The Adobe Flash Player is required to view this multimedia interactive. Get it here.

Ex-congressman, policy group leader debate casinos

Chillier weather on the way for Thanksgiving
7:25 p.m.
Patients with mental illness face difficulties gaining access to state hospitals
5:59 p.m.
Teen who died after being shot 4 times identified
11:56 a.m.
Fairborn grad dies from beating injuries
11/22/09
Teen shot 4 times is in critical condition
11/21/09
> More headlines

By THOMAS J. SHEERAN, The Associated Press Updated 7:31 PM Monday, October 26, 2009

KENT, Ohio — Putting casinos in four Ohio cities through an amendment to the Ohio Constitution is either a guarantee of financial benefit to communities or a locked-in sweetheart deal for casino operators, debaters on both sides said Monday.

Pro-casino former congressman Dennis Eckart and Rob Walgate, vice president of the anti-casino Ohio Roundtable policy group, debated the Nov. 3 ballot issue before students at Kent State University.

The TV debate was broadcast live in northeast and was taped to air later on ONN-TV, available on cable systems in most Ohio counties. The one-hour debate included questions from students from Ohio campuses and e-mail questions.

Eckart, a last-minute stand-in for casino backer Dan Gilbert, owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers basketball team, said handling the casino issue through a constitutional amendment would bar politicians from using casino revenues for other purposes.

"We can't always trust politicians," according to Eckart, who cited examples including the use of tobacco lawsuit settlement money for non-health programs.

Walgate, a former gambler whose betting caused him to flunk out of three colleges, including Kent State, said the constitutional amendment was written to favor casino owners and voters couldn't be sure about promises of casino revenues boosting the Ohio economy.

"There's just no guarantee about the money," Walgate said. "They (casino developers) have written themselves in the Constitution."

Eckart said casinos would provide a critical element in developing tourist destinations in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo and would provide jobs in Ohio while keeping in-state that gambling money now spent by people traveling to out-of-state casinos.

Ohio already has gambling, including church bingo and casino nights at firehouses, according to Eckart, who said the issue wasn't whether to allow gambling. "It's about where and how (to allow casino gambling)," he said.

Walgate said projections on casino jobs that might be created in Ohio were inflated and said the state's more recent expansion of gambling by the Ohio Lottery hadn't met forecasts.

Walgate said the constitutional advantages offered to casino operators made the proposal, in the view of the Ohio Roundtable, the worst of the five that have been decided in Ohio since 1990.

A poll commissioned by the state's eight biggest newspapers and released Sunday found that 57 percent of registered voters support Issue 3. Thirty-nine percent oppose the plan and four percent were undecided.

Ohio voters have defeated gambling measures four times, and some have received strong support in pre-election polls only to be defeated.

___

October 26, 2009 11:27 PM EDT

Share this article

ADD COMMENT

Comments feed

The casinos don't help me any and where I live it will be the same distance to go there to work as if I were to go to indiana. None of these casinos will benefit springfield for jobs or funds so I say bad deal for Ohio baby. Thats my vote.

BAD DEAL
1:15 PM, 10/27/2009

REPORT ABUSE

Almost all the money goes to out of state millionaires -- have we lost our minds?

World
8:46 AM, 10/27/2009

REPORT ABUSE

We welcome your comments. Please remember this is a public forum and behave appropriately. Your comments must conform to our visitor's agreement.