Garland wants legislation to give local control over casino in Franklin County
This in via email from the office of Ohio House Representative Nancy Garland:
Rep. Nancy Garland Calls for Local Control in Casino Enabling Legislation
COLUMBUS – State Rep. Nancy Garland (D-New Albany) today called for a fair and deliberate process that respects local control, when bringing a casino to Franklin County.
“In bringing a casino to Franklin County, we need to have a fair and deliberate process. The voters of Ohio approved casinos in our state, but 58 percent of people in Central Ohio disagreed – a clear reflection of their concerns over how a casino will impact our community.
“While the General Assembly is required under the law to draft enabling legislation for the casino developments voted on earlier this month, a majority of voters in Franklin County, including constituents in my district, turned out on Election Day with doubts about bringing a casino to the downtown area of Columbus.
“Thus, I will work to ensure that the legislation we draft does right by my constituents and by the residents of Central Ohio. I’ve met with interested parties on both sides of this issue and feel that we can reach common ground. We must act purposefully and thoughtfully to come up with a solution that is the best possible deal for Franklin County.”
The best situation is that this should have been under local control from the start but this is better than the original.
It’s completely wrong, immoral, and against the spirit of this country that someone in one spot in Ohio would be able to vote on where a casino or anything else would be in another part of the state. That’s a decision for those who would be potentially sharing a zip code with it.
Now if we could just remove the provision that gives one small group of people a monopoly over gambling in Ohio we would be on the right track.
If gambling is to be legal than it should be legal for anyone to engage in that business and for every jurisdiction to decide whether they want it or not and under what conditions.
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:56 pmGo Franklin County! Hopefully Lucas County can get the same kind of power.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:51 pmThis Amendment was passed on by a 60% majority in both Ohio legislative branches before being submitted for a vote of the public, and it passed that vote by a significant majority. I like Lisa Renee and many others, spoke out against it as the process was ongoing.
If the legislation was poorly written or unfair to the local governments, why has it taken so long to come to light and why was none of this pointed out during the voting process? Why was the discussion on jobs, state revenues, gambling money leaving the state, and the lies which those on both sides used to advance their positions.
The voters of Ohio have now spoken, and I for one find it amazing that so many now seek to attempt to rewrite that vote.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pmColumbus Mayor Michael Coleman, who was against Issue 3, hopes something is done. The night of the election he said.
I agree with Robin, glasscitypatriot, and Coleman.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:25 pmMany people did point out these issues Tim, but no one seemed to be listening. I still find it unbelievable that we approved a constitutional amendment creating a monoply.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:03 pmTim, If you’ve ever been to my blog, you will see that I wrote many posts against Issue 3. I agree, the voters of Ohio have spoken.
I believe that in a horrible economy with high unemployment, what Ohioan’s voted for were jobs, not casino’s. How else can you explain the fact that the four previous gambling proposals were defeated. The economy is the only thing that changed.
The legislature has a role in determining how Issue 3 is carried out. As a person who lives in a county that did not want casino’s, I believe my state and local officials have every right to use any legal measures necessary to determine how Issue 3 is implemented in Franklin County.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:25 pmAll because the “voters of Ohio have spoken” doesn’t mean that it is right, correct, or moral.
In fact, that’s the very reason we have a representative form of government to protect political minorities from the majority and the populace from the ignorance of the electorate.
Saying the “voters of Ohio have spoken” and hence we have to swallow a bad law is frankly crap.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:31 pmThen the General Assembly should have done something to prevent this from getting on the ballot, or they could have offered their own plan for gambling that could have been on the ballot with Issue 3. They did nothing, they left it up to the electorate. If this would have passed in only one area, would the General Assembly be fighting to have that one area be able to have gambling since it was the will of those voters?
There is of course an established precedence for the General Assembly ignoring voters. The Ohio Turnpike, is one example, which was voted on, was supposed to become free and the General Assembly changed that without going back to the voters.
I didn’t support Issue 3, but the reality is it was allowed on the ballot and now we are stuck with it unless someone else wants to put another ballot issue up to change the constitution again…Or create another turnpike scenario.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pmThe legislature passed the buck to the voters because they didn’t want to be on the record with this. It’s easy for them to pass their responsibility on by saying, “let the will of the voters prevail” or “I stand with the voters of Ohio.” By doing so they avoid being held accountable.
The fact is, this was something that should have been up to them from the start.
These ballot initiatives are nothing but trouble and in my opinion should be done away with. They’ve caused this state nothing but pain and resentment.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pmI don’t disagree with you on the issue of these ballot initiatives, the constitution should be changed only when necessary and if whatever they are trying to do can’t be accomplished legislatively.
November 24th, 2009 at 5:54 pmTim Higgins says in post #3…”This Amendment was passed on by a 60% majority in both Ohio legislative branches before being submitted for a vote of the public, and it passed that vote by a significant majority.”
Please see the post I submitted on November 7th which is below.
This legislation was not written/passed by the House or the Senate, this legislation was drafted by the Committee representing the petitioners. The legislature has not proposed a Constitution Amendment ballot language because either no one wanted to change the Constitutions position or no one felt the majority of those in the legislature would support it and therefore didn’t take on the issue.
The debate that maybe should occur is should we make it harder to have a Constitutional Amendment? It is currently the right of Ohioans to effect change in Ohio when they believe the legislature is not acting on an issue in their best interest. When that is the case, our Constitution provides opportunity to address what Ohioans believe is wrong.
Part of my November 7th post…
November 24th, 2009 at 11:19 pmConstitution Amendments –
There a two ways in which Constitutional Amendments can be placed on the ballot for consideration. By way of example in November we looked at three Constitutional Amendments…
SJR (Senate Joint Resolution) 1 (Grendell-R/Wilson-D) Persian Gulf-Afghanistan/Iraq conflict – compensate veterans – this was drafted by Senators Gibbs and Wilson, assigned and voted out of the Senate Finance and Financial Institutions Committee. It was passed on the Senate Floor 32-0 and assigned to the House Finance and Appropriations Committee. It passed out of committee and passed on the House Floor 92-3 meeting the 3/5th requirement to place it on the ballot. It passed with concurrence. SJR 1 became Issue 1
SJR 6 (Gibbs-R / Wilson-D) Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board – this was drafted by Senators Gibbs and Wilson, assigned and voted out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. It was passed on the Senate 32-0 and assigned to the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. It passed out of committee and passed on the House Floor 83-19 meeting the 3/5th requirement to place it on the ballot. It passed with concurrence. SJR 6 then became Issue 2
Initiative Petition – Committee representing the petitioners William Curlis, Matthew Hammond, John Campbell and Charles Luken. – To amend the constitution to allow for one casino each in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo and distribute to all Ohio counties a tax on the casinos. Necessary signatures were filed by the petitioners to the Secretary of State. Official Arguments and Explanations were filed for (by the petitioners) and against (by the Truth PAC, Michael Johrendt, Treasurer). The Office of Budget and Management and the Department of Taxation analyzed the impact of the constitutional amendment at the requested of the Secretary of State. The Ballot Board reviewed the Initiative Petition for procedural issues and requirements according to our constitution approved the Initiative Petition at its August 12th meeting. Initiative Petition then became Issue 3
November 7th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Thanks Barbara, I completely missed where Tim wrote that. I appreciate your comment.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:25 pmNBC24 has an AP piece on this topic that those following this issue may find of interest.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:58 am