Taboo Subject - How I'm voting on the Issues

So there are several major issues up for vote in Ohio next week. I took the time to research them yesterday so that I’d know how to vote “intelligently”. I used the Enquirer’s review of the issues as my basis for information gathering. Here’s some general summary for my Ohio friends:

Issue 1: This issue extends the ballot deadline from 90 days to 125 days. The good news is that it seems this would make the process more streamlined to put new issues on the ballot – it also gives more time for proponents and opponents to collect petitions for their side. It has no formal opponents. The bad side is that if a law were passed in this time period (which would be longer) it’ll take until the next year to get taken out of law. I'm voting YES on this issue.

Issue 2: This is the Clean Ohio issue that was originally passed in 2000 and is up for renewal now. It does not raise taxes and is funded by state-issued bonds. It has successfully “helped to conserve 26,000 acres of natural areas and wildlife habitats, preserve 20,000 acres of Ohio farms and revitalize 173 abandoned, polluted former industrial sites”. It has no opponents and appears to have no downside. I'm voting YES on this issue.

Issue 3: The water rights issue, this simply puts into constitutional law a law that is already in existence and has been upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court several times. It says that water (lakes, streams, wells, etc.) on your land is yours and that while you can use the resource (for irrigation for example) you can not restrict it from others who have rights (ie you can’t build a dam and not allow people downstream not to use the resource too). Opponents only oppose it because it’s “redundant” not because they don’t like what it says. I say who cares if it’s a law it can go into the constitution to make it more firm. I'm voting YES on issue 3.

Issue 5: Payday advancement has gotten HUGE nationwide. Locally in Cincinnati Check-N-Go is a large company that employs 6000 people state-wide by providing cash advances to people who need them. What happens in general is that individuals post-date checks and are willing to pay a premium on the money they borrow. For example, they’ll write a $115 check to get $100 now and the CNG company will cash their check at the later date. Some times what happens is that you simply use your paycheck as collateral to pay back some of the money but it’s more like a traditional loan. It’s been shown that APRs can get up to 391% to people who don’t repay these loans on time and rack up fees on top of high interest rates. Opponents to this (the loan companies themselves mostly) claim that with lower and restricted rates (8%) they won’t have enough revenue to stay in business and 6000 people will lose their jobs. If this goes away banks will become the primary loan source with short-term (ie 3 month) loans as their primary replacement offering. Banks ARE restricted by law to mainain "reasonable (<10%) interest rates .

This is a little tougher. I'm traditionally FOR business as in my opinion businesses employ people who then have money to buy things (spur the economy) and pay taxes. Unemployed people with no money can do neither. As the “personal reference” for friends/family who have used these services (we get the calls of “have you seen so-and-so lately? Can you please tell him/her we’re looking for them?”) I know first hand the vicious cycle that owing money can get you into. Also, as you can imagine, these institutions really harm your credit which makes getting future loans difficult (one friend was paying ~20% interest on his truck loan!). Institutions like this enable people to make and continue to make harmful financial decisions. On the other hand, there are a lot of people in 1-2X binds that will responsibly use these services and it’s good they have the source to do it.

At the end of the day I'm voting NO to this issue so that these businesses can charge what they want and put the responsibility on the people for making their own decisions (they know the terms when they agree to the loan) and living with whatever consequences their decisions earn them.

Issue 6: Bringing casinos to Ohio. The premise that Ohio is losing out on taxes, revenue and the jobs potentially created by building a mega-casino in Wilmington, OH (about 45 minutes northeast of Cincinnati of I71). This company would become in the top 5 employers in the state and would open the doors to other casinos being added in other counties. The taxes paid by said casino would be split between all 88 counties in the state and it’s projected that it’ll draw as much as $850 million in revenue per year. As you can imagine, the Ohio Visitors and Convention Bureau is all for it as are the residents of Wilmington who fear major job loss with the departure of the DHL hub in the city.

Opponents worry about increased gambling addiction, traffic congestion (which will require additional highway/roadway spend to expand), the well-noted loopholes that state that the 30% tax rate the casino would currently spend has the right to change (reduce) to match whatever future casinos pay, and the lack of a gaming license fee.

Obviously the key here is if we allow this industry to start in Ohio what will the benefit be? The risk with taxes is IF an Indian casino would come they pay no taxes so this casino would match and there’d be no taxes. Experts say the likelihood that an Indian casino would come is slim and even if it did it would be years and years of processing to get it approved. The other downside is that they wouldn’t have that initial gaming license fee with is normally a hundreds of millions of dollars number. That’s a lot of money to miss out on.

I just don’t like the idea of people having another opportunity to waste their money. While this seems completely contradictory to how I'm voting on Issue 5, my first-hand experience with my mother and father in laws hobby (and their complete lack of a retirement savings at age 60) makes me resilient to letting others get in that boat (where my taxes then pay for their healthcare and living via Medicaid). I am therefore voting NO on Issue 6.