could mean diminished funding for higher education, which could ultimately lead to tuition increases throughout the state.
Tenenbaum counters that the casino tax has provisions for higher education funding.
