Text Size

No Holds Barred

Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Need to get something off your chest? Have a topic that doesn't fit one of the other forums? Rant away in here. Mature audiences only, not for the easily offended.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:20 pm

Orenthal wrote:Say what you want about Issue 3, I find it odd all these lawmakers coming out of the woodwork to pass all this expanded gambling. How the wind blows...


personally i think its a scam. theyll try to get people to vote no on issue 3 because theres this better option down the road, then this plan will die a quiet death.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby jb » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:39 pm

idoctribefan wrote:
Lead Pipe wrote:
Stu wrote:
Swerb wrote:Somewhere deep down, there are arguments against Gilbert's proposal that may make some sense. I don't see the monopoly issue as a very relevant one. And if it is, you're not presenting the argument correctly. As the resident board miser, who uses over 50% of his posts to put down other peoples posts, you're going to catch shit for it.


What happens when Gilbert's casino sucks?

What happens when someone wants to put a casino up in Akron, or Lorain, maybe one near Cedar Point or Kings Island?

What about when the downtown area can support multiple casinos? Perhaps as a part of a revitalized flats or a renovated lakefront?

Show me instances where Monopolies actually help the consumer? Please show me 1.



And again, why are people ok with the 50 million dollar licensing fee, when other states are giving out licenses for 3-500 million?


Seen any great plans to revitalize the flats anytime soon. .


I don't know if these are "great plans", but it's a start. This was in the PD Wednesday.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index ... fundi.html


Great to see this project rolling again.

If you take the Blue Line ( h20 front) , you can see all the excavation going on. Weird to see no Fagans or D'Poos. Crazy to think back on the SOHIO riverfests in the day vs the Scoobey doo ghosttown.

Casinos as economic development have come and gone. I have no issues with Gilbert and others belatedly trying to scrape the resin from the bowl now that the weed is all been smoked by the surrounding states years ago, but I have low expectations for economic development. I'm just happy for those who enjoy a little cards. There is no differentiation with here if this passes or Michigan, WVA and PA . What we need is legallized prosetitution in this Wohlstein project and a big old school Playboy club.

Yeah, that's the ticket.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby jb » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:47 pm

Stu wrote:
Swerb wrote:Somewhere deep down, there are arguments against Gilbert's proposal that may make some sense. I don't see the monopoly issue as a very relevant one. And if it is, you're not presenting the argument correctly. As the resident board miser, who uses over 50% of his posts to put down other peoples posts, you're going to catch shit for it.


What happens when Gilbert's casino sucks?

What happens when someone wants to put a casino up in Akron, or Lorain, maybe one near Cedar Point or Kings Island?

What about when the downtown area can support multiple casinos? Perhaps as a part of a revitalized flats or a renovated lakefront?

Show me instances where Monopolies actually help the consumer? Please show me 1.

And again, why are people ok with the 50 million dollar licensing fee, when other states are giving out licenses for 3-500 million?


Really late to the party here, and maybe not one who even enjoys gambling enough to go, but if I did, I live in Y-town. If I wanted to legally gamble, I'd be relatively equidistant from casinos in PA , Jeff Jacob's place in WVA , and the new place in Cleveland.

Not sure how that ability to choose constitues a monopoly on me.

What did constitute a practical monopoly, assuming I didn;'t want to make it a weekend away, was when gambling was only legal in WVA .

Enjoy.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:23 pm

JB wrote:
Stu wrote:
Swerb wrote:Somewhere deep down, there are arguments against Gilbert's proposal that may make some sense. I don't see the monopoly issue as a very relevant one. And if it is, you're not presenting the argument correctly. As the resident board miser, who uses over 50% of his posts to put down other peoples posts, you're going to catch shit for it.


What happens when Gilbert's casino sucks?

What happens when someone wants to put a casino up in Akron, or Lorain, maybe one near Cedar Point or Kings Island?

What about when the downtown area can support multiple casinos? Perhaps as a part of a revitalized flats or a renovated lakefront?

Show me instances where Monopolies actually help the consumer? Please show me 1.

And again, why are people ok with the 50 million dollar licensing fee, when other states are giving out licenses for 3-500 million?


Really late to the party here, and maybe not one who even enjoys gambling enough to go, but if I did, I live in Y-town. If I wanted to legally gamble, I'd be relatively equidistant from casinos in PA , Jeff Jacob's place in WVA , and the new place in Cleveland.

Not sure how that ability to choose constitues a monopoly on me.

What did constitute a practical monopoly, assuming I didn;'t want to make it a weekend away, was when gambling was only legal in WVA .

Enjoy.



Well I guess that settles it. Since its not a monopoly for people in Youngstown, I guess that means its not a monopoly to anyone in Ohio. ::doh::
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby jb » Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:43 am

Stu wrote:
JB wrote:
Stu wrote:
Swerb wrote:Somewhere deep down, there are arguments against Gilbert's proposal that may make some sense. I don't see the monopoly issue as a very relevant one. And if it is, you're not presenting the argument correctly. As the resident board miser, who uses over 50% of his posts to put down other peoples posts, you're going to catch shit for it.


What happens when Gilbert's casino sucks?

What happens when someone wants to put a casino up in Akron, or Lorain, maybe one near Cedar Point or Kings Island?

What about when the downtown area can support multiple casinos? Perhaps as a part of a revitalized flats or a renovated lakefront?

Show me instances where Monopolies actually help the consumer? Please show me 1.

And again, why are people ok with the 50 million dollar licensing fee, when other states are giving out licenses for 3-500 million?


Really late to the party here, and maybe not one who even enjoys gambling enough to go, but if I did, I live in Y-town. If I wanted to legally gamble, I'd be relatively equidistant from casinos in PA , Jeff Jacob's place in WVA , and the new place in Cleveland.

Not sure how that ability to choose constitues a monopoly on me.

What did constitute a practical monopoly, assuming I didn;'t want to make it a weekend away, was when gambling was only legal in WVA .

Enjoy.



Well I guess that settles it. Since its not a monopoly for people in Youngstown, I guess that means its not a monopoly to anyone in Ohio. ::doh::


No, the point is that not all of Ohio is a central location, esp when the whole state is surrounded by legal gaming very soon.

And in this day and age, gambling isn't even place bound.

This just isn't a monopoly situation.

Nor is it free market.

Like most business in the US, it is a combination.

But you used an emoticon, so I guess that setlles the discussion.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:16 pm

mo·nop·o·ly (m-np-l)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.

Gilbert and Penn will have a monopoly on casino gambling in in Ohio. While there are substitute products, such as the lottery or illegal online gaming, there is still a monopoly on Casinos.

And lets take it a step further. Not only is there a monopoly, but the closest substitute products are government controlled. Private industry, other than Gilbert, is getting screwed by this deal.




And I am still waiting for someone to give me an example of how monopolies help consumers.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby jb » Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:39 pm

Stu wrote:mo·nop·o·ly (m-np-l)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service limited to a particular state in the USA where people can't cross state lines.

And I am still waiting for someone to give me an example of how monopolies help consumers.


Fixed it for you.

Well, here is what I learned in macro Ecom 10001 many moons ago, not that a college education matters on the internets in discussion. Regulated monopolies were a standard practice for utiliities, for example, in cases where the investment could not warrent an ROI and the government didn't want to be involved.

In the case of telephone service, I'd say de-regulation of regulated monopoly worked for consumers. For energey? It has been a complete sodomomization of the consumer. Regulated monopolies were a far better deal. YMMV.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:47 pm

JB wrote:
Stu wrote:mo·nop·o·ly (m-np-l)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service limited to a particular state in the USA where people can't cross state lines.

And I am still waiting for someone to give me an example of how monopolies help consumers.


Fixed it for you.

Well, here is what I learned in macro Ecom 10001 many moons ago, not that a college education matters on the internets in discussion. Regulated monopolies were a standard practice for utiliities, for example, in cases where the investment could not warrent an ROI and the government didn't want to be involved.

In the case of telephone service, I'd say de-regulation of regulated monopoly worked for consumers. For energey? It has been a complete sodomomization of the consumer. Regulated monopolies were a far better deal. YMMV.


energy prices have gone up not because of deregulation, but because of the cost of inputs.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby idoctribefan » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:00 pm

adding a little more info to the debate.

"State Issue 3 is a bad deal for Ohio" by Thomas Suddes (from Sunday's PD)

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index. ... al_fo.html

If you like FirstEnergy, American Electric Power or Dayton Power & Light, you'll love Issue 3. The casino amendment Penn National and Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert slapped onto November's statewide ballot would entrench another monopoly in Ohio -- this one, statewide, on steroids.

A (piddling) tax on "gross casino revenue" (the net amount gambled at four proposed casinos) would produce no real money to balance Ohio's state budget. And a separate "upfront [casino] license fee," payable to the state, would equal about 0.4 percent of Ohio's budget.

Given posted Web comments, a few readers must think Issue 3 is a brawl between downstate "hillbillies," bossed by snake-handling preachers, and big-city Ohio.

Not true. The Issue 3 fight is an assault on the public interest by monopolists who want to make the Ohio Constitution a chain-link fence around enormous, guaranteed profits.

Issue 3 would also let Ohio casinos offer any table gaming now allowed -- or ever allowed in the future -- by Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. That is, four other states would write laws that also applied in Ohio.

And there's a "heads they win, tails you lose," feature: If Indiana, etc., banned any table-gaming that had previously been allowed, such a ban wouldn't apply in Ohio. That is, gaming expansions, as decided in Indianapolis; Lansing, Mich.; Harrisburg, Pa.; or Charleston, W.Va., would be A-OK at Ohio casinos. But second thoughts? Not allowed.

The last-ditch pitch for Issue 3 is that it would be a nontax bonanza for Ohio's government piggybanks, wouldn't it? No.

If Issue 3 passes, Penn National and Gilbert would keep 67 percent of "gross casino revenues," measured, no doubt, by . . . flexible . . . bookkeeping. The remaining 33 percent would be divvied up according to rules Penn National and Gilbert wrote.

A legally required state Budget Office estimate determined that this 33 percent nibble could total $634 million a year. Of that amount, given the Penn National-Gilbert formula:

$28.56 would go per capita to each county, with half of many counties' shares going to a county's biggest city. That would mean Cuyahoga County and Cleveland could each get -- once a year -- $18 million. At $18 million, that would only be about 8 cents for every $1 in piggyback sales tax Cuyahoga collected in 2008 (5 cents per $1, if you include the Regional Transit Authority piggyback). Meanwhile, Franklin County and Columbus could annually get $16 million each; Dayton and Montgomery County, $7.6 million each.

$125.24 per pupil per year (about 69 cents a school day) would go to Ohio public schools -- about $6 million a year to Cleveland schools; about $6.5 million to Columbus schools; about $1.8 million a year to Dayton schools. (Just for April, May and June alone, Penn National reported net revenues of $580.1 million.)

Casino "host" cities -- Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo -- would split $32 million.

About $19 million would go to a (new) Casino Control Commission -- patronage for politicians' pals.

The Racing Commission would get about $19 million a year to "support purses . . . breeding and [track] operations" -- that is, to subsidize what's left of Ohio horse racing.

About $13 million would go to a "state law enforcement training fund" (in case you wondered why some cops like Issue 3 -- for that, plus potential private-duty "security" work at casinos).

And a "problem gambling and addictions fund" would get $13 million.

Do the math: Issue 3 is a terrible deal for taxpayers -- but the deal of a lifetime for a greedy, grasping lobby.
"And three of the better guys in franchise history, Daugherty, Z and now Kyrie could get hurt in a rubber room full of cotton balls." - Leadpipe
User avatar
idoctribefan
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Joe Haden
Least Favorite Player: #6

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Orenthal » Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:01 pm

idoctribefan wrote:adding a little more info to the debate.

"State Issue 3 is a bad deal for Ohio" by Thomas Suddes (from Sunday's PD)

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index. ... al_fo.html

If you like FirstEnergy, American Electric Power or Dayton Power & Light, you'll love Issue 3. The casino amendment Penn National and Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert slapped onto November's statewide ballot would entrench another monopoly in Ohio -- this one, statewide, on steroids.


Been hashed to death, yes it is a casino monopoly, but not a monopoly of gambling dollars. The Cleveland Indians have a monopoly on professional baseball, but they do not see one penny of my entertainment dollars...

A (piddling) tax on "gross casino revenue" (the net amount gambled at four proposed casinos) would produce no real money to balance Ohio's state budget. And a separate "upfront [casino] license fee," payable to the state, would equal about 0.4 percent of Ohio's budget.


33% hardly piddling, not 50%, but not 100% slots which are programmed cash cows. The casino license fee has been debated here, and is probably too low. However do I trust the State of Ohio with a windfall like that? I'd rather the money stay in Gilbert's hands. Guy has created jobs in Ohio, almost as fast as the state creates jobs, but the states jobs are paid with taxes...

Given posted Web comments, a few readers must think Issue 3 is a brawl between downstate "hillbillies," bossed by snake-handling preachers, and big-city Ohio.

Not true. The Issue 3 fight is an assault on the public interest by monopolists who want to make the Ohio Constitution a chain-link fence around enormous, guaranteed profits.


Stu, is this you? I don’t see anything wrong with this as they spent the money to put the issue on the ballot. It is fair, and not hiding behind some gimmick like the Issue 2 years ago that sent people to college for free or whatever the hell scam it was…

Issue 3 would also let Ohio casinos offer any table gaming now allowed -- or ever allowed in the future -- by Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. That is, four other states would write laws that also applied in Ohio.

And there's a "heads they win, tails you lose," feature: If Indiana, etc., banned any table-gaming that had previously been allowed, such a ban wouldn't apply in Ohio. That is, gaming expansions, as decided in Indianapolis; Lansing, Mich.; Harrisburg, Pa.; or Charleston, W.Va., would be A-OK at Ohio casinos. But second thoughts? Not allowed.


This one really hurts my face. Obviously this is a proactive measure to keep up with the competition without the legal fight to expand the gaming. The flip side allows Ohio NOT to be controlled by another state deciding they no longer want to allow some form of action. This seems common sense on its face, akin to complaining water makes things wet, but also dries…

The last-ditch pitch for Issue 3 is that it would be a nontax bonanza for Ohio's government piggybanks, wouldn't it? No.

If Issue 3 passes, Penn National and Gilbert would keep 67 percent of "gross casino revenues," measured, no doubt, by . . . flexible . . . bookkeeping. The remaining 33 percent would be divvied up according to rules Penn National and Gilbert wrote.

A legally required state Budget Office estimate determined that this 33 percent nibble could total $634 million a year. Of that amount, given the Penn National-Gilbert formula:

$28.56 would go per capita to each county, with half of many counties' shares going to a county's biggest city. That would mean Cuyahoga County and Cleveland could each get -- once a year -- $18 million. At $18 million, that would only be about 8 cents for every $1 in piggyback sales tax Cuyahoga collected in 2008 (5 cents per $1, if you include the Regional Transit Authority piggyback). Meanwhile, Franklin County and Columbus could annually get $16 million each; Dayton and Montgomery County, $7.6 million each.

$125.24 per pupil per year (about 69 cents a school day) would go to Ohio public schools -- about $6 million a year to Cleveland schools; about $6.5 million to Columbus schools; about $1.8 million a year to Dayton schools. (Just for April, May and June alone, Penn National reported net revenues of $580.1 million.)

Casino "host" cities -- Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo -- would split $32 million.

About $19 million would go to a (new) Casino Control Commission -- patronage for politicians' pals.

The Racing Commission would get about $19 million a year to "support purses . . . breeding and [track] operations" -- that is, to subsidize what's left of Ohio horse racing.

About $13 million would go to a "state law enforcement training fund" (in case you wondered why some cops like Issue 3 -- for that, plus potential private-duty "security" work at casinos).

And a "problem gambling and addictions fund" would get $13 million.

Do the math: Issue 3 is a terrible deal for taxpayers -- but the deal of a lifetime for a greedy, grasping lobby.


I love him pointing out 67% like one cannot do math. This is a blatant attempt to use the numbers to frame the argument. This is free money, a handout to government, they did nothing to earn it, and should not complain. So Suddesy thinks the state should confiscate more money from private industry. Ohio already does a great job of that; an equally well job of spending those vast resources foolishly. At least the foolish gambler is throwing HIS OWN money down the drain…
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby exiledbuckeye » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:06 pm

idoctribefan wrote:If you like FirstEnergy, American Electric Power or Dayton Power & Light, you'll love Issue 3. The casino amendment Penn National and Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert slapped onto November's statewide ballot would entrench another monopoly in Ohio -- this one, statewide, on steroids.


Obviously I have no dog in this hunt, but there is a HUGE difference between a monopoly for an essential public service that's a basic necessity for living and a freaking casino company. H-U-G-E. So dumb it shouldn't even be compared. (And yes, I know that you didn't write it - not a slam on you).
User avatar
exiledbuckeye
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:12 pm
Location: Michigan
Favorite Player: OSU
Least Favorite Player: scUM

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:29 pm

Orenthal wrote:
Been hashed to death, yes it is a casino monopoly, but not a monopoly of gambling dollars. The Cleveland Indians have a monopoly on professional baseball, but they do not see one penny of my entertainment dollars...


Technically, within the state of Ohio you could drive to Cincy and see competing baseball, or go to Toledo and see Mudhens, or even Avon for the Crushers. All professional baseball by different organizations.

So casino issue is a stronger monopoly in Ohio than the MLB. ;-) ;) :wink:
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby jb » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:41 pm

Stu wrote:
JB wrote:
Stu wrote:mo·nop·o·ly (m-np-l)
n. pl. mo·nop·o·lies
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service limited to a particular state in the USA where people can't cross state lines.

And I am still waiting for someone to give me an example of how monopolies help consumers.


Fixed it for you.

Well, here is what I learned in macro Ecom 10001 many moons ago, not that a college education matters on the internets in discussion. Regulated monopolies were a standard practice for utiliities, for example, in cases where the investment could not warrent an ROI and the government didn't want to be involved.

In the case of telephone service, I'd say de-regulation of regulated monopoly worked for consumers. For energey? It has been a complete sodomomization of the consumer. Regulated monopolies were a far better deal. YMMV.


energy prices have gone up not because of deregulation, but because of the cost of inputs.



Not a chance.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby idoctribefan » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:10 pm

exiledbuckeye wrote:
idoctribefan wrote:If you like FirstEnergy, American Electric Power or Dayton Power & Light, you'll love Issue 3. The casino amendment Penn National and Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert slapped onto November's statewide ballot would entrench another monopoly in Ohio -- this one, statewide, on steroids.


Obviously I have no dog in this hunt, but there is a HUGE difference between a monopoly for an essential public service that's a basic necessity for living and a freaking casino company. H-U-G-E. So dumb it shouldn't even be compared. (And yes, I know that you didn't write it - not a slam on you).


just the messenger. I read the Sunday edition of the PD today at work and thought I'd add to the thread.
"And three of the better guys in franchise history, Daugherty, Z and now Kyrie could get hurt in a rubber room full of cotton balls." - Leadpipe
User avatar
idoctribefan
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Joe Haden
Least Favorite Player: #6

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:12 am

JB wrote:Not a chance.


So it has nothing to do with the 70% increase in coal prices, or near tripling of oil and natural gas prices on the commodities market?
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:16 am

Stu wrote:
JB wrote:Not a chance.


So it has nothing to do with the 70% increase in coal prices, or near tripling of oil and natural gas prices on the commodities market?



also, look at the charts in this anti-deregulation article: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... ices_N.htm

look at the 02-06 % change. prices went up for states that were deregulated with no rate cap, deregulated with a rate cap, AND those that are still regulated. so if its gone up for everyone, perhaps theres another factor, such as cost of inputs, rather than deregulation.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby pup » Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:26 am

This might be logic fail to some of you that are smarter than I, but...

Until the State of Ohio offers up to legalize casinos in the best manner possible (legalize, force competition), the only chance there is to make a change is to approve something like Issue 3.

If the state wants to do what is right, and in a lot of regards it looks like 3 is not the perfect answer, let's approve Casino Gambling in the state without needing to pass Issue 3.

At some point, the peeps are going to pass one of these. Maybe not this year. Maybe this year. Issue 3 is the best of the bunch thus far. But if the state (and the people of the state) wants to make the biggest bang for their buck by allowing a Casino, they have the power to do so.

So, unless someone comes out with a better plan in the next couple of weeks, I hope 3 passes. Monopoly. Bad tax breaks. People moving from Vegas { :lmfao: } keeping Ohioans from getting jobs. All be damned.
Home Run Leaders as RHB 5/7/13

Mark Reynolds (10)
User avatar
pup
Closet Shapiro Fan
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Eastlake, Ohio
Favorite Player: Vince Shubrownicek
Least Favorite Player: Any other coach

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:58 pm

Pup wrote:So, unless someone comes out with a better plan in the next couple of weeks, I hope 3 passes. Monopoly. Bad tax breaks. People moving from Vegas { :lmfao: } keeping Ohioans from getting jobs. All be damned.


what about the plan proposed by the legislature that was posted earlier in the thread?
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby pup » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:01 pm

Stu wrote:
Pup wrote:So, unless someone comes out with a better plan in the next couple of weeks, I hope 3 passes. Monopoly. Bad tax breaks. People moving from Vegas { :lmfao: } keeping Ohioans from getting jobs. All be damned.


what about the plan proposed by the legislature that was posted earlier in the thread?


Have it closer to being approved than in the local message board and it is open for discussion.

Let me guess. We should vote no and trust Ohio politicians will get it done.

Or we can vote yes and trust Dan Gilbert to get these ones built. Which was part of your case against it. It doesn't say they have to, just that they can. Well, I trust Gilbert more than our politicians.
Home Run Leaders as RHB 5/7/13

Mark Reynolds (10)
User avatar
pup
Closet Shapiro Fan
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Eastlake, Ohio
Favorite Player: Vince Shubrownicek
Least Favorite Player: Any other coach

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:29 pm

Pup wrote:
Stu wrote:
Pup wrote:So, unless someone comes out with a better plan in the next couple of weeks, I hope 3 passes. Monopoly. Bad tax breaks. People moving from Vegas { :lmfao: } keeping Ohioans from getting jobs. All be damned.


what about the plan proposed by the legislature that was posted earlier in the thread?


Have it closer to being approved than in the local message board and it is open for discussion.

Let me guess. We should vote no and trust Ohio politicians will get it done.

Or we can vote yes and trust Dan Gilbert to get these ones built. Which was part of your case against it. It doesn't say they have to, just that they can. Well, I trust Gilbert more than our politicians.


it is, read up on it rather than jumping to conclusions or "guessing"
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby pup » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:40 pm

Stu wrote:http://www.times-gazette.com/news/article/4688301

Amendment would expand casino issue

COLUMBUS -- Voters in Ohio counties or cities would decide whether to allow casinos in their communities under a constitutional amendment proposed by one state lawmaker.

Rep. Dennis Murray, a Democrat from Sandusky, said he introduced House Joint Resolution 4 to further the debate on expanded gambling in Ohio and to question whether state Issue 3 is the right plan for the state. The latter, to be decided by voters next month, would allow casinos at four sites in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo.

Murray's amendment would allow as many as 15 casinos in the state, with locations determined by county populations, according to documents.

If approved by local voters, the casinos would pay taxes of 50 percent on their gross revenues, with 45 percent of the proceeds going to the state's general fund, 20 percent to Ohio counties and 20 percent to school districts.

The remainder would be distributed to the communities where the casinos are located, a state casino control commission, horse racing tracks, law enforcement and gambling addiction services, according to documents.

Locations also would have to pay licensing fees, plus commit to investing $25 million upfront in their casinos, according to documents. And gambling would be restricted to patrons ages 21 and older.

"I felt it was important to put another alternative in the mix and start a discussion about what a better gambling amendment might look like," Murray said, adding, "I think there's support for having a broader discussion. ... I think a lot of people recognize the flaws with Issue 3 and they're trying (to determine) how to respond to it."

HJR 4 would have to be approved by both the Democrat-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate to appear before voters in November 2010.


Please tell me you did not bring me here to talk about phone bills and foot lockers.

Isn't this exactly what I said it was? Vote no on Issue 3 now, and maybe HJR4 will be passed and we can vote on it in another year. And if I am reading this, if voters in any community pass an OK on gambling, they get a casino? Awesome. Can't wait to go to Harrah's Eastlake. That should take off.
Home Run Leaders as RHB 5/7/13

Mark Reynolds (10)
User avatar
pup
Closet Shapiro Fan
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Eastlake, Ohio
Favorite Player: Vince Shubrownicek
Least Favorite Player: Any other coach

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:06 am

Can't wait to go to Harrah's Eastlake. That should take off.

If Harrah's thinks they can be profitable there, then yea it should take off. Otherwise they wont build. Pretty simple.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Orenthal » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:36 pm

Stu wrote:
Can't wait to go to Harrah's Eastlake. That should take off.

If Harrah's thinks they can be profitable there, then yea it should take off. Otherwise they wont build. Pretty simple.


We get it.. Monoploy, free market choice... Funny that Ohio has blocked me from accessing a casino in Cleveland, that's not free market... My point on baseball was pretty clear, and whoever said its just a circular arguement nailed it.

The bigger point was that we either trust Gilbert or these hacks in Columbus. The same hack politicians that gave us Keno and tried on Racetrack slots all thru the Ohio Lottery. Like Pup said I'll trust Gilbert.

Same topic, but another track, isn't Triv being a total douche about this issue? Anyone else think he is nothing but a Jeff Jacobs shill when it comes to this issue.
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:16 am

Orenthal wrote:Same topic, but another track, isn't Triv being a total douche about this issue? Anyone else think he is nothing but a Jeff Jacobs shill when it comes to this issue.


except he keeps saying he will vote for issue 3.



as far as trusting gilbert. he keeps saying the casino will bring in 8 million additional visitors per year. currently we have 4 million visitors. so he's saying that the city of cleveland alone will see twice as many visits as the indians, browns, cavs, rock hall, science center, convention center and everything else this city offers...combined. bullshit.


vegas on the other hand has 37 million visitors per year. how is 1 casino in cleveland supposed to bring in nearly 1/4 of the visitors that Las Vegas does each year?


he's a liar too.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby pup » Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:23 pm

Stu wrote:
Orenthal wrote:Same topic, but another track, isn't Triv being a total douche about this issue? Anyone else think he is nothing but a Jeff Jacobs shill when it comes to this issue.


except he keeps saying he will vote for issue 3.



as far as trusting gilbert. he keeps saying the casino will bring in 8 million additional visitors per year. currently we have 4 million visitors. so he's saying that the city of cleveland alone will see twice as many visits as the indians, browns, cavs, rock hall, science center, convention center and everything else this city offers...combined. bullshit.


vegas on the other hand has 37 million visitors per year. how is 1 casino in cleveland supposed to bring in nearly 1/4 of the visitors that Las Vegas does each year?


he's a liar too.


People that live in Laughlin aren't making bi weekly trips to Vegas.

People that live in Mentor, will be making these trips to Cleveland. So every time someone from Mentor goes to the Casino, it is bringing another visitor to Cleveland.

I can see 8 million.
Home Run Leaders as RHB 5/7/13

Mark Reynolds (10)
User avatar
pup
Closet Shapiro Fan
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Eastlake, Ohio
Favorite Player: Vince Shubrownicek
Least Favorite Player: Any other coach

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:33 pm

Pup wrote:
Stu wrote:
Orenthal wrote:Same topic, but another track, isn't Triv being a total douche about this issue? Anyone else think he is nothing but a Jeff Jacobs shill when it comes to this issue.


except he keeps saying he will vote for issue 3.



as far as trusting gilbert. he keeps saying the casino will bring in 8 million additional visitors per year. currently we have 4 million visitors. so he's saying that the city of cleveland alone will see twice as many visits as the indians, browns, cavs, rock hall, science center, convention center and everything else this city offers...combined. bullshit.


vegas on the other hand has 37 million visitors per year. how is 1 casino in cleveland supposed to bring in nearly 1/4 of the visitors that Las Vegas does each year?


he's a liar too.


People that live in Laughlin aren't making bi weekly trips to Vegas.

People that live in Mentor, will be making these trips to Cleveland. So every time someone from Mentor goes to the Casino, it is bringing another visitor to Cleveland.

I can see 8 million.


so you see 8 million to cleveland, plus what maybe 10 million to columbus since its a bigger city? figure a few more million to cincy and toledo and you are over 20 million in ohio for only 4 casinos. bullshit.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:34 pm

Pup wrote:People that live in Laughlin aren't making bi weekly trips to Vegas.

People that live in Mentor, will be making these trips to Cleveland. So every time someone from Mentor goes to the Casino, it is bringing another visitor to Cleveland.

I can see 8 million.



but people from L.A. do. Vegas is practically a suburb of LA with all the traffic that comes in from there over the weekend. again, nothing around cleveland can remotely match that.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:37 pm

Issue 3 up 53% to 47% Statewide. Still really early though/

It's 52% to 48% for Issue 3 in central Ohio, however local news is saying it's trending towards rejection down here.

It's going to go down to the wire, most of the rural counties are voting no in large numbers.

I'm surprised this topic hasn't got more play today, seeing how it's election day an all.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby noles1 » Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:53 pm

On Windy's twitter he alluded to champagne being in the Cavs complex with the likelihood that the issue had passed by information they had gathered.

Have to wait and see...
Playing here is the closest thing to heaven. Really, I mean it's amazing to be in a place where the fans truly cherish their football team and stick behind them win or lose. We players love them, too. I feel a sense of accomplishment playing here, we are a special breed of football players with a great opportunity." ~ tOSU LB Brian Rolle
User avatar
noles1
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Clarion, PA
Favorite Player: Jason Kipnis
Least Favorite Player: Mark May's Parents

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby swerb » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:35 am

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17917
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:42 am

Swerb wrote:http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/11/cleveland_to_get_its_casino_vo.html

Let's get ready to gamble!

Image


original.

viewtopic.php?p=301712#p301712


I look forward to taking your money at the poker tables.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Orenthal » Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:18 am

Stu wrote:
Swerb wrote:http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/11/cleveland_to_get_its_casino_vo.html

Let's get ready to gamble!

Image


original.

viewtopic.php?p=301712#p301712


I look forward to taking your money at the poker tables.


Image
Image

Not principled enough to stay away from the Monopoly huh Stu? I'll be taking yer money at the poker tables!!!
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:52 am

Orenthal wrote:Not principled enough to stay away from the Monopoly huh Stu? I'll be taking yer money at the poker tables!!!



Just because I voted against it, doesnt mean I won't take advantage of it. It'll give me something to do now when I'm bored at 3am. Hopefully it doesnt suck.



I find it interesting to hear that there is already a push for another constitutional amendment to go on the ballot for May to tighten up some regulations on the casino plan.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby jb » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:28 am

Stu wrote:
I find it interesting to hear that there is already a push for another constitutional amendment to go on the ballot for May to tighten up some regulations on the casino plan.


Which is exactly what you should have seen coming, Stu.

Ohio's GA is completely gutless since Riffe bowed out. The next tough issue they deal with will be the first, although I do give Taft some credit for at least trying industrial / business tax reform. Instead of passing a gambling measure like in PA and setting it up as leaders, they cowered behind waiting 20 some years for a yes vote to take place. Now they'll get their mitts all over this thing. There will be so much lobbiest money flying around, and setting up ohio's system of what you will REALLY see will domainate their aganda this year. They will ammend the constitutional ammendedment to include more participants, change the tax rate, and beef up a gaming comission ( I hope ) . I just don't recall nuff Ohio constitutional history / gubmint to recall the process of how the Ohio legislature ammends the constitution. I want to say it is via a simple supermajority in each chamber. But getting a cut of the devil's wages is very different from letting the devil in. Much like you ( no editorial comments ) , they will now embrace that which they allegedly vehimently opposed. So you'll see all these backward ass rattlesnake in one hand, bible in the other hilljacks lined up to get theirs and get WVA style barroom video slots in their skanky little roadhouses.

I wonder when and if we will actually see a casino the way they'll be jockeying.
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby jfiling » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:45 am

JB wrote:I just don't recall nuff Ohio constitutional history / gubmint to recall the process of how the Ohio legislature ammends the constitution. I want to say it is via a simple supermajority in each chamber. But getting a cut of the devil's wages is very different from letting the devil in. Much like you ( no editorial comments ) , they will now embrace that which they allegedly vehimently opposed. So you'll see all these backward ass rattlesnake in one hand, bible in the other hilljacks lined up to get theirs and get WVA style barroom video slots in their skanky little roadhouses.

I wonder when and if we will actually see a casino the way they'll be jockeying.

Since you axed:
§ 16.01 How constitution to be amended; ballot; Supreme Court to hear challenges
[ View Article Table of Contents ]

Either branch of the General Assembly may propose amendments to this constitution; and, if the same shall be agreed to by three-fifths of the members elected to each house, such proposed amendments shall be entered on the journals, with the yeas and nays, and shall be filed with the secretary of state at least ninety days before the date of the election at which they are to be submitted to the electors, for their approval or rejection. They shall be submitted on a separate ballot without party designation of any kind, at either a special or a general election as the General Assembly may prescribe.

The ballot language for such proposed amendments shall be prescribed by a majority of the Ohio ballot board, consisting of the secretary of state and four other members, who shall be designated in a manner prescribed by law and not more than two of whom shall be members of the same political party. The ballot language shall properly identify the substance of the proposal to be voted upon. The ballot need not contain the full text nor a condensed text of the proposal. The board shall also prepare an explanation of the proposal, which may include its purpose and effects, and shall certify the ballot language and the explanation to the secretary of state not later than seventy-five days before the election. The ballot language and the explanation shall be available for public inspection in the office of the secretary of state.

The Supreme Court shall have exclusive, original jurisdiction in all cases challenging the adoption or submission of a proposed constitutional amendment to the electors. No such case challenging the ballot language, the explanation, or the actions or procedures of the General Assembly in adopting and submitting a constitutional amendment shall be filed later than sixty-four days before the election. The ballot language shall not be held invalid unless it is such as to mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters.

Unless the General Assembly otherwise provides by law for the preparation of arguments for and, if any, against a proposed amendment, the board may prepare such arguments.

Such proposed amendments, the ballot language, the explanations, and the arguments, if any, shall be published once a week for three consecutive weeks preceding such election, in at least one newspaper of general circulation in each county of the state, where a newspaper is published. The General Asembly shall provide by law for other dissemination of information in order to inform the electors concerning proposed amendments. An election on a proposed constitutional amendment submitted by the general assembly shall not be enjoined nor invalidated because the explanation, arguments, or other information is faulty in any way. If the majority of the electors voting on the same shall adopt such amendments the same shall become a part of the constitution. When more than one amendment shall be submitted at the same time, they shall be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote on each amendment, separately.

(Amended May 7, 1974.)
jfiling
Old School Writer
 
Posts: 3874
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:14 pm
Location: Akron, Ohio
Favorite Player: Silky Johnston
Least Favorite Player: Buck Nasty

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:18 am

JB wrote:Which is exactly what you should have seen coming, Stu.



I did, earlier in this thread when I said this could be a baby step to a better casino plan.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Commodore Perry » Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:46 pm

So how long until the doors to the new Cleveland Casino open?
User avatar
Commodore Perry
Old School American
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:20 pm

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:08 pm

Commodore Perry wrote:So how long until the doors to the new Cleveland Casino open?


gilbert is saying construction starts a year-ish from now, at least for the Cleveland casino.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Ziner » Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:13 pm

I was talking to my dad about the Toledo site, it is about a mile from my grandparents house, he said that it is a former industrial site that is leaking all sorts of things in to the Maumee River, I wouldnt be suprised if that casino never gets built. I believe in this proposal it was laid out where they had to be, not sure if they can change it after the fact. Besides that it was just a stupid location.
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7058
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:14 pm

Ziner wrote:I was talking to my dad about the Toledo site, it is about a mile from my grandparents house, he said that it is a former industrial site that is leaking all sorts of things in to the Maumee River, I wouldnt be suprised if that casino never gets built. I believe in this proposal it was laid out where they had to be, not sure if they can change it after the fact. Besides that it was just a stupid location.


Sweet, maybe the Toxic Avenger will be a Pit Boss.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby leadpipe » Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:51 pm

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:
Ziner wrote:I was talking to my dad about the Toledo site, it is about a mile from my grandparents house, he said that it is a former industrial site that is leaking all sorts of things in to the Maumee River, I wouldnt be suprised if that casino never gets built. I believe in this proposal it was laid out where they had to be, not sure if they can change it after the fact. Besides that it was just a stupid location.


Sweet, maybe the Toxic Avenger will be a Pit Boss.


Depends on who has their hand out in the Toldeo area.

Casino executives have made politicos forget far more significant matters than a little leakage in the Maumee.

Maybe they'll catch a few transfers from the crooked ohio horse racing industry looking for a little boost.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6556
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby The Score » Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:00 pm

Ziner wrote:I was talking to my dad about the Toledo site, it is about a mile from my grandparents house, he said that it is a former industrial site that is leaking all sorts of things in to the Maumee River, I wouldnt be suprised if that casino never gets built. I believe in this proposal it was laid out where they had to be, not sure if they can change it after the fact. Besides that it was just a stupid location.

The site underwent environmental remediation, but just enough to get it zoned for residential property. Commercial property with much higher traffic and building loads is a different story. If Penn National is really going to build a casino there, I doubt they'll have much trouble getting over that hurdle. The local news recently did a story on the "leakage", which is just drainage. The site is a good 30+ feet higher in elevation than the river. As such, the site drainage flows out to the river. These pipes had colored water (dirty) flowing out into the river. The news did a story, the EPA tested the water, and they found nothing other than drainage/storm runoff.

My only question is whether Penn National wanted the Toledo casino to actually build one, or if they just wanted the Toledo Casino to prevent one from being built.
The Score
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:45 pm

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Ziner » Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:08 pm

The Score wrote:
Ziner wrote:I was talking to my dad about the Toledo site, it is about a mile from my grandparents house, he said that it is a former industrial site that is leaking all sorts of things in to the Maumee River, I wouldnt be suprised if that casino never gets built. I believe in this proposal it was laid out where they had to be, not sure if they can change it after the fact. Besides that it was just a stupid location.

The site underwent environmental remediation, but just enough to get it zoned for residential property. Commercial property with much higher traffic and building loads is a different story. If Penn National is really going to build a casino there, I doubt they'll have much trouble getting over that hurdle. The local news recently did a story on the "leakage", which is just drainage. The site is a good 30+ feet higher in elevation than the river. As such, the site drainage flows out to the river. These pipes had colored water (dirty) flowing out into the river. The news did a story, the EPA tested the water, and they found nothing other than drainage/storm runoff.

My only question is whether Penn National wanted the Toledo casino to actually build one, or if they just wanted the Toledo Casino to prevent one from being built.


Touche, I will tell my dad to get his facts straight, I just read a little about it online you are correct.

I agree with you that they may not want to build it. It really is a stupid location anyways, if you are familiar with Toledo. Move it down the river closer to the docks, Toledo has been praying to revitalize their pathetic excuse for a downtown, so why not put it there. Otherwise dont put it anywhere near downtown and put it in a location that is off the highway (the reason I think they picked this spot) somewhere else in the city. This spot has nothing around it besides a dump of a comfort inn and in a very old section of town.

Whatever, at least they will have one in Cleveland.
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7058
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby The Score » Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:35 pm

Ziner wrote:
The Score wrote:
Ziner wrote:I was talking to my dad about the Toledo site, it is about a mile from my grandparents house, he said that it is a former industrial site that is leaking all sorts of things in to the Maumee River, I wouldnt be suprised if that casino never gets built. I believe in this proposal it was laid out where they had to be, not sure if they can change it after the fact. Besides that it was just a stupid location.

The site underwent environmental remediation, but just enough to get it zoned for residential property. Commercial property with much higher traffic and building loads is a different story. If Penn National is really going to build a casino there, I doubt they'll have much trouble getting over that hurdle. The local news recently did a story on the "leakage", which is just drainage. The site is a good 30+ feet higher in elevation than the river. As such, the site drainage flows out to the river. These pipes had colored water (dirty) flowing out into the river. The news did a story, the EPA tested the water, and they found nothing other than drainage/storm runoff.

My only question is whether Penn National wanted the Toledo casino to actually build one, or if they just wanted the Toledo Casino to prevent one from being built.


Touche, I will tell my dad to get his facts straight, I just read a little about it online you are correct.

I agree with you that they may not want to build it. It really is a stupid location anyways, if you are familiar with Toledo. Move it down the river closer to the docks, Toledo has been praying to revitalize their pathetic excuse for a downtown, so why not put it there. Otherwise dont put it anywhere near downtown and put it in a location that is off the highway (the reason I think they picked this spot) somewhere else in the city. This spot has nothing around it besides a dump of a comfort inn and in a very old section of town.

Whatever, at least they will have one in Cleveland.


It's definitely not an ideal location. It's just the only location on the river that is "build ready". They probably had 3 years put into that remediation project before the site was finished.

There is plenty of space available on the river, it's just that it is all contaminated to high heaven and nobody can do anything with it. The work they have done tearing down the old sports arena and building infrastructure for the "marina district" looks really nice, but all of that is stalled until they can tear down and remediate that old power plant site - which means that it's years away once they start actual work on the site.

If the Toledo casino actually gets built and then it is accessible by both the river and the highway, it won't be a terrible location. Shitty old homes are easily bought up and knocked down for new hotels / development.
The Score
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:45 pm

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:21 am

heard on the radio this morning that some in the state legislature want the constitutional amendment to be pushed through with a 60% tax rate on the casinos.

thats bullshit. both sides of this issue are fucking nuts.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby skatingtripods » Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:33 am

Here's a county by county breakdown of the vote on Issue 3:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/mu ... ction.html

Love the selfish pricks in Columbiana and Mahoning counties along with the Northwest counties. They can all hit Mountaineer or the three Detroit casinos within 45 minutes, so what do they care.

Too bad Gilbert couldn't work in the ballot language that only counties who vote in favor will get their share of the revenue.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:03 pm

Skating Tripods wrote:Here's a county by county breakdown of the vote on Issue 3:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/mu ... ction.html

Love the selfish pricks in Columbiana and Mahoning counties along with the Northwest counties. They can all hit Mountaineer or the three Detroit casinos within 45 minutes, so what do they care.


ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..... those people didn't like the legislation because they wouldn't be able to get a casino in ohio in their area.

Skating Tripods wrote:Too bad Gilbert couldn't work in the ballot language that only counties who vote in favor will get their share of the revenue.


Can we do that for taxes as well? I hate paying taxes on things I voted against.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby skatingtripods » Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:15 pm

Stu wrote:ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..... those people didn't like the legislation because they wouldn't be able to get a casino in ohio in their area.


Yet they still get a piece of the money for their county. What a shame. Boo hoo for them.

Fuck 'em. They don't care about their state because the out-of-state casinos are closer.

Can we do that for taxes as well? I hate paying taxes on things I voted against.


This, I am in favor of. I like that idea.


Again, I don't understand how people are so up in arms about this being written in the constitution. It had to be, because you have to amend the constitution which prohibits gambling in the state. Why are people so dense about that fact? (rhetorical question because I know the answer, Lead Pipe's 90% rule confirms) There was no choice other than writing it in the state constitution.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Guest » Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:23 pm

It would have been a great idea to tell the counties that didn't vote for the casino that they get no benefit from it. Then instead of 55-65% against, they could have voted against at a 90% rate.

You should be thanking the people in those counties who DID vote for it. They DO get something for their trouble, which is the tax money. And without their votes, even though the majority in those counties lost, it's a dead deal.
Guest
 

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Wed May 19, 2010 6:13 pm

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf ... ke_sh.html


No Smoking

No Comped Drinks

No Drinking after 230am

In addition to Gilbert's promises of No Restaurants and No Hotel.



Casino's gonna suck ballz.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

PreviousNext

Return to No Holds Barred

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest