Two views of gambling
ONLY a week after voters in Ohio once again made clear their opposition to the expansion of legalized gaming in the Buckeye State, thousands of residents of Pennsylvania were moving in entirely the opposite direction as the Keystone State's first slot-machine parlor opened, and gamblers seeking easy money poured through the doors. The Mohegan Sun at Pocono Downs near Wilkes-Barre has almost 1,100 gambling machines on two floors, plus a bar and restaurants. But that's just the beginning. Plans call for the casino to increase the number of machines to 2,000 and add retail shops and a nightclub, among other facilities. At that time, revenues are expected to be almost $168 million a year. The purported beneficiaries of revenues from the casino, which is operated by the Mohegan Indian tribal council, are homeowners, workers, and seniors. Plans are for gaming monies to cut taxes, help a rent rebate program for seniors, and increase horse-racing purses. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell describes the casino as a step toward providing property-tax relief. But at what cost? That's the issue raised by opponents of gaming, including the head of CasinoFreePa, who said "convenience gambling is the worst gambling." Of course, convenience is one of the sales pitches made by supporters of introducing gambling across the country. Why go to neighboring states to spend your money, providing them with the jobs and tax revenue, when you can spend it at home, they trumpet. But that's a chimera. Along with the revenue and the jobs come the potential for increased crime, for men and women to spend money they can't afford to lose in gaming parlors where they think they can place a bet or push a button on a machine and immediately end their financial woes.
Not going to happen. For every winner, most other players lose more than they can afford, sinking deeper and deeper.
And just because other states have legalized gambling - Pennsylvania became the 36th to have electronic gaming - does that mean Ohio should have jumped on the bandwagon?
We don't believe it should, and the voters of this state have made it perfectly clear that they do not, either.
The defeat of Issue 3 on Nov. 7 showed that Ohioans were able to sift through the verbiage and the smokescreens, and see the proposal for exactly what it was: A scheme to boost gaming, to fatten the wallets of gambling operators, and start on the slippery slope to full-fledged gambling casinos in Ohio by permitting two in Cleveland.
Issue 3 would not have been a panacea for funding education, any more than we suspect the opening of casinos in Pennsylvania will be the answer to that state's push for property tax relief.
The big winners in legalized gambling are the people who own the machines, not those who play them. Ohioans recognized that, and made the right call on Issue 3.
<< Home