One of the issues on the Nov. 3 ballot in Ohio concerns authorizing the construction of casinos. Ohio gave a resounding no to a similar legislative proposal in its 2008 elections and now the issue is back again. In a closely contested decision, the editorial board of The Miami Student endorses Issue 3.
Building four casinos would create not only temporary construction jobs but also longer-lasting jobs within the casinos themselves. Furthermore, the casinos would likely spur business in the surrounding area by attracting restaurants, hotels and shops to serve the casino patrons. While the casinos may force the closure of some of Ohio's racetracks, this point is merely conjecture now.
However, we must question why the proposed casinos would be subject to so low a tax-rate, when compared with those imposed on casinos in other states. Though the division of where the tax revenue goes seems admirable, the rate itself seems out of line with the rest of the nation. Even the initial casino-operating license sells for much more in other parts of the country. Justification for the lower rates in Ohio is not clear and thus concerning. Still, even though the rate is comparatively low, it is high enough to bring the state much needed revenue.
This board recognizes the intense need for job creation in this state. Although some members of this board expressed reservations in turning to casinos to create those jobs, there are no apparent alternatives. While we would all like the state to try to build more positive facilities, the investors are interested in building a casino. No one is looking to fund the construction of a theme park, but Ohio does have people ready to break ground on a casino. It comes down to the options currently available to the state. In a cost-benefit analysis, this board feels the jobs the casinos will create and the state revenue they will bring in outweigh the problems that will accompany them. While opponents of the issue foresee a rise in gambling addiction with the arrival of the casinos, such a concern is not sufficient to deny casinos state admittance. Just because someone enters a bar doesn't mean he or she will leave with an alcohol addiction. People can visit casinos without becoming addicted to gambling.
Additionally, as it is, people simply travel outside the state, such as to Indiana or Windsor, Ontario, to go to casinos. Ohio might as well keep that money in state. Issue 3 offers Ohio a chance to create jobs and stimulate state revenue in this moribund economy, and right now such chances are few and far between.
