Follow-up

One more day and we won't have to listen to the police union guy, Mary Ellen Withrow (God bless her) and "The Devil is in the Details" people.
Since this blog endorsed Issue 3 last week, I've heard a lot of good reasons from people who why we should vote down the casino issue.
Brian Hanner, a reasonable person, responded with this on my Facebook page, "Sorry, but I'm voting no on three because of the distortion used by "yes on three" committees who have made this a job's issue. If we are serious about casino's - why not logically place one right between Cle, Cols and Pitt, where it is easily accessable from three major markets? Instead, 4 casino's will have to try to thrive in their own market Toledo?!? - Seriously?"
Well, Brian, have you ever been Toledo? I have and believe me it needs a casino.
Seriously, there are very logical reasons to vote against casino gambling, but I'm currently of the opinion that if we don't do it this year, we'll have another proposal to vote on next year. And if we don't find additional revenue soon, taxpayers will assume a larger tax burden. Already, the Legislature is considering suspending an income tax reduction because the Ohio Supreme Court ruled slots at racetracks unconstitutional.
I also believe that the perfect proposal does not exist and frankly I'm weary of the debate. Dan Gilbert, owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers, is involved in the casino projects for Cleveland and Cincinnati. He's delivered on promises in the past and has invested heavily in the success of the Cavs franchise.
I'm willing to bet that he can get it done.
See you next time.