Home of the Week
Madison graduation 2012
Warren County CC graduation
Home > Blogs > Ohio politics > Archives > 2009 > October > 22 > Entry
New plan calls for legislature to regulate Ohio gambling expansion
Rep. Tyrone Yates, D-Cincinnati, wants elected members of the Ohio House and Senate, not private gambling interests, to decide if Ohio should have casinos or other forms of expanded gambling.
That’s a main reason that Yates on Thursday, Oct. 22, announced introduction of House Joint Resolution 5.
It calls for putting on the May 2010 ballot a proposed constitutional amendment “to allow the General Assembly to provide for and regulate the operation of certain lotteries and other forms of gambling.”
If approved, it would block future efforts such as the campaign for Issue 3 on the Nov. 3 ballot, said Yates.
Issue 3, backed by and written by Penn National Gaming and Cleveland Cavaliers’ majority owner Dan Gilbert, calls for casinos in Columbus, Cincinnati, Toledo and Cleveland.
Yates opposes Issue 3 as a bad deal for the state.
Bob Tenenbaum, spokesman for the pro-Issue 3 Ohio Jobs and Growth Committee, said in an e-mail that Yates’ proposal clearly is meant to hurt the four-casino ballot plan.
“The General Assembly has had decades to seek voter authorization to establish casino gaming in Ohio. “There has never been a serious attempt to do so,” said Tenenbaum.
“We’re going to keep our focus on the campaign and continue to work hard to communicate to the voters Issue 3’s benefits in terms of job creation, economic development and tax revenue for local communities and schools.”
Yates’ plan is the second recent legislative proposal on gambling. Last week Rep. Dennis Murray, D-Sandusky, introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that, if approved, could result in 15 casinos statewide, including in Dayton and other Miami Valley communities.
To get his proposal on the ballot next May requires support of super majorities in the legislature - 20 of 33 senators and 60 of 99 House members.
“I said to myself, ‘Gee whiz, there is a better mousetrap,’” said Yates. “That is to authorize the state to authorize gambling and let the public design the framework for what the gambling proposal should be.”
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment |
Comments
By Setting record straight
October 23, 2009 11:25 AM | Link to this
To “Reluctant Yes on 3” in above comments: You are wrong. The smoking ban is NOT part of the state’s constitution. It was an initiated statute approved by voters. The other smoking issue that was on the ballot at the same time would have put the issue in the constitution but Ohio voters decided against that plan.
By Johnny Johnson
October 22, 2009 4:48 PM | Link to this
Oh great - Government bureaucrats now want in on the casino debate. That can only lead to two things: 1) Nothing, or 2) A miserable failure. This definitely smells funny - I don’t think Rep Yates proposed this as an honest attempt to bring casino gambling to Ohio. Feels more 11th hour attempt to put down Issue 3. I’m sick of seeing massive amounts of money leave our state each year for casinos in other states. While our neighboring states are laughing at us… all the way to the bank… we’re just standing idly by while our budget sinks even further into crisis. We need the money that casinos generate. And ASAP. I’ve grown impatient. I’m not waiting for some hypothetical legislative gambling expansion. I’m voting yes on Issue 3 in November.
By Rob
October 22, 2009 4:03 PM | Link to this
Wow, common sense from a dem! Congratz! Vote NO on Issue 3 and lets get our elected officials to do their jobs.
By Columbus = Hopeless
October 22, 2009 4:01 PM | Link to this
Mr. Yates’ proposal makes complete sense…which is exactly why it will never happen. Columbus politicians are too scared to touch the gambling issue. It’s too easy for the opposition to use it as a weapon when election time rolls around. No action for 20+ years, and all of the sudden politicians are ready to act? So while the Titanic takes on water, we all stand on the deck waiting for Columbus to come to our rescue???
By Voter
October 22, 2009 3:49 PM | Link to this
This one sounds like a better plan (better than an ammendment to allow only 4, or a vote to allow 15) but I have to wonder if it will actually be on the May 2010 ballot. Seems like he might just be throwing this out there to get people to vote against issue 3. I’m still undecided.
By Reluctant YES on Issue 3
October 22, 2009 3:45 PM | Link to this
I agree with “A is A” in principal. There are some CRAZY things in the Ohio constitution…like the smoking ban is a great example. WTF is that doing in our state constitution!?!?! Ohio voters are almost as stupid as the legislators!!!!!! Ohio legislators (and past Governors of BOTH parties) have wasted 20 years doing NOTHING to facilitate a responsible gambling proposal. I have lost ALL FAITH in Columbus politicians to do anything proactive at this point. Those clowns can’t agree on what day of the week it is. If the legislators are so smart, why are we in this mess in the first place? Sadly, I will support Issue 3 because I don’t believe politicians will EVER make it happen. We can’t wait any longer for them to hash this out. I’m not willing to pay higher taxes while they debate the issue for the next 10 years.
By mlh
October 22, 2009 3:18 PM | Link to this
I’m with AisA. Bravo to Rep Yates. I’ll wait for his amendment.
By A is A
October 22, 2009 2:47 PM | Link to this
The main reason I’m against Issue 3 is that it’s an amendment to the Ohio Constitution. The Constitution should be about high principles, not relatively minor particulars. The Constitution details the Rights of the people and constraints on the government, not implementation of those principles. The laws are what implements the principles listed in the Constitution. To put both Issues 2 and 3 (and to a lesser extent, Issue 1) in the Constitution is a perversion of what the constitution is supposed to be about. Now, if Issue 3 was a regular ballot initiative directing the legislature to implement casinos, I’d vote for it in a New York minute.