By Angie

November 2, 2009 1:08 PM | Link to this

Well I guess a “service job” is better than NO JOB!!

By fknlyr

November 1, 2009 8:49 PM | Link to this

Have Pete Rose and Art Schlicter as casino hosts.

By Plain Truth

October 28, 2009 12:21 AM | Link to this

In Response to For Ohio. The difference is that at least most of the money will stay here. The rest is within my post.

By Travis Aker

October 28, 2009 12:16 AM | Link to this

The only thing the casinoes are going to bring in is low paying service jobs.Which ain’t going to pay the bills of a average family,they would still be on welfare collecting food stamps in line. Yet blowing there money on gambling,will being taking advantage of. Vote NO on Issue 3 a Bad deal for Ohio.

By Tess

October 27, 2009 11:10 PM | Link to this

So…how many of those 7,500 jobs will be “service” jobs? My guess is most of them and service jobs don’t pay the bills. They are great for college kids, retirees, or a second job. While that’s all well and good those type of jobs won’t save Ohio.

By Jimmy Rage

October 27, 2009 11:03 PM | Link to this

It’s all wrong and a bad thing if it happens. I was an engineer in the gaming industry and it was an eye opener. Think about it, how many people do you personally know, that has prospered from gaming. Now, what about the opposite? And NO, if you go to the boat with $800 and lose it, you did not break even. I know gamblers,alcoholics,and crack addicts, there is no difference in the disease, and it’s effects.

By FreedomWriter

October 27, 2009 10:40 PM | Link to this

A possible answer to not knowing whether or not other charitable organizations will be allowed to continue their forms of gambling or not seems to be the same as the smokers that were taken when they rammed that thru the state as well. So vote wisely here folks, because you never REALLY know what you are voting for until its all said and done.. Just saying to be careful what you wish for!!And for the record, no i dont smoke either. It should be allowed but maybe not with this bill going thru.

By null

October 27, 2009 10:34 PM | Link to this

I worked in Atlantic City for many years when they first opened in the ‘70’s. Atlantic City was a blighted, poverty stricken area. There is a 20-30 mile radius of thriving towns & communities that were built to accomodate all of the workers and businesses that opened as a result of the growth. Yes, some casino workers had to be brought in from Las Vegas, due to their unique expertise, but that was also good for all of the small businesses in the area. It continues to thrive today, and almost all casino workers make a very good living. There is always opportunities for advancement in casinos, too. Many people who had never been able to own a home were afforded the opportunity to do so. (back in the days when you had to actually qualify), and many others were able to pay off their mortgages completely. If your State needs the money, I would say go for it.It is one industry that is very well run and I’ve yet to see the industry itself ever go out of business, in any state.

By For Ohio

October 27, 2009 10:29 PM | Link to this

In response to Plain Truth: I work at a nursing home and most of the STNAs there are on welfare because they make such little money. At least they are working a full time job and trying to improve their situation.How is this any different from working in a casino??? A job is a job as long as you tkae pride in the work you do!

By jenine

October 27, 2009 10:15 PM | Link to this

I worked in Atlantic City, NJ for close to 10 years when the casinos first opened. They hired local people as best they could, but they also needed the experience of Las Vegaspit bosses, dealers, etc. However, the influx of people from Las Vegas, had a very positive effect on the economy. It was a dead city, which was resurrected and thrives to this day. It also created a housing boom. It created an entire construction industry. I can’t begin to tell you how many small businesses were born from all the people who moved there. It was a slum before the casinos. If your cities need the jobs, I say go for it.

By Mike

October 27, 2009 9:53 PM | Link to this

I am also wondering if alot of the people that are not for the gaming drive foreign cars. where were they when the auto industry was booming in ohio . Out buying foreign cars.Ohio needs to wake up. You don’t have the industry to keep Ohio going and it will be along time if ever they will have again.I see some people talking against gaming but I don’t here any sound suggestion on how to create jobs and increase the quality of life in Ohio. If the gaming is not the perfect solution so what I dont see any other solutions being offered to offset the down fall of economics in Ohio.You can’t fix stupid.

By Mike

October 27, 2009 9:36 PM | Link to this

I worked on a casino boat and found the people made a very decent wage and with tips made alot of money. I am from Ohio and now live in Florida. I think that Ohio must get their head out of the sand and create new jobs.I have visited the casinos in Ind. the parking lots are full of cars from Ohio keep the money in Ohio If you don’t then let the last person turn out the lights.

By dougr

October 27, 2009 9:09 PM | Link to this

If you believe anything that comes out of the mouths of these “purveyors of gambling or any other vice”, you are either incredibly gullible or intellectually challenged.

By Plain Truth

October 27, 2009 9:07 PM | Link to this

How many jobs will this take away that normal spending produces? How are tehse low paying local jobs going to benefit the people of Ohio that will be on Food Stamps, etc because they won’t be paid enough to live on. In the end the State of Ohio will still increase taxes and the schools will still be putting on levies so what is acomplished if this passes? It acomplishes putting money in the wrong hands at the high end. The State will still increase taxes and continue to say how they do not have the money and plagerize children for the sake of getting it through when ultimate reality is the kids get screwed out of the help that they were “politically promised” and we all know what that means, which is it plainly doesn’t happen. Now take the burden chronic gamblers add to society and we have more money that has to come from social services to help the kids because their parent is spending their milk and food money gambling. Th ericher people who could actually help the economy by spending on new cars, etc will be spending their money at the casino, which most of the money will flow out of the state, so just how is this good for teh PEOPLE of OHIO? Simply put IT IS NOT GOOD FOR OHIO IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM!

By Brock

October 27, 2009 8:48 PM | Link to this

Be smart OHIO Vote yes on issue 3!

By YoYo's

October 27, 2009 7:41 PM | Link to this

“Terry” you idiot, the casino workers the folks that youre referring to already live in the community. No need for new housing of residents, and no exorbent spending in this economy. Do you realize there’s not much spending money after earning 7-8 dollars an hour.

By Mark

October 27, 2009 7:29 PM | Link to this

I voted against gambling last year when Wilmington was losing its last job. In the 52 weeks since, not ONE politician has stood up for Wilmington and helped it. I regret my vote. In Ohio, unless WE vote new jobs in, we’re not going to get new jobs. Our Government is becoming as crooked as Louisiana. I’m beyond caring about the Ohio Constitution. I care about Ohioians and the poverty we are starting to accept as the norm. Vote YES on Issue 3. Speak up for Ohioians.

By Mark

October 27, 2009 6:50 PM | Link to this

I can’t imagine it being too hard to hire local residents and train them for most casino jobs in a pretty short period of time, but Issue 3 is still a bad idea. I have no problem with casino gambling, in fact I would like to see it in Ohio. But a constitution is a document of fundamental principles that is meant to be read, written, and changed with great care and this proposed amendment simply does not do that—especially when you let the companies and special interest groups that stand to benefit from it write their own rules, limit competition, and make it next to impossible to make future changes to the law. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house! A constitution should be a stable framework and the Ohio Revised Code, for example, should be more fluid. Our current amendment process makes it too easy for special interest groups with deep pockets (gambling, anti-smoking, and agricultural—just to name a few) to make permanent, self-serving changes to our state that would be better addressed through other means. As much as I would like to see gambling in Ohio, I will continue to vote NO until we, the voters of Ohio, are offered a good proposal. Issue 3 certainly is not.

By stinky

October 27, 2009 6:37 PM | Link to this

They gonna have hotels at these places? Are locals gonna clean the rooms? Or are they gonna ship in illegals? Guess. Are temp agencies gonna be the ones in charge of hiring? If so look for no bennies, poverty wages,etc for up to a year before casinos hire you on full time, if one is able to last that long.Bottom line, illegals and temps equal high turnover and just another crappy job!!

By scott

October 27, 2009 6:10 PM | Link to this

If this plan prohibits casinos in other cities, I am voting against it. The samller cities need this more than the big cities. No matter where you build casinos, people will come. Why put a casino in Cincinnati that is a half hour away from another casino

By DENHEE

October 27, 2009 5:11 PM | Link to this

Flipper doesn’t think untrained workers can,t fill the job slots. Well, these workers will be trained during casino construction/pre-formal opening. Just like any new eatry/hotel/motel. Let’s get people hired! Vote yes on issue 3!

By dale1

October 27, 2009 5:04 PM | Link to this

What happened to the 34,000 jobs? Now its only 6,750 jobs. I guess the other jobs are temporary construction jobs. I agree that we shouldn’t ammend the state consitution. I bet the casinos will not make a dent in Ohio’s unemployment and these jobs will not pay enough to live on.

By barry

October 27, 2009 5:04 PM | Link to this

so what if they hire 100% out of state people? bottom line is those people will live in this state once their jobs are here, they will buy homes in the state, they will pay state taxes, and they will buy things in this state. worst case is still a win for us.

By Who has ran a business before?

October 27, 2009 4:58 PM | Link to this

It is not cost effective to relocate and bring in 10’s of thousands of workers for low skill jobs. Yes, 90% of Ohioans to be trained sounds correct from any business standpoint. It is also not cost effective or business smart to expect to train upper level positions, including management as opposed to hiring seasoned professionals. Since there are NO casinos in Ohio, it would be reasonable that 10% would be out-of-state workers.

By flipper

October 27, 2009 4:42 PM | Link to this

So the casino’s work force will be 90% untrained and unseasoned workers. Not even gonna believe that one. I would not hire anyone for a specific job without some experience. And the experience will come from out of state folks. Yes they will spend money here but that is not the main focus. Believe what you will.

By Done

October 27, 2009 4:39 PM | Link to this

I have come to the conclusion that we either get a bad deal, or no deal at all. Ohio politicians will never assemble a fair deal for Ohio. So is 30% of a bad deal better than 100% of no deal?

By Terry

October 27, 2009 4:37 PM | Link to this

Even if they bring in workers, money will filter into the economy through, housing, shopping, etc. These folks have to live somewhere.

By We're doomed

October 27, 2009 4:36 PM | Link to this

The constitution is for important things… like banning smoking! Ohio voters…almost as incompetent as Columbus politicians.

By Bengalsin09

October 27, 2009 4:29 PM | Link to this

Come on folks,changing the constitution so these clowns can make money off the citizens of Ohio, not to mention that they would all gambling in Ohio.. no more monte carlo nights, no more gambling at fish frys, who knows were they will stand on Bingo halls! I want Casinos in Ohio just as much as everyone but this is far too sweet of a deal for Penn National gaming. I don’t see all the jobs either that the proponents say will be created. the legislators and Penn Gaming need to sit down and hammer out a deal that is fair to all, not just Penn Gaming.

By Clueless One

October 27, 2009 4:20 PM | Link to this

We still need a STRAIGHT ANSWER on this question: Will this ammendment outlaw charitable gaming? It says so in plain English in the ammendment, but proponents say that’s not true. And why does the ammendment exclude “cash” wagering. What the heck is “cash” wagering???

By Tim

October 27, 2009 4:19 PM | Link to this

My issue isn’t with gambling and who will or will not get the jobs. My issue is why is it necessary to amend the state constitution? We Ohioans are simply too willing to make changes to this document without considering the possible ramifications.

By Roll the Bones

October 27, 2009 4:11 PM | Link to this

C’mon people…training to be a casino worker doesn’t take THAT long. They don’t need outside workers to fill these jobs! I wouldn’t be shocked if they brought in some experienced pit bosses on a temporary basis, but there’s not going to be a mass migration of workers from New Jersey. That’s stupid. I don’t like that Penn National gaming basically wrote the ammendment. I know that Ohio could have gotten more money out of this deal, but it would require politicians to get a decent proposal assembled. Since that will never happen and Strickland is as clueless as Taft, I fear this one-sided bill is the best we can hope for.

By Duane Shope

October 27, 2009 4:02 PM | Link to this

AND WHO WILL THEY HIRE TO BUILD THESE GAMBLING VENUES OUT OVE STATERS?

By null

October 27, 2009 3:46 PM | Link to this

I would like to know how much these jobs are actually going to pay? Statistics from the Department of Labor show that non tipped gaming workers don’t make enough to live on.

By Rich

October 27, 2009 3:28 PM | Link to this

And HOW, pray tell, will they actually ACHIEVE this noble pledge? Will they have some residency requirement, stating that prospective employees must have lived in the host city or the immediate area for 5 years? One year? Six months? ONE MONTH? Inquiring minds want to know! The devil is in the details…