Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.
Scott Elliott is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He writes about education, city and suburban issues, politics, business, workforce and consumer issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > May > 28
Friday, May 28, 2010
Editorial: House right on redistricting — for now
The long, frustrating effort to reform the way the Ohio draws legislative districts showed remarkable signs of life last week. The Ohio House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly, 69-28, for a strong plan.
Reform is necessary because political parties can stack the deck in ways that all but prevent lawmakers from having to compete for their jobs. Some districts are drawn so they’re always won by Republicans, no matter what; others are drawn so they’re safe for Democrats.
Sixty votes were needed to approve putting the plan on the November ballot.
A different reform proposal had already passed the Senate. Now the Legislature has to get very busy about finding a compromise.
Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering, chief sponsor of the Senate plan and chief negotiator for the Republicans, says the 17 House Republicans he helped round up to vote “yes” deserve special credit for “courage.”
He says some don’t really like the House plan, but voted — against much flak from colleagues — to move the process along. Proponents are in a time crunch because the Legislature has until August to act, but it wants to recess for the summer this week or next.
It was good to see both Democrats and some Republicans from the Dayton area on board.
At various stages in the process, black legislators have been identified as leery of reform, seeing it as a threat to safe districts they have been given even by Republican map drawers (who like to concentrate Democratic voters in a few districts).
But Democratic Reps. Clayton Luckie and Roland Winburn, who together represent most of Dayton, as well as other central parts of Montgomery County, voted for reform.
So did Republicans Rep. Peggy Lehner and Terry Blair, who represent mainly the south suburbs of Montgomery County.
Of the Montgomery County delegation, only Rep. Seth Morgan, a Republican representing mainly northern suburbs, voted “no.”
In adjacent counties, “no” votes came from Rep. Jarrod Martin, from Greene County; Peter Beck and Ron Maag, from Warren County; and Richard Adams, from Miami County. Rep. James Zehringer, representing Preble and part of Darke county, voted “yes.” All are Republicans.
Ironically, legislators from the surrounding counties have the least at stake. Those areas will be represented by Republicans under any map.
Just how much credit for courage the “yes” voters should get depends on how things play out. Yes, they voted to move the process toward compromise. But they might also have wanted to get credit for being for reform in the abstract, even if they vote against the final product, saying that they don’t like the specifics.
Such switches — by Democrats or Republicans — would be a shame. It’s difficult to imagine anything arising out of negotiations that could reasonably be considered a deal-breaker by real advocates of reform.
Under current law, districts in the Ohio Legislature are drawn every 10 years by, in effect, whichever political party has two of the following three offices: governor, secretary of state and state auditor.
Congressional districts are drawn by the governor and legislature. Sen. Husted would put responsibility for both kinds of districts in the hands of a seven-person bipartisan commission, with at least two votes from each party necessary to create a map.
The Democratic plan (which applies only the state Legislature, not Congress) entails a map-drawing contest open to the public. Points would be awarded for, among other things, keeping districts compact and competitive. (A competitive district is one that can be won by either party without a miracle.)
Both sides seem open to using the Husted commission and the Democratic contest, with the commission having some leeway to pick from among the best entries.
That still leaves at least one big question: what about deadlocks? What if the commission can’t agree?
Democrats don’t want the state Supreme Court, now dominated by Republicans, to settle the fight. They have proposed a new tribunal. Republicans say that’s a new branch of government and an unacceptable precedent.
The legislators ought to be able to agree to a plan that gives the Supreme Court the power to reject a map on constitutional grounds or to send the two parties back to work, but not to actually impose a map.
What’s needed now is good faith. And fast work.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics, Ohio government, Ohio politics
TweetGuest column: Consumers want the option of small-dollar loans
This column was written by Ted Saunders, chief executive of CheckSmart.
Ohio has been hit hard by the economic climate. Many households are making difficult decisions every day to make ends meet.
This reality emphasizes the need — and value — of reliable access to short-term credit.
Unfortunately, short-term loans — usually around $300 — are too frequently undervalued by some legislators (and other critics of retail consumer lending). They seek to take financial choices away from those who need them most.
This misunderstanding was clear when the House passed HB 486 — legislation that will effectively eliminate access to relatively small-dollar loans. This bill was rushed through the House in a highly politicized manner.
Since then, there has been a genuine sharing of ideas on regulating short-term loans. But HB 486 does not reflect this.
Economists, small-business owners and clergy members delivered compelling testimony in opposition to the bill because they understand it will cause Ohioans to lose valuable access to credit while also eliminating jobs.
Additionally, this bill creates an uneven playing field, giving depository institutions a competitive advantage. These institutions will not be subject to the provisions of HB 486, including a limit on the number of loans offered per year, even though they provide a similar service.
Clearly, this bill is intended to shut down certain lenders in favor of others.
Consumers choose regulated short-term loans because other financial institutions do not fully serve them, and other options are often more expensive. HB 486 removes the ability to make that choice, but does nothing to reduce the need for reliable and affordable credit.
Some argue that consumers could use loan services offered by banks and credit unions. But these purported alternatives often involve a variety of restrictions and complicated fee structures. They are not an adequate substitute for the small-dollar, short-term loans offered by retail lenders.
Furthermore, these alternatives are not widely available. Research from Victor O. Stango of the University of California, Davis found that fewer than 6 percent of credit unions nationwide offer comparable short-term loans, primarily because “they see little chance to break even” on a low-cost, high-risk service.
Our critics also dismiss the sophistication of our customers. Indeed, the Daily News recently described them as “unsophisticated” and “desperate.” These assertions are unsubstantiated.
Our customers are salespeople, bus drivers, emergency personnel and even journalists. They make difficult decisions every day on the job and for their families, and are entirely capable of making informed economic choices.
This is confirmed by a study from the George Washington University School of Business. Roughly half of the consumers surveyed considered other forms of credit — such as bank or credit union loans — before selecting short-term, small-dollar loans.
The Daily News has also cited a so-called “will of the people” rationale for shutting down lenders, which overlooks tens of thousands of Ohioans who continue to utilize short-term loans.
Ohioans voted to sustain a severely restrictive fee cap on payday loans in 2008, and, as a result, many neighborhood lenders across Ohio have closed. To be sure, Ohio voters made their voices heard on the issue of payday loans specifically, but not on the need for short-term credit in general.
Some lenders, including CheckSmart, have altered their services in order to continue providing small-dollar loans. Indeed, state lawmakers urged lenders to make these changes and encouraged us to offer loans under the Mortgage Loan Act and Small Loan Act. The consumer loans that we now offer are different loan products than payday advances.
Our company provides a vital financial service; it is cost-competitive, simple and proportional to the needs of many consumers. In these uncertain times, it is imperative for legislators to consider the harmful impact that eliminating these loans would have on real people.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment |
Tweet
