Issue 3 - Is this the one to bet on?

[X-band '01]

I'm surprised this issue hasn't garnered a lot of discussion on here lately - especially in light of an issue that proponents will have you believe that 34,000+ jobs are coming to Ohio just for Ohio. Of that number, maybe 4,500-5,000 are going to be centered around the Cincinnati casino, and maybe half of those jobs would be temporary construction and other start-up jobs.

I've always been wary of any budgeting that centers around gambling, especially given this economic climate. But given the advertising that's been going on for both sides, how do I know for certain that all the new construction jobs, for example, are going to Ohio workers? If I lived in Kentucky or Indiana, am I not invited to apply for the Cincinnati casino? If I lived in Michigan, am I not invited to apply for the Toledo casino? Many of the administrative jobs are going to have to go to out-of-state workers (at least initially) to get the casinos running; I'm not sure that's going to be enough to offset any other people that are leaving Ohio in this climate.

Ultimately, we're going to have economic deficits down the road even with casinos in place; I just don't think it's worth the constitutional hassle and added crime/gambling addicts that are going to come around should this issue pass.

[chico]

The problem with this bill, and the reason I'm not going to vote for it, is that it gives complete power to build the casinos to one corporation. Why in the world can't we have a bill that proposes the formation of a commission that will "sell" a select number of licenses (say, in Cincy, Cleve, Col, Toledo and one or two more rural border towns like Marietta) to the highest bidder (or best overall bid) to build the casinos. It's absolute lunacy to provide the opportunity to build casinos to one corporation.

[Muskie1000]

yes but it sounds like you have your head on straight. Lots of people (without jobs) are going to say yes because it will bring jobs. And let's suppose it does exactly what they say - it will bring 34,000 jobs to Ohio workers. What about the families who now will be spending money at casinoes that they didn't have before? what about the additional crime with a reduced police force? You're not going to get the one without the other and in my opinion, we have it close enough in Indiana if you really want to go to gamble.

[X-band '01]

in my opinion, we have it close enough in Indiana if you really want to go to gamble.

Every part of the state can make that argument, but my point was that there's no guarantee that 34,000 Ohioans and Ohioans alone will be put to work when the pro-casino's whole campaign is centered around keeping money in the state. Apparently it's offensive to their campaign if you live or work in Ohio and spend the money elsewhere. The possibility that casinos can lose money and/or go bankrupt never crosses their minds.

And here's another point that went unnoticed in the media and debates - all the games that you can play (roulette, card games, etc.) are contigent upon what goes on in the casinos in Indiana, Michigan, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. If for whatever reason those states decided to outlaw gambling in the future, Ohio would be shit out of luck if I'm reading the amendment correctly.

The whole thing was written by casino developers and, therefore, is heavily tilted towards the house IMO.

[pizza delivery]

Out here in Washington they have lot's of casinos, but they are for Indian reservations outside the metro areas.

I think it would be ridiculously tacky to have a big flashing casino at broadway commons or the banks, which I've heard suggested elsewhere. Casino's are unavoidably tacky, cheap, and over the top, that's why you put it near nowhere special. Where you put your casino is what you think of the people and property you put it by. It's like a dump. Where'd they put Vegas?

To that end, there are very few places if any I'd like to see a casino in Hamilton Co. Perhaps off 74 to preempt the Indiana Casinos?

[pizza delivery]

Seems like every Casino measure has some built in cash grab for 1 private entity or another.

[blobfan]

The problem with this bill, and the reason I'm not going to vote for it, is that it gives complete power to build the casinos to one corporation. Why in the world can't we have a bill that proposes the formation of a commission that will "sell" a select number of licenses (say, in Cincy, Cleve, Col, Toledo and one or two more rural border towns like Marietta) to the highest bidder (or best overall bid) to build the casinos. It's absolute lunacy to provide the opportunity to build casinos to one corporation.

I'm with you. I'm actually anti-gambling but I would support creating a gaming commission that would be empowered to manage limited gambling in the state. I'm agains ANY ammendment to the state constitution that hardwires preferences for specific regions or companies. What happens in 30 years if Toledo is a ghost town and Zanesville is the 3rd largest city in the state?

And don't you think they made the same arguments when trying to get gambling in Detroit? Look how great it is for them!

Lastly, I remember quite clearly the argument that a state lottery would end school funding problems forever. How'd that one work out?

[GuyFawkes38]

I'm with you. I'm actually anti-gambling but I would support creating a gaming commission that would be empowered to manage limited gambling in the state. I'm agains ANY ammendment to the state constitution that hardwires preferences for specific regions or companies. What happens in 30 years if Toledo is a ghost town and Zanesville is the 3rd largest city in the state?

yeah, a group of feisty libertarians are going spend thousands of their own cash for the principle that we should be able to gamble in Ohio.

Come on now, that will never happen. An amendment for gambling will never be perfect because a group of people funding this amendment expect to make money from it.

The big question: Is it good for the state? Yes!!!

[blobfan]

Guy, this ammendment is NOT good for the state. It'll bring short term good to a few isolated areas and allow politicians to claim they fixed problems that they only put a bandaid on.

[xavierj]

Seriously guys. Building casinos in Cincinnati is not going to make everyone go crazy and spend all of their money, decide to start hitting up prostitutes or start snorting coke. Give people some credit and the ability to make their own decisions. If people in Cincinnati want to gamble they already have 3 casinos and 6 racetracks within an hour of the city. It ain't hard to find a place to gamble around here. Right now Ohio is in shambles as far as jobs go so any jobs would be great. At some point people need to wake up and realize this is not 1950. We have states building casinos all around us and they are laughing all the way to the bank with Ohioans money. I think the government needs to stop telling people what to do and just let people do what they want. If you want a prostitute you can already go to craigslist or take a ride to over the rhine, if you want to gamble you can take a ride to River Downs, Belterra or Lawrenceburg. Why not just build the stupid thing and generate some cash for the cash strapped? You guys do realize most of the money fighting this issue is coming from the Casino operators from other states that do not want the competition? One last thing I have been to what used to be Argosy in Indiana and I have been to Belterra twice and I have never seen a drug deal or a prostitute at either place. They may be there but I did not see them. However I see prostitutes and drug dealers every time I happen to drive through Over The Rhine. How come no one is putting issues on the ballots to stop the prostitution, crime or drug use in Over The Rhine? Well because no one cares. They just want to be holier then thou and say that if we get Casinos then Cincinnati will be burnt down to the ground. OK.

[GuyFawkes38]

Seriously guys. Building casinos in Cincinnati is not going to make everyone go crazy and spend all of their money, decide to start hitting up prostitutes or start snorting coke. Give people some credit and the ability to make their own decisions. If people in Cincinnati want to gamble they already have 3 casinos and 6 racetracks within an hour of the city. It ain't hard to find a place to gamble around here. Right now Ohio is in shambles as far as jobs go so any jobs would be great. At some point people need to wake up and realize this is not 1950. We have states building casinos all around us and they are laughing all the way to the bank with Ohioans money. I think the government needs to stop telling people what to do and just let people do what they want. If you want a prostitute you can already go to craigslist or take a ride to over the rhine, if you want to gamble you can take a ride to River Downs, Belterra or Lawrenceburg. Why not just build the stupid thing and generate some cash for the cash strapped? You guys do realize most of the money fighting this issue is coming from the Casino operators from other states that do not want the competition? One last thing I have been to what used to be Argosy in Indiana and I have been to Belterra twice and I have never seen a drug deal or a prostitute at either place. They may be there but I did not see them. However I see prostitutes and drug dealers every time I happen to drive through Over The Rhine. How come no one is putting issues on the ballots to stop the prostitution, crime or drug use in Over The Rhine? Well because no one cares. They just want to be holier then thou and say that if we get Casinos then Cincinnati will be burnt down to the ground. OK.

Good points XavierJ. Reading this thread makes me wonder if there's a South Park episode on people's irrational, apocalyptic fear of casinos (it's ok if a casino is 40 miles away on an indian reservation....but downtown...the horror).

Broadway commons is a shit hole. Lets not act like it's sacred ground which a casino would ruin.

[Kahns Krazy]

The casinos themselves will be located in Ohio. The earnings will be ohio based, and will be taxable under Ohio's reciprocity rules with neighboring states. It is possible that not all the jobs will go to Ohio residents, but logistically, I wouldn't expect that the percentage of out-of-state employees would be any higher than any other business located in Ohio. If the jobs go to out of state residents, they will still be contributing to the Ohio economy.

I know how many will be Ohio jobs if the measure gets defeated. Zero. If the casinos are passed, I will personally guarantee that more than zero Ohioans will be employed by the casinos.

All of the revenues generated are taxable in Ohio.



I am a firm believer that the total amount of dollars gambled in the Ohio/Indiana/West Virginia market will not increase significantly. Casino exist, and problem gamblers exist. I personally don't believe that there are a bunch of Ohioans who are not problem gamblers simply for a lack of proximity of casinos.

Casino developers will make money. Good, taxable money. I have no problem with that at all. Casino developers in other states make money too.

I was at the Hollywood casino in Lawrenceburg a few weeks back. On my way out, I made a point to note the license plates on the cars. I think it would be conservative to say that 75% of the plates I saw were Ohio plates. That may not be representative of the actual numbers of people that are going there, but that was what I personally saw. Ohioans are gambling in casinos and neighboring states, and Ohio is losing out on that revenue.

I was dating a girl from Lawrenceburg when they first put the casinos in. At least the way they did it, it did not generate any increase in crime, drug abuse or other problems often associated with casinos. Moreover, the revenues generated provided for a dramatically improved police force.

I voted against the last Casino bill. I'm strongly in favor of this one.

By the way, if you look at the funding, all of the commericals opposing the casinos are funded by casino developers in neighboring states. They know they're going to lose all of the Ohio based revenue, and it's enough to them that they don't want it to happen. That alone should tell you something.

[X-band '01]

Out here in Washington they have lot's of casinos, but they are for Indian reservations outside the metro areas.

I think it would be ridiculously tacky to have a big flashing casino at broadway commons or the banks, which I've heard suggested elsewhere. Casino's are unavoidably tacky, cheap, and over the top, that's why you put it near nowhere special. Where you put your casino is what you think of the people and property you put it by. It's like a dump. Where'd they put Vegas?

To that end, there are very few places if any I'd like to see a casino in Hamilton Co. Perhaps off 74 to preempt the Indiana Casinos?

It's written in the Amendment that it has to be in the Broadway Commons area for Cincinnati - it would take another amendment to put one by the Banks or anywhere else. Columbus, for example, has a place set aside in the Arena district according to the amendment.

[X-band '01]

By the way, if you look at the funding, all of the commericals opposing the casinos are funded by casino developers in neighboring states. They know they're going to lose all of the Ohio based revenue, and it's enough to them that they don't want it to happen. That alone should tell you something.

Fair point, but historically the pro-casino ads have usually outspent the anti-casino spending. Two major differences this yearare a)a worse economic climate and b)there are 4 casino sites at stake this year as opposed to last year when a site at Wilmington was at stake.

The other interesting thing this year is that the issue is taking place in an election year that is usually geared towards city and school board offices. The polls favor Issue 3, but they don't say whether or not people would make it a point to actually go vote. Last year there was very high turnouts because of the presidential and Congressional races; there won't be nearly as high a turnout this year.

I think the issue could swing either way - people who turn out to the polls year in and year out have leaned heavily against the casino issues. Will people turn out and vote Yes to at least try to spur some job growth? I really don't know.

[boozehound]

Out here in Washington they have lot's of casinos, but they are for Indian reservations outside the metro areas.

I think it would be ridiculously tacky to have a big flashing casino at broadway commons or the banks, which I've heard suggested elsewhere. Casino's are unavoidably tacky, cheap, and over the top, that's why you put it near nowhere special. Where you put your casino is what you think of the people and property you put it by. It's like a dump. Where'd they put Vegas?

To that end, there are very few places if any I'd like to see a casino in Hamilton Co. Perhaps off 74 to preempt the Indiana Casinos?

That's kind of a good point. I support Casino's in Ohio, but I don't think that they should be allowed to put one in downtown. That would be pretty tacky.

[Kahns Krazy]

Here's another thought. Lets say I wanted to build a meat packing plant at Broadway commons. I plan to hire 5,000 people to work there. Should the voters have a say in whether I hire Ohio residents or Kentucky residents? Should voters have a say on if I just get to own it, or maybe there should be a commission set up to determine if there's a way to get more money out of me? Why not? Meat has fat in it, and that leads to heart problems. Why is the gambling industry subject to rules and hurdles other businesses are not?

The way I see it, the casino development corporation has put a package together in which they take all of the burden of construction of 4 casinos that will employ approximately 17,000 people permanently. The service they provide is already available to me in neighboring states. The funds generated will help with the state and local budget, effectively lowering my tax liability.

I'm just not seeing the downside here. It seems to me the worst case scenario is that the casinos fail, there are zero new jobs, and instead of a casino at Broadway Commons, we have a parking lot. In other words, where we are right now.

[Kahns Krazy]

That's kind of a good point. I support Casino's in Ohio, but I don't think that they should be allowed to put one in downtown. That would be pretty tacky.

I don't see how it's any tackier than that giant surface lot that is there now. Broadway Commons is not really what most people think of when they think "downtown".

[X-Fan]

We could debate all day about weather gambling is right, if it should be in Ohio, and so on. However the main reasons I'm against this issue are as follows:
- It creates an amendment in the Ohio Constitution to grant two casino owners the right to build four casino in specific locations.
-- Why is an amendment needed to bring in gambling? I don't think that is what amendments were intended for.
-- Why would we create a monopoly on purpose? How's that a good idea? No competition...I'm sure the Casino owners will put out the best service possible in the case. <note large amount of sarcasm>
-- Shouldn't the local municipalities have some say in if they want Casinos, where the Casinos should go, and how much the Casinos will be taxed?
-- It is written into the amendment that nothing can stop how the Casinos will be build including any local zoning laws and other sanctions. Again, how is that fair to the local municipalities that have to put up with 24/7 Casino's (their hours are also written into the amendment)?

You say some jobs are better than no jobs. I say that's short sighted. Just because we don't pass this amendment now doesn't mean gambling can't happen in the future. Like someone else said, why can't we just make gambling legal, create a gambling board, and allow each area to bring in a casino (if they want to) that submits the best/highest bid...what an idea!

Gambling/Casino's have been voted down numerous times. If it was a bad idea in a good/decent economy, why is it a good idea in a bad economy? Again, it's short sighted and a bad idea.

Issue 3 stinks. The majority of the jobs would only last a year and the remaining ones would be low level positions, so IMO it's a non-point. If we're going to allow Casino's/Gambling and the issues that come along with it, we might as well get the best deal possible (and this is not it). In addition, the "Pro" side claims it will bring in 11 Billion dollars over 5 years. They also claim that 1 Billion dollars leaves the state each year in Ohioans gambling out of state. By my math, there's another 6 Billion missing in that equation. Bueller, Bueller, Bueller, anyone?

Ask people in Michigan how much the Casino's have helped their economy or the area the Casinos are built in. I've been to the Detroit Casinos. There's nothing around them and you DON"T WANT TO GO OUTSIDE THEM...and it's not because the Casinos are that nice. Ask Pennsylvania how much they like their Casinos and their shady practices (they're trying to put gambling in College towns now).

Here's a great editorial that talks about the many reasons Issue 3 is a bad idea for Ohio. It's nice to see one Politician (Voinovich) not hide behind the "I'm for jobs" defense and stand up for the State they were elected to protect. why-oppose-state-issue-3-voinovich-counts-the-ways (http://www.vindy.com/news/2009/oct/17/why-oppose-state-issue-3-voinovich-counts-the/#)

Legalize gambling? Yeah, sure that's cool. But I don't want a corporate contract written into the constitution. NO ON ISSUE 3!

[boozehound]

I don't see how it's any tackier than that giant surface lot that is there now. Broadway Commons is not really what most people think of when they think "downtown".

I get that, but I don't know that I want to drive down 71 coming in to downtown and see a giant casino. I can't think of any other cities outside of Nevada that have casinos right in the city like that.

[coasterville95]

I'll say right up front that I enjoy going to the casinos from time to time, all while staying in a budget.

So, yeah I am pro-gambling, however this bill, and all the ones before it suffer from not only having voters say either Yes or No to casinos, but rather deciding everything up front. The issue sets out where they are going, who gets to run them, what the tax rates will be, what kind and number of games they can have, and possibly if I read it closer what kind of pie they can serve in their buffet. I'm in the camp that says, let's put an issue out there "Casino Gambling? Yes/No" Passage of the issue would create the Ohio Gaming Comission who would them be charged with deciding the details, and bidding out the licenses. The benefit there should be that the gaming comission's first task would to draft all the gaming policy, and therefore they should create policy that favors the state, not the casino owners.

I almost laughed when someone said a casino building in downtown would look tacky. It need not look tacky, tha's all in the eye of the beholder. Sure we could have a csino that looks like the castle of Excalibur, but by the same token you could have a casino that looks like the stately Italian elegence of Bellagio or the refined upscale look of the Wynn.

Personally, I view a casino as a legitimate business, in a free enterprise society, if people want to build them or patronize them, they should be able to. Sure the state could set limitations and regulations, just as they do for bars.

[Smails]

I get that, but I don't know that I want to drive down 71 coming in to downtown and see a giant casino. I can't think of any other cities outside of Nevada that have casinos right in the city like that.

Have you been to St. Louis lately? They did it and did it well. I don't undersatnd the whole 'location' argument one iota. Right now Broadway commons is an armpit and a Casino might be the only viable business that can thrive in that spot. Heaven forbid we put a neon lighted structure next to the beautiful 'shit green' offices or Arnold S. Levine. or ruin the asthetics of the Hamilton County Justice center. Child pleeeease

Gambling and casino gambling are a part of mainstream American culture these days. It's not some dirty little secret that needs to be buried in Goshen. I'm not a huge fan of casino gambling (mainly because I suck) but the undisputed facts of this issue are that a) Ohio jobs will be created B) People patronizing Indiana will now spend their money in Cincinnati C) Downtown commerce will increase. At then end of the day I see 100x more good than harm coming out of this.

[boozehound]

Have you been to St. Louis lately? They did it and did it well. I don't undersatnd the whole 'location' argument one iota. Right now Broadway commons is an armpit and a Casino might be the only viable business that can thrive in that spot. Heaven forbid we put a neon lighted structure next to the beautiful 'shit green' offices or Arnold S. Levine. or ruin the asthetics of the Hamilton County Justice center. Child pleeeease

Gambling and casino gambling are a part of mainstream American culture these days. It's not some dirty little secret that needs to be buried in Goshen. I'm not a huge fan of casino gambling (mainly because I suck) but the undisputed facts of this issue are that a) Ohio jobs will be created B) People patronizing Indiana will now spend their money in Cincinnati C) Downtown commerce will increase. At then end of the day I see 100x more good than harm coming out of this.


No I have not seen St. Louis lately. My vision when talking about a casino at Broadway commons was more like a giant Pyramid or something like that.

[Fred Garvin]

Have you been to St. Louis lately? They did it and did it well. I don't undersatnd the whole 'location' argument one iota. Right now Broadway commons is an armpit and a Casino might be the only viable business that can thrive in that spot. Heaven forbid we put a neon lighted structure next to the beautiful 'shit green' offices or Arnold S. Levine. or ruin the asthetics of the Hamilton County Justice center. Child pleeeease



Somebody cue up Wilco's "Casino Queen." Or does St.Louis disown East St.Louis?

[Kahns Krazy]

Outside of Vegas, most casinos look like hotels.

[BENWAR]

No I have not seen St. Louis lately. My vision when talking about a casino at Broadway commons was more like a giant Pyramid or something like that.

Charlie Luken was on the radio yesterday and said the casino investors are going to spend over 400 million to build the casino in Cincinnati.

[Smails]

Yeah...I doubt it will look like a castle or giant space needle. Does anyone know how many square feet we're talking about?

[X-band '01]

No I have not seen St. Louis lately. My vision when talking about a casino at Broadway commons was more like a giant Pyramid or something like that.

You mean it wouldn't resemble the old WKRP in Cincinnati radio studio set?

If anything, they could always host DVD release parties there.

[GuyFawkes38]

I really think casinos are going to catch on in downtowns across the country.

Having a lot of connections in the Detroit area, I know that casinos have been great for the city. Really, one of the only bright spots in that hellish downtown area.

Just found this very balanced Boston Globe article on Detroit's casinos (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/05/detroit_betting_heavily_on_casinos/)

Some interesting quotes:


Over the past eight years, Detroit has brought three casinos into the heart of the city, revitalizing portions of its downtown and becoming the most populous American city with a casino inside its borders.

The casinos, catering to high rollers and working folks, have added nearly 7,000 jobs, which average $54,532 in annual wages, tips, and benefits, according to figures compiled by the American Gaming Association, a Washington-based gaming advocacy organization.

Last year they brought in $1.3 billion in revenue, of which 12.1 percent, or $158 million, went to the state of Michigan and 11.9 percent, or $155 million, to the city of Detroit.

The city has built more hotels in the past five years than in the previous 25 years, according to city officials, diversifying the tax base and turning the Motor City into the fifth highest-grossing casino market, falling just behind Connecticut.

and


By almost any measure, the casinos have bolstered the local economy, helped spur new professional sports complexes and loft-style developments and supplied much-needed nonautomotive jobs.

and


Crime in Detroit has not seen the surge that casino opponents predicted. Downtown, where the three casinos are located, the number of serious crimes such as homicide, rape, robbery, and assault dropped 22 percent, from 3,027 in 2001 to 2,345 in 2004, according to a study by Wayne State University's College of Urban, Labor, and Metropolitan Affairs.

But Gamblers Anonymous meetings have proliferated, and the number of addicts who ask to be added to a state list that bans them from Detroit casinos for life has increased dramatically, from 56 in 2001, when the program began, to 1,223 in 2005

Is it just me, or does that 1,223 number still seem remarkably low. Gambling addiction seems like one of those problems that's inflated by opponents who will never look at the data in an objective manner.

[Kahns Krazy]

If anything, this thread tells me that not many people are undecided on the casino issue.

[XavierGJG]

People also need to realize that all of the jobs that will be created will not come about for several years. Most gaming companies will complete construction documents and then sit in a holding pattern until a state gaming board has been created and rules and regulations are in place before ground is broken. The fastest that has happened is two years.

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

Anyone see the tv commercial against issue 3?

They put some michael myers/halloween like scary music in the background while using a cartoon devil to showcase how there will be more crime, drugs, and prostitution all over the city.

"Vote no on issue 3. The devil is in the details"

Political adds need to get more creative. I would have made a city like Bif's in back to the future 2. With prostitutes, gangs, and drugs everywhere while everything is decaying. Some lines like an actual short story. Maybe get some extras in there. A little production value can go a long way and is greatly needed in these ads.

[pizza delivery]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:Marg914feTv3eM:http://www.wedoitallvegas.com/images/Hotels/Bellagio/Bellagio-300-02.jpg
The Bellagio

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:_T2Kq_K3FZ6RvM:http://z.about.com/d/honeymoons/1/0/B/O/SunlitExterior.jpg
The Wynn

IMO, not great comps for Broadway commons.

However, Detroits version downtown is more Midwestern, if not boring:
http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/michigan/images/s/mgm-grand-detroit.jpg

I could probably live with that. You'll have to excuse my previous conception of a casino:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:BW-AVmRHy74rwM:http://www.japanfocus.org/data/Fig%252024%2520Indian%2520Casino.jpg

MGM Detroit is as big or bigger than Comerica or Ford Field which are right down the street.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&um=1&q=mgm%20grand%20detroit&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=il&start=0

Broadway commons - talk about an iconic location for a casino, though. Whatever goes there is going to be important, why a casino? No matter what, many people won't like it because it's a casino. I feel like I'm on the wrong side of this issue, but you can call me a snob, I just don't want a big fat casino right there because it fronts the city. Let's see...P&G Towers, Big Fat Casino replete with incandescent glow, gaudy statues and a warehouse full of gamblers, Carew Tower. Not my vision of the NE skyline.
But, somehow it raises the profile of the city for visitors, I agree.

[GuyFawkes38]

Detroit's Greektown casino nicely blends itself into a dense neighborhood:

http://detroityes.com/webisodes/2000/06greektown/02GreektownCasinoPan.jpg

Looks boring from the outside. But very modern and engaging from the inside.

[BENWAR]

Anyone see the tv commercial against issue 3?

They put some michael myers/halloween like scary music in the background while using a cartoon devil to showcase how there will be more crime, drugs, and prostitution all over the city.

"Vote no on issue 3. The devil is in the details"

Political adds need to get more creative. I would have made a city like Bif's in back to the future 2. With prostitutes, gangs, and drugs everywhere while everything is decaying. Some lines like an actual short story. Maybe get some extras in there. A little production value can go a long way and is greatly needed in these ads.

I love how the anti-casino people say that gambling will bring in prostitution. Belterra got busted a few years ago for prostitution when they had to fly the hoe's in because they couldn't find any locally.

I have been to all three boats around here and have never seen a prostitute.

Vote yes for issue 3!!!

[Smooth]

I'm torn between voting for it so I don't have to hear about a new ballot issue every year and voting against it because I believe the revenue from the advertising (for and against) is greater than they casinos will generate.

Where were all these anti-tacky people when the Cadillac Ranch opened?

I know that in previous years the opposition has encouraged voters to let their imaginations run wild concerning all the evil that would result, and that is why they tried to all the details into the amendment, but is the state constitution really the place for that? I tend to fall on the "Gaming Commission" side of the debate.

[X-Fan]

I really think casinos are going to catch on in downtowns across the country.

Having a lot of connections in the Detroit area, I know that casinos have been great for the city. Really, one of the only bright spots in that hellish downtown area.

Just found this very balanced Boston Globe article on Detroit's casinos (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/05/detroit_betting_heavily_on_casinos/)

Some interesting quotes:

Quote:
"Over the past eight years, Detroit has brought three casinos into the heart of the city, revitalizing portions of its downtown and becoming the most populous American city with a casino inside its borders.

The casinos, catering to high rollers and working folks, have added nearly 7,000 jobs, which average $54,532 in annual wages, tips, and benefits, according to figures compiled by the American Gaming Association, a Washington-based gaming advocacy organization.

Last year they brought in $1.3 billion in revenue, of which 12.1 percent, or $158 million, went to the state of Michigan and 11.9 percent, or $155 million, to the city of Detroit.

The city has built more hotels in the past five years than in the previous 25 years, according to city officials, diversifying the tax base and turning the Motor City into the fifth highest-grossing casino market, falling just behind Connecticut. "

and


Quote:
"By almost any measure, the casinos have bolstered the local economy, helped spur new professional sports complexes and loft-style developments and supplied much-needed nonautomotive jobs. "

and


Quote:
"Crime in Detroit has not seen the surge that casino opponents predicted. Downtown, where the three casinos are located, the number of serious crimes such as homicide, rape, robbery, and assault dropped 22 percent, from 3,027 in 2001 to 2,345 in 2004, according to a study by Wayne State University's College of Urban, Labor, and Metropolitan Affairs.

But Gamblers Anonymous meetings have proliferated, and the number of addicts who ask to be added to a state list that bans them from Detroit casinos for life has increased dramatically, from 56 in 2001, when the program began, to 1,223 in 2005"

Is it just me, or does that 1,223 number still seem remarkably low. Gambling addiction seems like one of those problems that's inflated by opponents who will never look at the data in an objective manner.

Ok, not sure where you got your facts but they are inacurate if not flat out wrong.

The Casinos in Detroit are not looked upon positively at all. The pictures posted of Greektown and the MGM Grand are VERY misleading. Outside of the MGM is a GHOST TOWN with NO other development or attempt to lure people outside of the Casino. My guess is this is because the Casinos don't want it, it's not a good area anyway. I am not kidding at all when I say I did not feel safe at either the MGM or Motor City Casino.

In regard to the Greektown Casino, it was built in an area that already had resturants and shops, it is close to Comerica Park (very nice place) and Ford Field (which hosts many big events including the Super Bowl and Final Four in the past 4 years)...and went Bankrupt this past year.

Again, I'm not anti-gambling...I just don't like this deal. Ohio should have more control over how and where the Casinos go, and they absolutely should have a say in how much they get taxed.

Think long term people. The group receiving the biggest benefit in this deal are the Casino owners. Hold out for a better deal. Push for controled legalization of gambling where each area can have a say in how/where/if Casinos are allowed.

[pizza delivery]

Ok, not sure where you got your facts but they are inacurate if not flat out wrong.

The Casinos in Detroit are not looked upon positively at all. The pictures posted of Greektown and the MGM Grand are VERY misleading. Outside of the MGM is a GHOST TOWN with NO other development or attempt to lure people outside of the Casino. My guess is this is because the Casinos don't want it, it's not a good area anyway. I am not kidding at all when I say I did not feel safe at either the MGM or Motor City Casino.

In regard to the Greektown Casino, it was built in an area that already had resturants and shops, it is close to Comerica Park (very nice place) and Ford Field (which hosts many big events including the Super Bowl and Final Four in the past 4 years)...and went Bankrupt this past year.

Again, I'm not anti-gambling...I just don't like this deal. Ohio should have more control over how and where the Casinos go, and they absolutely should have a say in how much they get taxed.

Think long term people. The group receiving the biggest benefit in this deal are the Casino owners. Hold out for a better deal. Push for controled legalization of gambling where each area can have a say in how/where/if Casinos are allowed.

Well said. Living in northern Michigan, I remember the pall that was cast on Windsor Canada across the boarder from Detroit for being the place that people went to drink, gamble, get arrested, whatever. If you include casino gambling with a downtown district, it casts a different aura for people of the entire city. Subjective or not, it will never be easy to overcome that stigma.

Also, that picture of MGM in Detroit, it's just the tower. Beneath that tower is a gigantic "warehouse" or "factory" sized building that takes up 400 yards by 400 yards.

Again, I'm not anti-casino, but these casino people do not have Cincinnati's best interest. Are you kidding? Why let them write the rules?

[mohr5150]

I am having a difficult time with this one. I don't like the monopoly business, first of all. I also don't like the idea that it is a constitutional amendment. It's going to be really tough to change this thing if it passes. I also don't like the possiblity that this could cause local bingo halls and festivals to stop gambling. I don't think people realize how much parishes and other institutions depend on the revenues generated from gambling. The evils of gambling slant is BS, because there are so many evils out there that rank above the evils of gambling. The location idea doesn't bother me, either. I'd rather look at a casino building next to the highway than a parking lot. The other issues that have appeared on the ballot had too many problems that went along with them. This one, though, is making me consider voting for it. The amount of revenue for the state seems to be about right compared to other states, and the creation of any jobs is a plus. This is a tough one that the plusses and minuses are about even. As for the creation of a "gaming board" or a simple "legalize gambling" vote isn't going to happen because someone has to write it, and no politician wants their name on a bill that will cause them to lose 40% of their possible votes because they wanted to bring gambling to Ohio. The holier than thou folks who are against gambling won't vote for a person who supports the issue. So, who's going to write the bill? A person who's going to make cash off it, and that is what has happened in this case, and will continue to happen in every case for any ballot issue. I might not know what I'm going to do until I enter the booth.

[vee4xu]

The problem with this bill, and the reason I'm not going to vote for it, is that it gives complete power to build the casinos to one corporation. Why in the world can't we have a bill that proposes the formation of a commission that will "sell" a select number of licenses (say, in Cincy, Cleve, Col, Toledo and one or two more rural border towns like Marietta) to the highest bidder (or best overall bid) to build the casinos. It's absolute lunacy to provide the opportunity to build casinos to one corporation.

Chico is right on the mark. In addition to what he posted, this bill requires a change to the Ohio constitution and creates a monopoly for the writers of this bill. In addition I understand that that Gilbert and his group are not required to build the casinos. And that could happen if they don't get financing or tax breaks from the locales where the casinos are to be located. This would mean no casinos for Ohio unless someone else wants to put a bill on the ballot that challenges this constitutional amendment. The result could be casino developers who do not build, but also can disallow any other group from building. Seems like a real lose-lose there.

I voted for the last casino issue and have not problem with Ohio having casinos. But, this is a bad bill and could be a mess, so I am planning to vote against it. When an issue gets on the ballot that establishes an Ohio gaming commission to oversee competition on all fronts before issuing casino licenses (a la Vegas) I am skeptical.

Just my two cents.

[PM Thor]

I don't care about the semantics of this issue about casinos.

I don't care how many jobs may or may not be created. I don't care if it creates a monopoly (which it doesn't). I don't care about the scare tactics about crime, prostitution, or where the casinos go in.

I care about this, and this alone. Is Ohio losing a large amount of money to neighboring states because they allow gambling? Undoubtedly yes.

You can't unbreak an egg. Follow Indianas lead. People complained that they too created a monopoly, and it worked out fine. Crime didn't increase, revenue skyrocketed.

Amendment, shmendment. I could care less who benefits from it just so long as the state also gets its share, and considering the level of taxation, the state scores bigtime with gambling.

I am all for Issue 3. Why would anyone be willing to give away quite literally hundreds of millions of dollars a year to neighboring states because they have gambling? The longer we wait, the more money we lose. Semantics be damned.

I HATE dayton.

[bobbiemcgee]

While they're at it, they should legalize prostitution and tax the shit outta that.

[vee4xu]

I don't care about the semantics of this issue about casinos.

I don't care how many jobs may or may not be created. I don't care if it creates a monopoly (which it doesn't). I don't care about the scare tactics about crime, prostitution, or where the casinos go in.

I care about this, and this alone. Is Ohio losing a large amount of money to neighboring states because they allow gambling? Undoubtedly yes.

You can't unbreak an egg. Follow Indianas lead. People complained that they too created a monopoly, and it worked out fine. Crime didn't increase, revenue skyrocketed.

Amendment, shmendment. I could care less who benefits from it just so long as the state also gets its share, and considering the level of taxation, the state scores bigtime with gambling.

I am all for Issue 3. Why would anyone be willing to give away quite literally hundreds of millions of dollars a year to neighboring states because they have gambling? The longer we wait, the more money we lose. Semantics be damned.

I HATE dayton.



And it doesn't hurt that police and fire departments will benefit from the proceeds either. A point which should really resonnate with you thor. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great. Being the son of a former police officer, I am all for you guys getting more dough. But, this isn't the right plan. The fact is that there is no obligation for these guys to build anything if this amendment passes. If so, that means no money for safety services. On top of that, you don't stem the tide of money leaving Ohio because if these guys don't build, they can stop anyone else from doing so.

So, unfortunately it is not semantics we're dealing with here. Rather, it is a stark reality.

[chico]

I don't care about the semantics of this issue about casinos.

I don't care how many jobs may or may not be created. I don't care if it creates a monopoly (which it doesn't). I don't care about the scare tactics about crime, prostitution, or where the casinos go in.

I care about this, and this alone. Is Ohio losing a large amount of money to neighboring states because they allow gambling? Undoubtedly yes.

You can't unbreak an egg. Follow Indianas lead. People complained that they too created a monopoly, and it worked out fine. Crime didn't increase, revenue skyrocketed.

Amendment, shmendment. I could care less who benefits from it just so long as the state also gets its share, and considering the level of taxation, the state scores bigtime with gambling.

I am all for Issue 3. Why would anyone be willing to give away quite literally hundreds of millions of dollars a year to neighboring states because they have gambling? The longer we wait, the more money we lose. Semantics be damned.

I HATE dayton.



Thor, this is one of the most short-sided arguments I've seen. Let's just give someone a monopoly because we're losing dollars right now, when we could make more dollars in the long run if this is done the right way.

If that argument doesn't work, how about this one - the guys is planning on putting a casino in Dayton. Surely you can't be for that.

[Snipe]

I love how the anti-casino people say that gambling will bring in prostitution. Belterra got busted a few years ago for prostitution when they had to fly the hoe's in because they couldn't find any locally.

I have been to all three boats around here and have never seen a prostitute.

Vote yes for issue 3!!!

And trust me, he has been looking pretty hard.

[Snipe]

I want the Casino. I want to ride the street car to the Casino. Then I want to walk to the library.

Maybe we could build a massive complex is both a jail and a Casino.

I have no idea why this wouldn't be on the riverfront. Madness. Oh wait, we have a practice field, some parking lots and a slave museum attacking cobwebs.

I would rather have a distinctive structure than one that "blends in". Build the freaking taj mahal for all I care. Give me something to look at. And then build an incline back to Mt. Adams so people staying at Broadway Commons can zip up the hill for a bite or a drink. yeah thats the ticket. It is all so easy now.

[GuyFawkes38]

Ok, not sure where you got your facts but they are inacurate if not flat out wrong.

The Casinos in Detroit are not looked upon positively at all. The pictures posted of Greektown and the MGM Grand are VERY misleading. Outside of the MGM is a GHOST TOWN with NO other development or attempt to lure people outside of the Casino. My guess is this is because the Casinos don't want it, it's not a good area anyway. I am not kidding at all when I say I did not feel safe at either the MGM or Motor City Casino.

In regard to the Greektown Casino, it was built in an area that already had resturants and shops, it is close to Comerica Park (very nice place) and Ford Field (which hosts many big events including the Super Bowl and Final Four in the past 4 years)...and went Bankrupt this past year.

Again, I'm not anti-gambling...I just don't like this deal. Ohio should have more control over how and where the Casinos go, and they absolutely should have a say in how much they get taxed.

Think long term people. The group receiving the biggest benefit in this deal are the Casino owners. Hold out for a better deal. Push for controled legalization of gambling where each area can have a say in how/where/if Casinos are allowed.

Sort of an odd post.

I quoted a Boston Globe story (apparently Boston is looking hard into opening a casino). I don't think they would make up those numbers. Your post appears much more like an anecdote.

Edit: fixed for Kahns

[Kahns Krazy]

Sort of an odd post.

I quoted a Boston Globe story (apparently Boston is looking hard into opening a casino). I don't think they would make up those numbers. Your post appears much more like an antidote.

Ha ha ha.

Did you steal Snipe's grammar guide?

[nuts4xu]

a slave museum attacking cobwebs.




The Underground Railroad museam would make a fantastic location for a casino.

I love how the opponents for casinos tout how much prostitution, drugs, and crime in general will thrive merely because a casino is open for business. Can anyone prove this? Where is the data that shows how towns like Lawrenceburg, Vevay, and Betlerra IN have suffered because of their influx of crime? You can't barely find people in those little towns, let alone anyone walking the streets thriving on the drug or hooker trades.

None of these bills have been well writtten, but this one has been better than the previous. This may not be a good reason for supporting Issue 3, but I have voted for the other poorly written bills so why would I vote against this one? If people think casinos need not appear on a ballot for a vote, ask the horse tracks how well the slot machines proposed by Strickland worked out.

I am not much of a gambler, mostly because I am not good at it. I also have my disposable income committed to other vices. However, I never could understand the folks that oppose casinos in the area. If people are not voting for this issue because of the way it is written, I understand. But people that vote against Issue 3 because of the negative impact on the surrounding area make me scratch my head.

I just can't picture a casino at Broadway Commons making the crime in the surrounding area worse than it currently is. If anything, it should bring more competition to crime and just enhance the quality of hookers and drugs that are in the area. And if we are going to have hookers and drugs in this town, I am all for upgrading the quality of both to better compete with booming metropolises such as Lawrenceburg and Vevay Indiana.

[Nigel Tufnel]

The Underground Railroad museam would make a fantastic location for a casino.

I love how the opponents for casinos tout how much prostitution, drugs, and crime in general will thrive merely because a casino is open for business. Can anyone prove this? Where is the data that shows how towns like Lawrenceburg, Vevay, and Betlerra IN have suffered because of their influx of crime? You can't barely find people in those little towns, let alone anyone walking the streets thriving on the drug or hooker trades.

None of these bills have been well writtten, but this one has been better than the previous. This may not be a good reason for supporting Issue 3, but I have voted for the other poorly written bills so why would I vote against this one? If people think casinos need not appear on a ballot for a vote, ask the horse tracks how well the slot machines proposed by Strickland worked out.

I am not much of a gambler, mostly because I am not good at it. I also have my disposable income committed to other vices. However, I never could understand the folks that oppose casinos in the area. If people are not voting for this issue because of the way it is written, I understand. But people that vote against Issue 3 because of the negative impact on the surrounding area make me scratch my head.

I just can't picture a casino at Broadway Commons making the crime in the surrounding area worse than it currently is. If anything, it should bring more competition to crime and just enhance the quality of hookers and drugs that are in the area. And if we are going to have hookers and drugs in this town, I am all for upgrading the quality of both to better compete with booming metropolises such as Lawrenceburg and Vevay Indiana.

When they were thinking about building a casino at I71 and State Route 68 near Wilmington, the Clinton County Sheriff's Department went to Lawrenceburg and talked to their local Sheriff's and PD. According to the Clinton County Sheriffs who visited, the Lawrenceburg PD and local sheriff's department said there was no change in crime when the casinos were built there. Regardless of my vote on this issue, the crime and prostitution arguments are scare tactics and hollow threats imho.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I want the Casino. I want to ride the street car to the Casino. Then I want to walk to the library.



Ha, good stuff Snipe!

[D-West & PO-Z]

Have you been to St. Louis lately? They did it and did it well. I don't undersatnd the whole 'location' argument one iota. Right now Broadway commons is an armpit and a Casino might be the only viable business that can thrive in that spot. Heaven forbid we put a neon lighted structure next to the beautiful 'shit green' offices or Arnold S. Levine. or ruin the asthetics of the Hamilton County Justice center. Child pleeeease

Gambling and casino gambling are a part of mainstream American culture these days. It's not some dirty little secret that needs to be buried in Goshen. I'm not a huge fan of casino gambling (mainly because I suck) but the undisputed facts of this issue are that a) Ohio jobs will be created B) People patronizing Indiana will now spend their money in Cincinnati C) Downtown commerce will increase. At then end of the day I see 100x more good than harm coming out of this.

I was going to say the same thing. The one here in St. Louis is really nice right next to all the bars on the landing too. I actually once got kicked out waiting in line because they said they had me on camera tripping on the way in and that i was too drunk. I was so pissed, I would think they would want me in there blowing my money.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Anyone see the tv commercial against issue 3?

They put some michael myers/halloween like scary music in the background while using a cartoon devil to showcase how there will be more crime, drugs, and prostitution all over the city.

"Vote no on issue 3. The devil is in the details"

Political adds need to get more creative. I would have made a city like Bif's in back to the future 2. With prostitutes, gangs, and drugs everywhere while everything is decaying. Some lines like an actual short story. Maybe get some extras in there. A little production value can go a long way and is greatly needed in these ads.

What a great reference. Reps to you sir.

[nickgyp]

Just remember that the economic geniuses who estimate the 34,000 jobs will be created are the same economic geniuses (from U.C.) who envisioned a 5% growth in Cincinnati's 2009 income tax revenue (which turned out to be a 8% decline). That was close, wasn't it?
(Gee, Laketa Cole's 2 week economics junket to Maui a few weeks back might produce better results).

And I just love the Detroit reference! Cincinnati has been going down Detroit's road for the last thirty plus years. (Please, someone tell me Newark has saved itself with casinos.)

And the Ohio lottery has saved education in the Buckeye state, hasn't it? One thing's for sure: even if casinos are built, the revenue produced will never be enough for the bureaucrats who always keep our wallets within reaching distance.

[GuyFawkes38]

Just remember that the economic geniuses who estimate the 34,000 jobs will be created are the same economic geniuses (from U.C.) who envisioned a 5% growth in Cincinnati's 2009 income tax revenue (which turned out to be a 8% decline). That was close, wasn't it?
(Gee, Laketa Cole's 2 week economics junket to Maui a few weeks back might produce better results).

And I just love the Detroit reference! Cincinnati has been going down Detroit's road for the last thirty plus years. (Please, someone tell me Newark has saved itself with casinos.)

And the Ohio lottery has saved education in the Buckeye state, hasn't it? One thing's for sure: even if casinos are built, the revenue produced will never be enough for the bureaucrats who always keep our wallets within reaching distance.

so your against the lottery.

i love how opponents of Issue 3 seem to ramble more than make concise arguments.

[pizza delivery]

I'm not in the area, so I haven't seen the commercials. I'm assuming that's where all this consensus about crime not increasing is coming from on here. No one in this thread is worried about that.

Personally, I think Broadway Commons would be a great area for more mixed use development like the Banks. It would be 10 years at the earliest before this happens, I know. And there is nothing else talked about for Broadway so ANYTHING seems better, but a quick fix casino there is settling in more ways than one. Bad location, bad legislation, bad idea.

Casinos have their own unique way of letting themselves be known. Bright lights, over the top signage, palm trees, huge fountains, whatever. Admittedly, there are some impressive casinos, but on the whole they are buildings that you want to escape to for a night or weekend, not drive past on the way home or to work or to Reds games, etc...They are for the outskirts of town. NOT IN THE CORE OF YOUR DOWNTOWN! THAT'S DESPERATE AND CHEESY! LIKE, UHH, VEGAS!?!?

If you put a casino right in front of Cincinnati as millions of people come from the north, it pervades the image of the city. A vicar of vice. There are a lot of conservative, religious, whatever type of people that will find it worth complaining about. Then they'll find themselves inside swiping their credit cards, I know, :).

Nonetheless, even more casual moralists (the majority) find gambling eventually unappealing. It's impractical, wasteful, slimy. I'm not sure how many people on here are very frequent gamblers, I get the impression most just go every so often (1-4 times a year). Don't you realize that a Casino on Broadway Commons is a very freaking frequent thing for those who live, work and play (as they like to say) down there?

As a gateway to downtown, the Reading/Gilbert exit and Broadway Commons area is better EMPTY and under the sight of people passing by than with a giant 400 million dollar Casino that might as well be called "The Queen" because it will have taken over the image of the city.

If this does pass, I will be watching the plans carefully (in futility) to see what it looks like. If they are going to spend 400 million, it better be fucking world class to the point that it's not a casino, it's an attraction that belongs to Cincinnati. I mean Worlds Fair type iconic. I want that or nothing at all. Fat chance that a casino would miss the opportunity to promote itself over the city, though.

You can tell I used to drive 71 alot ;) - heck I've always liked the P&G towers. The casino is wrong for that location. I'd even rather see it on Central Parkway if it's got to be downtown. You can see why the Casino's like their chances at being "noticed" (like only they can be noticed) at Broadway Commons.

[chico]

so your against the lottery.

i love how opponents of Issue 3 seem to ramble more than make concise arguments.

Issue 3 will provide a constitutional monopoly for those who run the casinos. If you can't see a problem with that, well, I just can't reason with you. Concise enough?

Yes, gambling should be legalized in this state, but this is just about the worst way to go about it.

And if you go back a few posts, I even propose how to rectify the situation, so not only do I give cogent reasoning for not voting for this amendment, I offer a proposed solution. I know, novel, huh?

[pizza delivery]

List of US casinos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_casinos_in_the_United_States
Lots of small towns you've never heard of and mini Metros.

Boring St Louis riverboat casino (nevertheless outside of town):
http://www.harrahsnkc.com/casinos/harrahs-north-kansas-city/hotel-casino/property-home.shtml

Detroit Casinos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greektown_Casino
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Grand_Detroit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_City_Casino
Neat looking buildings in downtown, but their success has been up for debate.

Philadelphia building a river casino:
http://www.sugarhousecasino.com/home/index.php
Oh yeah! Loads of class! Put one of these at Broadway!

In many of the larger metros, they are putting these casinos near, but really outside the downtown district. In Cincinnati, they want to drop it in what will be the most prominent possible place other than the billion $ Banks. MAKES. NO. SENSE.

[GoMuskies]

Just remember that the economic geniuses who estimate the 34,000 jobs will be created are the same economic geniuses (from U.C.) who envisioned a 5% growth in Cincinnati's 2009 income tax revenue (which turned out to be a 8% decline). That was close, wasn't it?
(Gee, Laketa Cole's 2 week economics junket to Maui a few weeks back might produce better results).

And I just love the Detroit reference! Cincinnati has been going down Detroit's road for the last thirty plus years. (Please, someone tell me Newark has saved itself with casinos.)

And the Ohio lottery has saved education in the Buckeye state, hasn't it? One thing's for sure: even if casinos are built, the revenue produced will never be enough for the bureaucrats who always keep our wallets within reaching distance.

Casinos > Club football

[D-West & PO-Z]

List of US casinos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_casinos_in_the_United_States
Lots of small towns you've never heard of and mini Metros.

Boring St Louis riverboat casino (nevertheless outside of town):
http://www.harrahsnkc.com/casinos/harrahs-north-kansas-city/hotel-casino/property-home.shtml

Detroit Casinos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greektown_Casino
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Grand_Detroit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_City_Casino
Neat looking buildings in downtown, but their success has been up for debate.

Philadelphia building a river casino:
http://www.sugarhousecasino.com/home/index.php
Oh yeah! Loads of class! Put one of these at Broadway!

In many of the larger metros, they are putting these casinos near, but really outside the downtown district. In Cincinnati, they want to drop it in what will be the most prominent possible place other than the billion $ Banks. MAKES. NO. SENSE.

Actually the new one in St. Louis that opened a few years ago is right in downtown and not a boat. That link was not to that.

[PM Thor]

Issue 3 will provide a constitutional monopoly for those who run the casinos. If you can't see a problem with that, well, I just can't reason with you. Concise enough?

Yes, gambling should be legalized in this state, but this is just about the worst way to go about it.

And if you go back a few posts, I even propose how to rectify the situation, so not only do I give cogent reasoning for not voting for this amendment, I offer a proposed solution. I know, novel, huh?

I want a casino monopoly. Yeah. I want a monopoly.

Here is why.

Would people prefer the alternative of an open market for gambling? Do people want a gambling cage on every corner? (especially in the poorer parts of town, replacing check cashing businesses?) I know I don't.

With it being a monopoly, it is easier for the government to oversee it. Just look to how Indiana has gone about it, Ohio should use their model. The administration over one monopolized entity is entirely easier, and cheaper, than over an open market.

The argument that the monopoly doesn't necessarily mean building casinos doesn't hold water. The ones who are allowed to build WILL build. It would be utterly stupid for them not do so, Ohio is a cash cow waiting to be milked.

As for who benefits from said monopoly? I don't care. Good investors I guess.

And last, for those who say it's not a good deal for the state. Is it a "great" deal? Yeah, probably not. But this is the third time coming before the populace. It's "basically" been the same every time. What are we waiting on? A perfect, golden amendment? It's not going to happen. I'm not saying that this is the best we can do, without a doubt it's not. But why wait any longer? Ohio is losing money hand over fist to neighboring states. It's got to stop now.

But it creates an amendment to the states constitution! Oh big deal. Does anyone know the states charter right now? Constitution? Who says it can't be changed again if things don't go the way we want, in terms of gambling? It's not set in stone people.

Gambling is here to stay, and Ohio might not get a perfect version of it, but the version presented now is virtually identical to the ones that passed in Indiana, West Virginia and Michigan. We can't hold out any longer for a "better" version. Too much money is being syphoned from our state.

Oh and if they put the casino in dayton...WOOHOOO! Free money people! The dealers would be so stupid they would think that a 23 is a winner in blackjack. Guaranteed money!

I HATE dayton.

[pizza delivery]

hmm, I was reading something about a casino on the river 6 miles away? Oh well.

[Kahns Krazy]

Nonetheless, even more casual moralists (the majority) find gambling eventually unappealing. It's impractical, wasteful, slimy. I'm not sure how many people on here are very frequent gamblers, I get the impression most just go every so often (1-4 times a year). Don't you realize that a Casino on Broadway Commons is a very freaking frequent thing for those who live, work and play (as they like to say) down there?
.

I find people that claim to speak for "the majority" are often referring to the majority of people they hang around that are like themselves.

At least a majority of people I know do not consider gambling "slimy". I think if that were true, there wouldn't even be a vote. If you're a Catholic in this town that finds gambling slimy, you must be very conflicted about your church.

[pizza delivery]

I find people that claim to speak for "the majority" are often referring to the majority of people they hang around that are like themselves.

At least a majority of people I know do not consider gambling "slimy". I think if that were true, there wouldn't even be a vote. If you're a Catholic in this town that finds gambling slimy, you must be very conflicted about your church.

I'm referring to gambling as a lifestyle. 2,3,4,5 times a week.

"a crucial fact about those who gamble for a living: it's damn boring. Over and over again, we meet both professional winners and losers who remind us that when you're playing a game of statistics, the only way you can do well is to have a large sample. And to have a large sample in poker (or anything else) you need to do it over, and over, and over again. And you must do it mathematically perfectly all the time to maintain your edge. It's this mind-numbing activity that causes card players to smoke, do drugs, eat excessively, and eventually, to cheat."

http://www.safdar.net/shabbir/2003/01/gambling_as_a_p.html

If it's not considered slimy, why is there so much resistance in America? I'm not saying it is slimy, I'm just saying people do, and will continue to, consider it so. And Catholic festival gambling is one of the biggest jokes to outsiders. Similarly, I will laugh at Cincinnati if it bows to the casino kings and rents it's image to them.

[GuyFawkes38]

I guess Chico's concern about the monopoly status is reasonable.

But Pizza's and the rest of the "no on issue 3" posters on this thread just come across as.....strange.

[pizza delivery]

I find people that claim to speak for "the majority" are often referring to the majority of people they hang around that are like themselves.



And to clarify my point from before, I was saying
a) many religious people will be against it
b) and I quote: "Nonetheless, even more casual moralists (the majority) find gambling eventually unappealing. It's impractical, wasteful, slimy."
I was saying most people pick and choose which morals they abide by, but are not really the religious types I mentioned at first. That's the majority. Of those people that pick and choose, many are against gambling in some form, and for various practical reasons.

I never said the majority of people are against gambling and think it's slimy. I said that in addition to religious people, many others will be against it as well. Even if it's only 10% of the public, if they're the people that call talk radio, write editorials, preach on Sunday, whatever, it will only be made worse by having it so visible - and permanent. I'd figure it's closer to 40% of the public though.

I don't live in the area anymore, so it's your call, I just think it's a huge mistake in that location.

[pizza delivery]

I guess Chico's concern about the monopoly status is reasonable.

But Pizza's and the rest of the "no on issue 3" posters on this thread just come across as.....strange.

I don't like the location. End of sentence. How is that so strange?

[GuyFawkes38]

I don't like the location. End of sentence. How is that so strange?

According to your above posts, you don't want gambling in any urban area. And one should only gamble after traveling a long distance. And one should only gamble in shame. I find that strange

It reminds me of prohibition. Of course alcohol consumption should be regulated and restricted. But should it be banned and stigmatized?

[jdm2000]

I'm not the biggest fan of the location, but it's far enough away from downtown (and sort of on the periphery of OTR) that I can live with it. I would not want something that would impede the progress being made in OTR right now in the Gateway Quarter. Hopefully this won't do that.

On the other hand, I think we would be waiting a long time for something to be developed at Broadway commons. They will probably be able to build the casino, have it there for 20+ years, and then move it if necessary.

[Kahns Krazy]

I guess we'll find out what the people want today.

[XU 87]

I have voted against most of these casino issues but voted for this one. It doesn't make much sense not to have a casino in Cincinnati but to have one in Indiana just across the border.

My wife is voting against because she thinks it adds to people's vices. My response to that is that then we should get rid of the lotteries, gambling at church festivals, bingo parlors, and horse racing.

[Kahns Krazy]

I think the vice argument is a carryover from when casinos were underground, and partaking was a criminal act. By definition, illegal gambling establishments cater to criminals. Casino operators are now well aware that the criminal element does not help their bottom line, and they spend a lot of money to make sure their target audience feels safe.

[pizza delivery]

According to your above posts, you don't want gambling in any urban area. And one should only gamble after traveling a long distance. And one should only gamble in shame. I find that strange

It reminds me of prohibition. Of course alcohol consumption should be regulated and restricted. But should it be banned and stigmatized?

That's really not the nature of my posts. You'll have to re-read them. My concern is more about the look, feel, and reputation of the city - especially after putting a 400 million dollar casino on the NE frontage of the city. The casino will spare no opportunity for making itself stick out like a sore thumb - that's what casinos do. I'm sensitive to the stigma that a building like that would produce. Like I said, I'd rather it go up on some parking lot on Central Parkway.

I'm not against gambling, I'm not trying to legislate morality, I'm just more into the status quo on gambling. It is usually placed in areas on the outside of wherever. Maybe that's changing. Heck, I am just as stunned that I saw a poker game on NBC last weekend. I hate that crap like I would hate it if rowing were everywhere on TV. Boring!

Anyway, traditionally downtown districts, to me, seem to say "this is who we are".
Manhattan: http://www.bridgeandtunnelclub.com/bigmap/manhattan/midtown/buildings/index.htm
I just doubt, although I've said I'm probably wrong, that citizens would want or think, "Cincinnati and big casino gaming, this is who we are." Perhaps it should be "who we are" if it passes and that stigma (which I know I'm not dreaming up here - I didn't write the book on anything) will perhaps go quietly. Then we'll have this potentially goofy looking mega-plex right there on Broadway Commons. Yippee.
The casino on Broadway will (pick one from each row):

Look cool................................Look Stupid

Gambling won't bother.............Gambling will bother

To me, there is a 1 in 4 chance of success here. Just my opinion. Not trying to spread the guilty, shameful vibes. Just trying to offer an opinion based perspective on "buying in" to casinos downtown as a cornerstone of development when no one else successful (that means you, O bastion of success, Detroit) has done so...yet.

[GoMuskies]

Anyway, traditionally downtown districts, to me, seem to say "this is who we are".
Manhattan: http://www.bridgeandtunnelclub.com/bigmap/manhattan/midtown/buildings/index.htm

Where is Times Square? Times Square reminds me of Vegas (minus the fun).

Edit: I see there is a piece of Times Square in one of the pictures. But it's certainly not Times Square at night.

[pizza delivery]

I have voted against most of these casino issues but voted for this one. It doesn't make much sense not to have a casino in Cincinnati but to have one in Indiana just across the border.

My wife is voting against because she thinks it adds to people's vices. My response to that is that then we should get rid of the lotteries, gambling at church festivals, bingo parlors, and horse racing.

Perhaps she was referring to catching one too many Elvis impersonators.

[pizza delivery]

Where is Times Square? Times Square reminds me of Vegas (minus the fun).

Edit: I see there is a piece of Times Square in one of the pictures. But it's certainly not Times Square at night.

If there were a chance for a casino in Manhattan it would be in Times Square. It is not.

[GoMuskies]

It wouldn't make Times Square any more tacky.

[pizza delivery]

It wouldn't make Times Square any more tacky.

Begging the question, why haven't they done it?

I'd love to believe Ohio is jumping 20 years ahead of the pack on this issue, but history doesn't tell me that's likely.

[pizza delivery]

Not surprised Toledo is in favor of a casino.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/politics&id=7096141

Toledo
Dayton
Findlay
Lima
Chillicothe

^^Casino towns^^

Cincinnati
Columbus
Cleveland

^^Not casino cities^^

[XU05and07]

And to clarify my point from before, I was saying
a) many religious people will be against it
b) and I quote: "Nonetheless, even more casual moralists (the majority) find gambling eventually unappealing. It's impractical, wasteful, slimy."
I was saying most people pick and choose which morals they abide by, but are not really the religious types I mentioned at first. That's the majority. Of those people that pick and choose, many are against gambling in some form, and for various practical reasons.

I never said the majority of people are against gambling and think it's slimy. I said that in addition to religious people, many others will be against it as well. Even if it's only 10% of the public, if they're the people that call talk radio, write editorials, preach on Sunday, whatever, it will only be made worse by having it so visible - and permanent. I'd figure it's closer to 40% of the public though.

I don't live in the area anymore, so it's your call, I just think it's a huge mistake in that location.

The church is against this and they harp on the moral and ethical obligations of their church members...all the while they want to keep their cash cows known as "church festivals", full of booze and gambling....sinners!

[pizza delivery]

The church is against this and they harp on the moral and ethical obligations of their church members...all the while they want to keep their cash cows known as "church festivals", full of booze and gambling....sinners!

Exactly, it's a joke. A sad fact that it's needed. Not hard to compare Ohio to a desperate church at this point. Proof that casinos just need to wait around until times get hard?

[GuyFawkes38]

Exactly, it's a joke. A sad fact that it's needed. Not hard to compare Ohio to a desperate church at this point. Proof that casinos just need to wait around until times get hard?

I don't think that is right. Lots of different types of cities in different economic conditions seek casinos.

[XU05and07]

I just want to point out the hypocrisy of every organized group (not just the church, but that was the first one I pointed out) that comes out for or against this issue...for any issue really

I just wish everyone would stop talking in such BS code and just say their real feelings...the church is against casinos because it hurts them, not because it is immoral or unethical.

[Kahns Krazy]

Like I said, I'd rather it go up on some parking lot on Central Parkway.
.

Then you are in luck. It is going on the biggest freaking parking lot on Central Parkway.

[GuyFawkes38]

The whole downtown Cincy is too good for a casino argument is ridiculous. London has casinos. Amsterdam has casinos. Casinos dot every major city in Canada.

[XU05and07]

The whole downtown Cincy is too good for a casino argument is ridiculous. London has casinos. Amsterdam has casinos.

my computer has a casino

[DC Muskie]

I just want to point out the hypocrisy of every organized group (not just the church, but that was the first one I pointed out) that comes out for or against this issue...for any issue really

I just wish everyone would stop talking in such BS code and just say their real feelings...the church is against casinos because it hurts them, not because it is immoral or unethical.

Exactly! We had the same problem out here in Maryland. While in state money went out to Delaware and West Virginia. Nobody seems to have a problem with gambling when other states do it. Never hear about the moral issues from there.

If I remember correctly, there was a study about the Charlestown track and where the majority of their customers came from. It appeared that the three highest incoming earning counties came from Maryland and Virginia. Poor people only seem to favor local casinos I guess.

[X-Fan]

Not surprised Toledo is in favor of a casino.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/politics&id=7096141

Toledo
Dayton
Findlay
Lima
Chillicothe

^^Casino towns^^

Cincinnati
Columbus
Cleveland

^^Not casino cities^^

I live in Toledo and I don't think "all of Toledo" is for Issue 3. In fact it seems like it's 50/50 for/against. It's funny you mention Toledo, because of all the sites, I think Toledo gets screwed the worst. The land is actually in a small town that borders downtown (Rossford OH), and with the terms of Issue 3, the town is going to get totally screwed. Issue 3 states that the majority of the revenue divided into the county with the casino goes to the biggest city, which in this case would be Toledo not Rossford. Issue 3 also states that the largest city near the casino gets another 5% of tax revenue, again that would be Toledo not Rossford.

What does Rossford get in return? A Casino that does not have to abide by any Zoning laws when it is built (this is written into Issue 3), a 24/7 casino that will dominate this quaint sleepy town, and the closing of small business (mostly bars) that are in that town due to the Casino (this is a trend cited by the "No on Issue 3" group).

This is yet another reason I don't like how Issue 3 is written and is why I voted "No" this morning.

[pizza delivery]

The whole downtown Cincy is too good for a casino argument is ridiculous. London has casinos. Amsterdam has casinos. Casinos dot every major city in Canada.

That's not the United States. I mean, I'd like to inherit Amsterdam's drug policies, but that wouldn't change people's perceptions about drugs. I probably wouldn't put the red light district right in front of the city, either. London has sports betting in their soccer stadiums. Much different, perhaps even much further ahead, than the US.

Touche on the Central Parkway comment, I'm just wanting it tucked in there a few more blocks if it's got to be in the downtown district. :D I just don't like the spot. I don't want to look at it. I don't want visitors getting blasted with it. I don't think people will want to say, hey, why not move next to a casino?

[pizza delivery]

Pittsburgh's casino hasn't really taken off...yet?
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/11/even_shiny_new_casinos_like_pi.html

I guess the upside would be that the 400 million dollar casino is built, fails in 10 years, and it can be converted into something less controversial.

[GuyFawkes38]

Pittsburgh's casino hasn't really taken off...yet?
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/11/even_shiny_new_casinos_like_pi.html

I guess the upside would be that the 400 million dollar casino is built, fails in 10 years, and it can be converted into something less controversial.

ha, come on now. your posts sound so Amish.

[GoMuskies]

Looks like Pittsburgh's is all slots. Total waste.

[pizza delivery]

ha, come on now. your posts sound so Amish.


The Amish are in favor of legalizing drugs and gambling?

[pizza delivery]

Looks like Pittsburgh's is all slots. Total waste.

Wow what were they thinking?

[TheDanimal]

I find myself a bit torn on the casino issue (which is odd considering how much I love going to the boats), not for any moral or constitutional imperative, but because I love horse racing. I am worried that approving a casino in Cincinnati would effectively kill River Downs. With full blown local gaming opportunities, River Downs would likely lose in its push to the gain slots / automated gaming devices it needs to stay afloat, or even if the measure eventually passed, the advantages to the track would be greatly diminished with a casino in town. River Downs is a beautiful setting, a lot of fun, and has long been a part of the town. However, it could be a whole lot more. I would almost rather see efforts to revitalize the track (which provides a good amount of jobs and could grow to require more) and get the slots to River Downs. But, then again, I do love blackjack and hate having to drive past the creation museum...hmmm...

[XU05and07]

House Advantage for casino games:
Keno = 25%
Slots = up to 15%

Roulette = 5.26%
Craps = 1.41% (the lowest on the board is 0% for pass and don't pass)
Baccarat = 1.24%
Blackjack = ranging from 0.17%-0.66% (1 deck - 8 deck)...changes for continue shuffle

There is a clear line...Keno doesn't work in Ohio because the citizens aren't "that" stupid. Slots at the race track won't help either, because the true gambler will know that he/she will have better odds on the horses than the machine.

Slots are in the casino to occupy those that want to play the little games on the screen or pull the arm...yes, occassionally people win on those games, but at 15%, I pass for the tables.

[XU05and07]

I find myself a bit torn on the casino issue (which is odd considering how much I love going to the boats), not for any moral or constitutional imperative, but because I love horse racing. I am worried that approving a casino in Cincinnati would effectively kill River Downs. With full blown local gaming opportunities, River Downs would likely lose in its push to the gain slots / automated gaming devices it needs to stay afloat, or even if the measure eventually passed, the advantages to the track would be greatly diminished with a casino in town. River Downs is a beautiful setting, a lot of fun, and has long been a part of the town. However, it could be a whole lot more. I would almost rather see efforts to revitalize the track (which provides a good amount of jobs and could grow to require more) and get the slots to River Downs. But, then again, I do love blackjack and hate having to drive past the creation museum...hmmm...

What horse racing needs is a sports book...but it seems that only vegas and atlantic city. They were approved and then the NFL sues to stop sports betting in delaware

[pizza delivery]

I find myself a bit torn on the casino issue (which is odd considering how much I love going to the boats), not for any moral or constitutional imperative, but because I love horse racing. I am worried that approving a casino in Cincinnati would effectively kill River Downs. With full blown local gaming opportunities, River Downs would likely lose in its push to the gain slots / automated gaming devices it needs to stay afloat, or even if the measure eventually passed, the advantages to the track would be greatly diminished with a casino in town. River Downs is a beautiful setting, a lot of fun, and has long been a part of the town. However, it could be a whole lot more. I would almost rather see efforts to revitalize the track (which provides a good amount of jobs and could grow to require more) and get the slots to River Downs. But, then again, I do love blackjack and hate having to drive past the creation museum...hmmm...

I would be 10000% behind improving the track and putting a casino in there as well. Love the track.

[pizza delivery]

What horse racing needs is a sports book...but it seems that only vegas and atlantic city. They were approved and then the NFL sues to stop sports betting in delaware

NFL can lick my balls.

[GoMuskies]

No (legal) sports betting in Jersey other than horses and jai alai.

[Jesuit4Life]

Don't know what the casino in Cincinnati would look like, but here's an artist's rendering of what it might look like in Cleveland:
http://media.cleveland.com/metro/photo/casinojpg-4267bd82d493ec77_large.jpg
Gilbert says it could cost $600 million. Obviously, he would need to come up with a better name.

[coasterville95]

I take it you haven't seen the gaming floor of a casino lately. To trivialize slots, the vast majority of the floorspace and profit belong to the slots. It is true the best bets are the tables, and yes the hard core high roller is going to head to the tables.

0% on pass or don't pass is only true on your "free odds" bet you still must make a minimum pass bet which carrys a small house edge. Agree keno is a sucker bet and has a reputation for that.

[GoMuskies]

Slots are fine. But an all-slots casino?!? Not even I would go there.

[XU05and07]

I take it you haven't seen the gaming floor of a casino lately. To trivialize slots, the vast majority of the floorspace and profit belong to the slots. It is true the best bets are the tables, and yes the hard core high roller is going to head to the tables.

0% on pass or don't pass is only true on your "free odds" bet you still must make a minimum pass bet which carrys a small house edge. Agree keno is a sucker bet and has a reputation for that.


Slots are fine. But an all-slots casino?!? Not even I would go there.

Go is saying what I am getting at. Slots are a majority of the casino floor, but would all-slot casinos attract the crowds that would be necessary to turn a profit?

[PM Thor]

Don't know what the casino in Cincinnati would look like, but here's an artist's rendering of what it might look like in Cleveland:
http://media.cleveland.com/metro/photo/casinojpg-4267bd82d493ec77_large.jpg
Gilbert says it could cost $600 million. Obviously, he would need to come up with a better name.

I might be sleep deprived, but I could swear that is the same pic used for the Cincy casino....kind of

I HATE dayton.

http://yesonissue3.com/Roots/SiteImages/CincyCasino.jpg

[XU05and07]

The Cincy and the Cleveland Casino would be owned by the same group...initial pictures might be similar, hopefully subject to change

[Kahns Krazy]

Pretty close vote right now, but it looks like it's going to pass. I'll be honest, as a supporter, I would have preferred that the vote had been more one sided.

[BENWAR]

Bring on the prostitutes!!! I couldn't find them in Indiana.

[XU05and07]

Casinos coming to Ohio

[pizza delivery]

I might be sleep deprived, but I could swear that is the same pic used for the Cincy casino....kind of

I HATE dayton.

http://yesonissue3.com/Roots/SiteImages/CincyCasino.jpg

LOL, look at that thing. 53/47. You got it, you better go visit it. I recommend Tuesday nights, 50's Elvis enters the building and later emerges as 70's Elvis for the 2nd show. If you can't make it out on a Tuesday, there's no excuse to miss "Mr. Chris and the Cruisers" on Saturday night.

Please visit this website and turn you speakers way up because this is what you just invited to your back porch for the next 20 years, Cincinnati.

http://www.grandvictoria.com/en/

[GuyFawkes38]

woooohooooo!!!!!

Pizza delivery is a loser.

And Ohio wins by keeping cash and jobs in state (and some cash from kentucky...who would have thought that Cincinnati would take a lead on development over Newport/Covington).

Can't wait to hit the casino in a few years.

[pizza delivery]

woooohooooo!!!!!

Pizza delivery is a loser.

And Ohio wins by keeping cash and jobs in state (and some cash from kentucky...who would have thought that Cincinnati would take a lead on development over Newport/Covington).

Can't wait to hit the casino in a few years.

Why do you make this personal?

[GuyFawkes38]

Why do you make this personal?

I guess that was unnecessary.

[GuyFawkes38]

Here's a good map: http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/11/how_ohio_is_voting_on_issue_3.html

Cincinnati and Cleveland easily side in the pro camp.

Most counties that will open the casinos voted yes while the no vote appears to be mostly rural. There's something refreshingly democratic about how this turned out. The voters closest to the casinos predominantly wanted them.

[pizza delivery]

Overwhelmingly so in the 4-5 counties surrounding Cincinnati. Desperate times, desperate measures will be part of the storyline for years to come. I don't think that tells the whole story. Things are bad in the rural areas of Ohio, too, but they didn't favor it. I think the culture IS ready for gambling and those nearest to the opportunity spoke the loudest.

With results like 67% in Hamilton county in favor, I can't help to think this will be a well attended casino, no matter if it looks like a cheap joint. Lot's of cash for the state almost immediately in the deal. It will help offset the economy, for sure.

Never was against casinos, but it may take a while to get used to seeing one in front of Cincinnati.

Edited: I hope it's a raging success.

[Jesuit4Life]

Wow, I knew it would be the same ownership group, but I had no idea that the artist rendering was the same for each city. Agreed that hopefully it's subject to change.

And that results map is very telling. I'm hardly surprised at the votes in favor in Cleveland and Cincinnati and their respective surrounding counties, but I'm a little surprised about the results in Franklin county.

[jdm2000]

I think Franklin County's issue is the proposed casino location--right in the Arena District. That would be akin to putting it on the Banks or across from Fountain Square in the 'Nati--it probably would not have gone over well.

[Masterofreality]

Yeahhhhhhhhh, baby.

You guys down in Cincinnati, now, pay a lot of visits to that Broadway Commons Casino. I hear the best bets are roulette- with a big dollar bet on one number. :)

The more money for Dan Gilbert, the better it is for the Cleveland Cavaliers. If you guys really dump lots of money in there, maybe Gilbert will buy the Indians from Larry (No) Dough-lan.

[TheDanimal]

I'm glad we Hamilton County voters could play a small part in the effort to keep LeBron from going to the Knicks next summer...


...you're welcome.


That being said, hit me!

[XU05and07]

Wow, I knew it would be the same ownership group, but I had no idea that the artist rendering was the same for each city. Agreed that hopefully it's subject to change.


This drawing was probably a very rough draft...The Enquirer article had this line today:

“We’ll immediately begin pre-construction development work and drawing up architectural plans,” said Gilbert spokeswoman Jennifer Kulczycki on Tuesday.

And also, the drawing and design is subject to change because Dan Gilbert voluntarily subject his design to the Urban Design Review. In the end, the 2 casinos probably won't look too similar.

Enquirer Article: Work on Casino Design, Rules to Start Quickly (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20091104/NEWS0108/311040029/Work+on+casino+design++rules+to+start+quickly)

[GoMuskies]

Will the casinos have tables and poker rooms? If so, I think they will do well. If not, I expect them to be enormous failures.

[pizza delivery]

Yeahhhhhhhhh, baby.

You guys down in Cincinnati, now, pay a lot of visits to that Broadway Commons Casino. I hear the best bets are roulette- with a big dollar bet on one number. :)

The more money for Dan Gilbert, the better it is for the Cleveland Cavaliers. If you guys really dump lots of money in there, maybe Gilbert will buy the Indians from Larry (No) Dough-lan.

I knew somehow this was about LeBron. The man pulls some weight.

[XU05and07]

Will the casinos have tables and poker rooms? If so, I think they will do well. If not, I expect them to be enormous failures.

The amendment reads, "Permit approved types of casino gaming authorized by Michigan, West Virginia, Indiana, and Pennsylvania as of January 1, 2009 or games subsequently authorizedby those states."

Most, if not all, of the those states have table games and poker rooms...so, yes they will have those too

[AdamtheFlyer]

I've always been pretty neutral on casinos and certainly am weary of the monopoly angle, but the idea of spending the occasional Friday or Saturday night going to a Reds game then the casino is quite appealing.

I'm also happy that a lot of good roaming security personnel I contract in my work will end up with steady jobs.

[coasterville95]

Indiana alone will get us all the traditional casino games as that reads, well excpet for a race/sports book and a keno lounge.

I'm thinking that was written to make sure we get any new games down the pike as soon as our competition does.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I'm glad we Hamilton County voters could play a small part in the effort to keep LeBron from going to the Knicks next summer...


...you're welcome.


That being said, hit me!

Oh he will be a Knick! Count on it.

[pizza delivery]

"Cincinnati officials say Gilbert’s plans won’t require a zoning change, but will be reviewed by planners to make sure they comply with building and other codes. Gilbert has voluntarily agreed to subject his plan to the Urban Design Review Board, which reviews plans for high-profile downtown projects to ensure they fit the city’s vision for the area. Gilbert’s casino will be authorized to operate up to 5,000 slot machines in a space one and a half times the size of a typical Wal-Mart Supercenter." - Enquirer

Hopefully Wal-Mart is merely a size comp. I, so far, have trust in the Urban Design Review Board, who also has overseen the Banks drawings and even turned some drawings down.

I think the design will try to have a modern look, which can be pretty trite IMO, although I'll be pleasantly surprised if they use brick to go with the neighborhood. My only worry at this point is them falling into that run of the mill casino look that St. Louis got and that you see so often on reservations or in "Chicagoland" if you've been through there.

Some people may not find it very interesting or important what a building looks like, but for me it's one of the highlights of any city. It can be a real selling point.

[GuyFawkes38]

I sense you don't like modern architecture, Pizza. But I and many other people out there, a silent majority, really like it. I think it's good for every community to have a couple buildings which say, "f*ck you". It keeps a community on edge and distinctive.

[pizza delivery]

Where do you get that sense? I said modern buildings can look trite. Lots of gray pipes, generally an unfinished look, like you're seeing what they didn't have imagination to cover up, somewhere of course a signature wavy wall. I want more from a building that's reputed to be over 300 million. I like the one in Newport, for a general example:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:I1rw1X-MwgxvDM:http://eviljwinter.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ascent_newport.jpg

So, yeah, anything else you're looking to misinterpret?

[vee4xu]

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/IssueProcBallotBd/BallotBoard.aspx#Issues

Read all about it fellow Muskie fans. Reading the links beneath Issue 3 will speak to many of the questions raised here. It can't be any more unbiased than the actual bill's language.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Hopefully Wal-Mart is merely a size comp. I, so far, have trust in the Urban Design Review Board, who also has overseen the Banks drawings and even turned some drawings down.

I think the design will try to have a modern look, which can be pretty trite IMO, although I'll be pleasantly surprised if they use brick to go with the neighborhood. My only worry at this point is them falling into that run of the mill casino look that St. Louis got and that you see so often on reservations or in "Chicagoland" if you've been through there.

Some people may not find it very interesting or important what a building looks like, but for me it's one of the highlights of any city. It can be a real selling point.

What St. Louis casino are you talking about? I am not sure you have the right picture in mind.

[pizza delivery]

http://www.harrahsnkc.com/casinos/harrahs-north-kansas-city/hotel-casino/property-home.shtml

[D-West & PO-Z]

http://www.harrahsnkc.com/casinos/harrahs-north-kansas-city/hotel-casino/property-home.shtml


That is not in St. Louis.

[D-West & PO-Z]

http://www.atlasworldgroup.com/articles/images/2008-summer-amp/lumiere-place-image.jpg

[CinciX12]

Isn't there only one casino in St. Louis? I forget the name, but it kinda reminded me of Windsor. Not really the cream of the crop as far as casinos go.

[GuyFawkes38]

Pizza guy's obsession with the aesthetics of the building seems sort of.....well, gay (not that there's anything inherently wrong with that).

At some point with this issue you have to abandon your idealistic beliefs and ask the tough policy oriented questions. Outside of the monopoly criticism, the no on issue 3 folks refused to do that.

FTR, I think the casino in STL looks cool:

http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/resources/casino625aug27.jpg

[D-West & PO-Z]

Isn't there only one casino in St. Louis? I forget the name, but it kinda reminded me of Windsor. Not really the cream of the crop as far as casinos go.

No, fail. There are 4. The one in downtown is new and awesome. Very cream of the crop.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Pizza guy's obsession with the aesthetics of the building seems sort of.....well, gay (not that there's anything inherently wrong with that).

At some point with this issue you have to abandon your idealistic beliefs and ask the tough policy oriented questions. Outside of the monopoly criticism, the no on issue 3 folks refused to do that.

FTR, I think the casino in STL looks cool:

http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/resources/casino625aug27.jpg

Ya those are two different casinos. There is that boat (not much to look at) the the one in the distance that is pretty sweet and brand new. Lumiere.

[chico]

There's also a casino, the Ameristar, in St. Charles. It's not that bad of a place - stayed near there last year and went in for a while. Here's a photo of that one.

http://www.hotels.com/hotels/STL_AMCA-exter-1.jpg

Now that this thing has passed, I hope that the developers take their time and do this right. They could really do something nice there.

I didn't think of this before but I guess this puts a final nail in any hope of the next ballpark going at Broadway Commons - I was always holding out hope that when I was 80 or so they'd finally put a stadium there because that's where it belonged in the first place.

[PM Thor]

Now that it's passed, I am hearing about the hoops that have to be jumped through, and I am sated. Having the owners have to clear the building with the yokels is good, and the fact that we will have to wait at least 3 years for actual betting before the Cincy place opens also calms some worries.

If they really, really wanted to, they could throw up some garish, craptastic place in 18 months. It's happened before, but I really like the slow(er) pace to this.

I HATE dayton.

[pizza delivery]

Pizza guy's obsession with the aesthetics of the building seems sort of.....well, gay (not that there's anything inherently wrong with that).

At some point with this issue you have to abandon your idealistic beliefs and ask the tough policy oriented questions. Outside of the monopoly criticism, the no on issue 3 folks refused to do that.

FTR, I think the casino in STL looks cool:

http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/resources/casino625aug27.jpg

Fucks,

If my arguments were not convincing or worth consideration, why have you spent time attacking me? I think I made some worthwhile points that apparently you can only counter with insults.

I can't help it if considering location or architecture seems gay to you. I'd say that's some kind of indication of your maturity level. If this whole thing works out, in more ways than one it will be despite people like you.

But you've got your casino. Apparently, it could look like a goddamn McDonalds as long as it provides the overestimated amount of underpaying jobs and some slots. I'd say that makes you either a stupid redneck or a degenerate gambler. Why not just stay out of it.

[PM Thor]

Or pizza, he's smart enough to realize the massive, gaping hole that Ohio was allowing to neighboring states who DO allow gambling.

Be against gambling fine. But be truthful about it. Be against lotteries, Church betting, tournament brackets, all of it.

For me, to read your posts, it seems as if it's sour grapes, now harping on the unknown of the actual building itself, when the real issue of losing the gambling issue is the underlying concern. Did I misinterpret?

I HATE dayton.

[pizza delivery]

Or pizza, he's smart enough to realize the massive, gaping hole that Ohio was allowing to neighboring states who DO allow gambling.

Be against gambling fine. But be truthful about it. Be against lotteries, Church betting, tournament brackets, all of it.

For me, to read your posts, it seems as if it's sour grapes, now harping on the unknown of the actual building itself, when the real issue of losing the gambling issue is the underlying concern. Did I misinterpret?

I HATE dayton.

I think the status quo has been to keep casinos on the outskirts of wherever. Putting a casino in a downtown district is not something NY, Chi, SF, LA, other large metros have done. They don't really need to. If I had to be more honest, it would be that Cincinnati isn't in a position to be picky. Beggars can't be choosers. To characterize this amendment without the element of desperation would be ignorant.

Both sides overstated their position. There will not be as many jobs created as the public thinks. The amount of permanent jobs is far less than 40k, and the median pay is well below state averages. Likewise, there is no real reason for the concern that crime will increase, in fact it can only get better in OTR, lol. So I call bullshit all around.

I have said 100 times, I want casinos in Ohio. I realize them for all the employment benefits (meager and substantial) they provide, as well as whatever taxes (regressive and otherwise) that they can garner. That doesn't mean I think they're enjoyable places, reputable places, places the public will feel civic pride about, and that doesn't mean I want one in, what I consider, an important location. Because I have a low opinion of most casinos, doesn't mean I don't realize their benefits. Guy doesn't know how to read, apparently.

In the beginning of this thread, I thought the argument that presents the stigma of a casino built right fucking downtown needed to be brought to bear. I feel like I achieved that without falling for the fake criminal element argument. Throughout, I've learned more about casinos then I'll ever need again. I even left room for the possibility that I could be wrong and it could go extremely well. It's a gamble I wouldn't have made.

[PM Thor]

Gotcha.

While I understand, I disagree. First, Cincy isn't a "large" metro like those you mentioned. Like you say, cities like NY, Chicago, or the others don't need to put a casino downtown, they bring in a large amount of money otherwise.

I don't mind if the casino is downtown, I don't think they are disreputable, and don't bring down a city who has them in their core. Heck, I would take a casino over 5 blocks of OTR any day, and take it over an open eyesore that is the current Broadway Commons. Quite honestly, would you prefer the blight that is OTR or the West End over a casino? Not me. And I do believe it will infuse a ton of cash into the most blighted area of Cincinnati, quite quickly. (Heck, the casino issue will be a huge boon to the streetcar thing too, if it's worked correctly)

I just think your concern about a casino downtown is misplaced. Cities already have them around the country. People don't shy away from those towns based on whether or not they have gambling, in fact, I think they shy towards them.

But we will see what happens. You seem to be pessimistic about the placement. I am all for it. Goooooo OTR!

I HATE dayton.

[GuyFawkes38]

Fucks,

If my arguments were not convincing or worth consideration, why have you spent time attacking me? I think I made some worthwhile points that apparently you can only counter with insults.

I can't help it if considering location or architecture seems gay to you. I'd say that's some kind of indication of your maturity level. If this whole thing works out, in more ways than one it will be despite people like you.

But you've got your casino. Apparently, it could look like a goddamn McDonalds as long as it provides the overestimated amount of underpaying jobs and some slots. I'd say that makes you either a stupid redneck or a degenerate gambler. Why not just stay out of it.

This might sound crazy to you.

But is it possible that even if the aesthetics of the building suck, the casino will still be a good thing for Cincinnati and Ohio. I know that's crazy. I know you don't care about the economic aspect of the casino. I know you don't care about the jobs it will create and the increased tax revenue. I know you ONLY care about the aesthetics. But is that possible?

[Kahns Krazy]

Will the casinos have tables and poker rooms? If so, I think they will do well. If not, I expect them to be enormous failures.

The poker rooms are loss leaders. They don't pull in nearly enough to justify their own existance. However, they all have to have them, because if not, you run the risk of losing out on a busload of gamblers because one guy wants to play poker.

Because of the placement, the casino in Cincinnati would probably be more profitable per square foot if it didn't have a poker room. I expect it to have one though. Maybe not as big as Hollywood's, but there will be one.


Now that it's passed, I am hearing about the hoops that have to be jumped through, and I am sated. Having the owners have to clear the building with the yokels is good, and the fact that we will have to wait at least 3 years for actual betting before the Cincy place opens also calms some worries.

If they really, really wanted to, they could throw up some garish, craptastic place in 18 months. It's happened before, but I really like the slow(er) pace to this.

I HATE dayton.

At this point, that is all voluntary, but the developers are all saying the right things at this point. Of course, so did Sean Miller...

What do you think "yokels" means?


Fucks,

If my arguments were not convincing or worth consideration....

His name is Fawkes. Oh wait, I see what you did there.



I didn't think of this before but I guess this puts a final nail in any hope of the next ballpark going at Broadway Commons - I was always holding out hope that when I was 80 or so they'd finally put a stadium there because that's where it belonged in the first place.

It could still go back to where Crosley was. I'm curious how the stadium "belonged" at broadway commons in the first place. In the city that started professional baseball, the stadium has never been there. Why would it "belong" there any more than it belongs in Blue Ash?

[chico]

It could still go back to where Crosley was. I'm curious how the stadium "belonged" at broadway commons in the first place. In the city that started professional baseball, the stadium has never been there. Why would it "belong" there any more than it belongs in Blue Ash?

Just talking about the most previous stadium we built - nothing more. I thought Broadway was the perfect place to put the stadium - look what places like Coors in Denver did for the surrounding area once it went in. It would have done wonders for OTR. Not to mention the backdrop of Mt. Adams. I never thought it was a good idea to put a stadium on the river, because I never understood how a ballpark is necessary to get people down to the river.

And yes, I kind of know my Reds history a little, so I full realize that the Reds have pretty much always played on the "Crosley" site going back to the late 1800's. (Actually, the current site of the Blue Ash airport was seriously considered when Riverfront was built).

[pizza delivery]

This might sound crazy to you.

But is it possible that even if the aesthetics of the building suck, the casino will still be a good thing for Cincinnati and Ohio. I know that's crazy. I know you don't care about the economic aspect of the casino. I know you don't care about the jobs it will create and the increased tax revenue. I know you ONLY care about the aesthetics. But is that possible?

I'm ready to see the thing happen. I saw the pics you linked to in St. Louis and I really liked it. The one I was looking at earlier I got confused - it was in north KC. Dense mistake. At this point I've got a lot of hope that it will look good - "1st class" is underlined in the board of elections link to the YES side, even.

Do I think it's possible it can be a success without it looking right? Sure. I've said from the beginning I'm likely in the minority and that I was bringing some of that viewpoint to the discussion. It seems apparent to me that many people couldn't care less about what goes there. 67% of Hamilton county is desperate/ready/enthusiastic for a casino. There is no question that there will be financial benefits. None.

I realize my argument was in a way "a nickel holding up a dollar". I was taking it for granted that another ballot measure would come along with better terms overall and a different location. But there's only been 5 in 20 years. Perhaps that was unrealistic. On top of that, leading up to Tuesday, I hadn't heard any reassurance about the Urban Review board, the 1st class statement, etc. That coming into play, along with the overwhelming public support has shifted my perspective. I don't even live there anymore, and don't know that I ever will again. So I had no temperature on the public's desire for this amendment. But from an outsiders perspective, and one who wants to see a city I love be respected, I think design and location considerations are part of the equation. So does Dan Gilbert. I'm ready to see it happen.

[GuyFawkes38]

well, pizza guy. we can agree to disagree. And sure I, too, have concerns about how the building will look and its effects on OTR and east downtown.

I wonder how the large, progressive, "No on Issue 9" group felt about the casino (they seemed quiet about it). I really think it's a positive to their agenda. The casino will bring people downtown and raise cash for rail. After Issue 3's passage, I heard even Bill Cunningham was warming to the idea of rail and a transformed downtown/otr. Now conservatives who supported the casino have something at stake downtown.

[chico]

Bring back the incline! Go straight from Bar & Grill to the casino - not a bad combination.

[Kahns Krazy]

I've heard rumors that the Celestial may be closing. A gondola from the roof of the casino to the Celestial would be sweet.

[sirthought]

I don't care how many poker rooms they have, as long as there are the Telly Savalas rooms and the titty halls. OTR is ripe for more class to come it's way and this is surely how to do it. :cool:

Perhaps they'll clue into the outstanding German-style architecture and design something that fits into our town's heritage and not have something completely cheesy.

[Snipe]

Some people may not find it very interesting or important what a building looks like, but for me it's one of the highlights of any city. It can be a real selling point.

I am with you there. I want something big and bold. If they are spending all that money, i want the freaking Taj Mahal. And yes, I don't know how to spell that.



Just talking about the most previous stadium we built - nothing more. I thought Broadway was the perfect place to put the stadium - look what places like Coors in Denver did for the surrounding area once it went in. It would have done wonders for OTR. Not to mention the backdrop of Mt. Adams. I never thought it was a good idea to put a stadium on the river, because I never understood how a ballpark is necessary to get people down to the river.

And yes, I kind of know my Reds history a little, so I full realize that the Reds have pretty much always played on the "Crosley" site going back to the late 1800's. (Actually, the current site of the Blue Ash airport was seriously considered when Riverfront was built).

I love both stadiums down on the river. We spent a bunch of money on them and I have been to both. They really are first rate stadiums. My biggest fear is that we would screw it up and we would be stuck with the disaster for decades. They did a great job, and they exceeded my expectations.

I think Broadway Commons could have worked. Who owns that property? It seems like the law we voted on had it set in stone for Broadway Commons. I bet they make a nickle on that. I hope the price was negotiated before the vote, otherwise they are in one nice position.

When you put a camera in Northern Kentucky on the bank of the Ohio River it does make a nice picture when you have a state of the art well lit stadium with the backdrop of the city skyline. Broadway Commons would have been nice, but I think we did well. I am proud that we actually built some nice stadiums. Now all we need is Nick Vehr! I don't know if I can spell his name either, but that kid had balls. Or something like them with added chemicals.


Bring back the incline! Go straight from Bar & Grill to the casino - not a bad combination.

I want to bring back the incline myself. I took one in Pittsburgh on a roadtrip. You see the thing and you just want to take it. If we are going the streetcar route, the streetcar has to connect the Casino with the rest of downtown. And we need to make those bastards pay for the as much of that bloated streetcar budget as we can. Khans floated that idea and I liked it. Like Nancy Pelosi, I am generous with other people's money. Give me the Taj Mahal, give me the Streetcar, give me the incline. I demand service. I am entitled to it.

[Jumpy]

Even if the casino is a billion dollar jewel in the city's crown, I hope they have at least one room/area that just looks like a back-alley, seedy gambling den. I want to feel a little dirty when I go down there.

[coasterville95]

I think they said the casino developers had options on the land before the vote took place. I'd be surprised if the options didn't come with the sale price agreed to up front. (But also would have allowed them to elect NOT to exercise their options and leave with little to no real estate investment had it failed). That also makes life interesting if Blessing gets the modifcations on the ballot in May. (He doesn't want to try to overturn the casino vote, he merely wants to up the tax rate and put the four casinos out to competetive bid, both noble goals. It's like he said, "Okay, this is the closest we have come, let it pass, then tweak it") If I were the casino operators/developers, i'd exercise those land options as soon as the vote gets certified, that way in May if the ballot issue passes to put it up to competetive bid, they can say "Okay, bid it out, but the casinos can only be operated on the land we own per the constitution. You can either award the bid to us, or award it to smebody else, who won't be able to get the land to build unless they lease it back from us at an exhorbitant rental fee, or we could just let the properies sit derelict." If they thought three homeowners caused pain and grief against eminent domain in Rookwood, just wait till they try it on a major casino operator with DEEP pockets.

I've read the raw amendment language, some pretty neat stuff in there. The Ohio Racetracks get 3% of the taxes to use for purses and promoting horse racing in Ohio AS LONG AS they don't get their own casino/ slot parlors - then that deal is off. That makes it interesting, as now they will have to decide if they want to persue their slot parlors or take their cut of the gaming taxes, which deal is better? Now that the casino issue passed, I expect the racetrack slots issue to go to the ballot, and the 3% is basically hush money to discourage the tracks from starting their own operation. In the end, even if River Downs settles for 3% of the tax and no slots, they will surely be able to outclass Turfway Park for purses. Owner of Turfway Park is already whining about how he may have to shut down.

Also, it appears to give an exclusive right of gambling to the casinos - with the stated exceptions of the Lottery, Bingo, and horse racing. "No one but the casino owners or their mangement firms may..." I know they have said before the vote their intention was not to shut down church festival gambling tents and veterans hall monte carlo nights, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out. The rules are supposed to be written within six months, so I'm guessing we'll find out right before church festival season. I know its not expressly forbidden, but they did make an explicit carve out for charitable bingo, but no such carve out for monte carlo nights and festival games. I suspect when they draft the laws they will put in a carve out for table games run for charitable purposes, or something like that.

Speaking of table games, I remember when I went to a Monte Carlo outside Cincinnati, they had craps tables, and when I aksed why they don't have those at Cincinnati festivals, they said it was forbidden in Cincinnati code, which is why our festivals have that "Beat the Dealer" dice game instead. Some time back I did confirm that in the cincinnati code. So will that bar the casino in Cincinnati from offering Craps? I'm thinking the state constitiution has a trump card.

But anyway, I can't wait to ride the streetcar to the casino with Snipe...

[GoMuskies]

If Turfway shuts down in favor of River Downs it would be a real shame. River Downs is a dump.

[Kahns Krazy]

River Downs >> Turfway. What sort of track is closed for live racing in the summer? Standing on the rail and watching and listening the the horses thunder by is way better than sitting inside a glass box watching a race with 300 other people.

Turfway should add Jai alai. That would kick ass.

[coasterville95]

I could go for Jai Alai ("Hi-Li") , I mean its not gonna happen, but Jai Alai is a really cool game to watch.

[XU05and07]

I could go for Jai Alai ("Hi-Li") , I mean its not gonna happen, but Jai Alai is a really cool game to watch.

Here's an interesting tidbit about Jai Alai...not been proven, but it is a story in Spain:

The game of jai alai may have had ancient predecessors, as the notions behind handball have been found in many prehistoric societies. In its present form, however, the game is traced to Basque villages in the Pyrenees of France and Spain. The origins of the game may go back to the fifteenth century. Mythmakers suggest that the game may have been the invention of St. Ignatius of Loyola, who – like his compatriot St. Francis Xavier – was Basque. What is less mythical is the fact that the game was played during religious festival occasions in the Catholic region. The words jai alai mean “merry festival”.

[GoMuskies]

River Downs >> Turfway. What sort of track is closed for live racing in the summer?

Only one track at a time in Kentucky, and Churchill (for obvious reasons) gets the best dates. I'm not sure what track runs from July 4 through the beginning of September. Ellis Park maybe?

And there's a huge open area right down by the rail. Plenty of space to stand by the track and let the horses thunder past.

[waggy]

Jai Alai ("Hi-Li")

Dude.


...

[BiggieXU]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/99060

[GuyFawkes38]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/99060

Ha, that's hilarious.

[Masterofreality]

Sorry for being late on this snippet. I meant to post this earlier, but it slipped my aging mind.

The cheif political advisor on the Issue 3 campaign, and he was sitting on the podium with Dan Gilbert on election night after approval, was 1971 Xavier Graduate and former Congressman Dennis Eckart. He was a year ahead of me at XU and a very smart and savvy pol. I'd like for him to run for Cuyahoga Socialist State Chief Executive. I don't think he wants the job, though.

So...If you are happy with Issue 3, credit a Xavier Grad for the strategy. If you are not, blame one of your Musketeer brethern.