Ted Celeste finds casinos attempt to skirt local zoning regulations troubling
I found it troubling too, but apparently no one in a position of power raised it as a legal challenge or an issue before Issue 3 was allowed to go on the ballot, this issue could have been dealt with before Ohio voters were asked to vote on it and to be perfectly honest, many of those who opposed Issue 3 rather than focusing on valid issues, such as voters not just in Franklin County, but in every county where a casino was planned had no say in where the location was going to be, decided to use misinformation. We would have been all better served had things been different and some of us tried to focus on the location aspect and point out that there was no zoning process followed, no hearings, no options, just vote for the casino and it will be here…
That written, Ted Celeste commentary: Casinos’ attempt to skirt local zoning regulations is troubling in today’s Columbus Dispatch is a recommended read. Since nothing was done before, it’s now either accept it as is? Or try to change it and it’s clear there are legislators who are working on changing what Ohio voters as a state, approved. This still leads me to wonder though, what if a County did not pass the state smoking ban? Would the legislators have fought just as hard for them to be excused from it? What if a County does not approve any future constitutional ballot initiatives? Will this now be the sworn duty of the Ohio General Assembly to ensure that any County in Ohio that does not approve an issue is allowed to change it after the fact?
Like you Lisa Renee, I was vocal in opposition to Issue 3. The work by legislators now seems in some way an attempt to subvert the state Constitution Amendment process however.
Their work going forward should prove interesting in how the benefactors of Issue 3 react to these challenges and how the voters react to any delay in the promised jobs and revenue.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:04 pmWe agreed on Issue 3, and we agree as to the concerns now that the General Assembly appears to be planning action. It will be interesting to see what happens next and also what future ramifications will come if the General Assembly does change Issue 3 or get another issue on the ballot in May.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:09 pmI am sure if or when casinos are operating in Ohio many more issues
November 29th, 2009 at 9:16 pmare wrong with it since they really did not care about the details and was only interested in getting the Casino
issued passed.
LisaRenee, can you please tell us precisely what opposition misinformation are you referring to?
-TruthPAC said cash wagering was tax free under the amendment – now lawmakers AND the casino developers are closing that loophole.
-TruthPAC said church Monte Carlo nights would be illegal under the amendment as written, and today lawmakers AND the casino developers are working to assure churches can continue funding their programs.
-TruthPAC said Lyle Berman was invested in Issue 3; two days after passage proponents admitted they lied about his significant stake.
-TruthPAC said Dan Gilbert was lying about assaulting bettors who owed him money and his arrest for illegal bookmaking, and now it comes clear that’s a fact. (But Gilbert is still lying.)
And, stand by for more in the future:
-TruthPAC said the claimed 34,000 jobs wouldn’t materialize. They won’t.
-TruthPAC said there will be more jobs lost than gained – that will come true, too.
So, what misinformation? I see none. Sounds like you are on a personal position on this, but you are ignoring these vital facts.
It is your blog, and a darn good one, so do what you want to do – but maybe talk more about the TACTICS you didn’t appreciate instead of accusing TruthPAC of MISINFORMATION.
Because facts don’t lie.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:53 amDear “Jerry” – I approved your comment because you are a perfect example of the tactics – I’ll get to the misinformation in a moment. You’ve posted here under a variety of names, never disclosed your connection to Issue 3 and apparently never took the time to read the rules of the blog when it comes to posting under more than one name.
Through the whole election period, I had problems with those connected to the anti-Issue 3 effort continually attempt to do this, never disclosing. Sandy was the only person who was honest about her connection/affiliation.
As to the misinformation, the main study cited for most of the “facts” was done by someone who was willing to work for whichever side paid him. That makes a great deal of the information suspect. The whole focus on Dan Gilbert and the refusal to admit connections to Roger Stone as well as the creation of other groups, connected to Stone also created misinformation because a purposeful attempt to mislead people was done as opposed to the larger truths that would have had an impact on people’s decisions.
Then of course the whole polling, and the NJ Casino news site that was connected to all of this…providing misinformation.
When I talked to someone connected with the campaign, they acknowledged the misinformation but said it was how they best felt would get people’s attention — trying to create controversy rather than to focus on what we really knew for certain.
We knew for certain there would be no local zoning input, we knew for certain that since it was those behind the casino issue wrote this ballot issue it was done in a manner that would benefit them the most.
The focus on how our area was being short changed financially compared to other areas that allowed gambling was an issue raised by the opposition to Issue 3, unfortunately not with the same effort as some of the areas that were not quite so black and white. The same could be said for the constitutional aspect which is why some of us also opposed Issue 3, there was some coverage on the monopoly aspect, but in having one gambling company try to paint the other one as “the bad guy” that clearly didn’t work to sway voters.
When you use these types of dishonest tactics and focus on trying to create controversy by taking a small truth and trying to make it seem as if it’s much worse than what some of those attached to the anti-3 effort have done? That doesn’t gain support from those of us who opposed Issue 3 for the reasons that were certain.
So basically, when Roger Stone was hired? You got the misinformation and the tactics and you lost the respect of some who actually did the homework on the connections and don’t believe that’s how election issues should be won, no matter how wrong they might be.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:11 amLisaRenee:
Of course I’m connected to TruthPAC – I would expect the average GCJ reader can plainly see that, with all the detail in my postings.
I prefer to remain anonymous; since you offer that option I thought it was just fine to do so. If you don’t want anonymous input, maybe don’t offer it.
Also, if you want me to post under the same name every time, tweak your Blog to push that same name back to me when I lurk again. Others do it and I use the same name every time.
I mostly lurk on the Web and don’t post much, so I don’t even attempt to remember the names I use. I’m also smart enough to know that you can see the email I use to post, so I’m not hiding anything from you. I figure you pay attention to that, no big deal.
But, still, I’m not rumor mongering, tipping news or flaming posters. I just find your blog bright enough to follow and maybe comment on once in awhile. Is that not welcome?
My point: it is not fair to ding me for posting anonymously with a variety of names. It is up to you to eliminate anonymous posts and maybe “push” reuse of names.
But I want to take a closer look at your words:
“As to the misinformation, the main study cited for most of the “facts” was done by someone who was willing to work for whichever side paid him. That makes a great deal of the information suspect.”
TruthPAC relied on national studies done by reputable scientists like Prof John Kindt. We ran with the Hiram College study done for the Beverage Association – CLEARLY our ally – just like anybody would. We did not have the funding to buy a major university off, as the proponents did with Univ. Cincinnati. We didn’t lie and say the Beverage Assn study as anything more than it was – an ally’s project with merit.
So please don’t say our facts were suspect – especially when proponents flat lied to you and today only wink and say “oops!”
I think we agree on the importance of “larger truths.” Unfortunately, the Ohio voter does not. Constitutional meddling and home rule didn’t poll out as effective messages. Its as simple as that, as sad or bad as that is, it is reality.
The focus on Dan Gilbert DID poll out well, in the form of Ohio’s legitimate worry about WHO will run their casinos. The truth about Dan Gilbert’s arrest is far more worrisome than the spin he’s put out to the public through the limping mainstream media.
And, here’s more campaign truth: once we hit upon the fact that even Bernie Madoff could own a casino in Ohio, Issue 3’s support dropped like a stone. The Gilbert arrest supported that message in kitchen table language.
Our research proved the Gilbert messaging simply helped Ohio voters ask themselves the larger, more troublesome question: WHO WILL REALLY OWN THESE CASINOS?
The answer to that was not satisfactory for many undecided voters; they tended to vote against.
In fact, in the final days of the campaign Issue 3 was in near free fall – and they’ll tell you that, too.
Onward through your criticisms. Opening multiple fronts has been a campaign tactic for over 100 years. Abraham Lincoln used independent expenditure organizations to assist his election; John F. Kennedy funneled cash into untold groups. That’s politics – then and now.
Time marches on, but campaigns rarely change fundamentally. Maybe they should. But they don’t.
All the Ohio 2009 campaign organizations were dutifully registered; most if not all public communications were properly labeled. Everything was legal and proper.
The advent of the Internet has not changed much. To political campaigns it is exactly equivalent to the invention of the FAX machine. The Web is just another communications channel, not a paradigm shift.
You can’t easily track robocalls or “white mail” in your roadside mailbox. Until recently, campaign expenditures were even hard to track. Conversely, anyone can easily track where emails come from, who owns what Web site and other information.
Nobody was hiding from you, LisaRenee – certainly far, far less than JFK or Lincoln did in their day. It is politics, it ain’t pretty and it ain’t played in short pants.
As for Roger Stone: when asked, Sandy Theis told the world that he was advising the effort. Love him or hate him, he’s good at what he does. Both sides had their dirty tricksters – Issue 3’s bad boy Rex Elsass likely absconded with a TruthPAC TV ad to gain a tactical edge.
Again, that’s politics – then and now.
As for me, I’ve been doing this for three decades. Ohio was winnable, but we didn’t have the dough. I look back on some errors in the race, all regrettable.
But we were not dishonest with anyone but our enemies. So go ahead, stick me with that; I’ll wear it as a badge of honor.
PS: Oh, and NJ Casino News? I don’t know what that is but I hope I made my points. Thanks.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:19 pmOne important point I forgot to address, LR. In August we found out that the Issue 3 campaign had a team of people commenting routinely on all Web sites. We had to match their effort, so we started our own. Issue 3 seemed to outgun us everywhere, but we put up a good fight.
Once we started, we quickly declared your Blog off limits to our commentors. If the early efforts of our team soured you on our campaign, that’s regrettable. You’d be right, technically, but we were just trying to fight fire with fire.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:34 pmJerry, there is a difference between being anonymous and creating numerous fake names to try to create the impression that there are more of you than there really are and that you are a “regular” person as opposed to working for the campaign. I didn’t have any problems with the pro-three bunch, and they knew I was anti-Issue 3.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:55 pmTo demonstrate my point, you’ve posted using one email address as:
GentleJerry
WickedWesternWitch
MikeAlso
Where you wrote comments such as this one:
Where in that comment were readers of Glass City Jungle supposed to know that you were working for the anti-Issue 3 group? Part of the reason this blog works is I don’t let people play games here, and when I catch them? They either disclose honestly and openly or they don’t participate and if I find out after the fact? I let readers know…
You can fight fire with fire elsewhere but here? Expect heavy rain…
November 30th, 2009 at 1:53 pmLisa in regard to your questions, “What if a County does not approve any future constitutional ballot initiatives? Will this now be the sworn duty of the Ohio General Assembly to ensure that any County in Ohio that does not approve an issue is allowed to change it after the fact?”
Hopefully but ideally we would stop having silly statewide ballot initiatives geared toward creating monopolies, cartels, or serving narrow special interests and the General Assembly can start doing its job instead of passing the buck to the voters.
Decisions like smoking, gambling, and a whole host of other things should be dealt with first with the individual and secondly by their immediate communities.
Pushing laws to the state level and further only leads to one-size-fits-all solutions that generally don’t solve anything.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:56 pmWe both agree on that glasscitypatriot, unfortunately it doesn’t appear a majority of Ohioans feel the constitution should be left alone except for necessary changes and the General Assembly hasn’t acted, but there is always hope.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm