“It looks like Issue 3 is going down”, says informed Ohioans and Chairman of the Mahoning County Democratic Party

Submitted by Norm Roulet on Sun, 10/18/2009 - 00:35.

The Glass City Jungle blog in Toledo seems to be the only media outlet to have picked up on a TruthPAC poll with results showing, as Dave Betras, Chairman of the Mahoning County Democratic Party, says, “It looks like Issue 3 is going down.” Wonder if and when the Plain Plan Dealer will share this insight with its intentionally misinformed readers... hopefully, they read REALNEO as well... and here, from Toledo, the latest and most credible data reflecting the current outlook on a few billionnaires' $50 million+ bet on corrupting Ohio with Issue 3, which is sinking in value like a pathetic, suicidal gambling addict's last dollar bet at one of "Don" Dan Gilbert's gaming and sport emporiums... "Issue 3 is going down"... read 'em and weep, GCP:

TruthPAC release says recent poll shows casino issue within margin of error

15 Oct 2009

This sent in via e-mail from TruthPAC, there was no link to the polling information, I’ll try to update later with more specifics:


YOUNGSTOWN — A new statewide poll shows support for Issue 3 with a razor-thin margin and shows it is favored by less than 50 percent of likely voters for the first time since polling on the proposed constitutional issue began.

Issue 3 was favored by 48 percent of likely voters and opposed by 44 percent, in a telephone survey conducted Oct. 7-11. The remaining 8 percent were undecided.

“The more people learn about this sweetheart deal the casinos have written for themselves they less they like it,” said Dave Betras, Chairman of the Mahoning County Democratic Party. “It looks like Issue 3 is going down.”

Although the Mahoning Valley has given strong support to past casino ballot issues, voters in the region are evenly divided on Issue 3, with 48 percent favoring it and 44 percent opposing it. Betras said he is on a mission to convince supporters to vote NO.

“They are promising thousands of jobs for Ohio and not one single job for the Valley,” he said. “There is nothing in this for the Valley so I strongly urge all Valley voters to vote NO. The Valley under Issue 3 would never ever get a casino.”

Polling and Strategic Design of Sarasota, Florida, surveyed 800 likely Ohio voters. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

Those who planned to vote for it cited a desire to bring more money and jobs into Ohio as the main reasons. Opponents tended to frown upon gambling or believe that Issue 3 would not deliver the promised benefits.

The results are in sharp contrast to previous Issue 3 polls that showed a wide margin of support for the casino plan.

Issue 3’s waning support comes amid a barrage of TV, radio, and newspaper ads by both sides and follows a new academic study that concluded Issue 3 would lead to a net job loss in the four cities where the casinos would be authorized: Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo.

Conducted by a team of researchers from Hiram College, the study said that Issue 3 shortchanges Ohio by calling for casinos to pay relatively low licensing fees and taxes.

It calls for casinos to pay a one-time $50 million licensing fee, even though states that competitively bid casino licenses receive fees as high as $500 million. The 33 percent tax rate is low when compared to places other than Las Vegas and Atlantic City.

Issue 3 was drafted by casinos and their allies, and the campaign’s main financial backer is Penn National Gaming.

Issue 17 proposed Charter Amendment

I recently received a letter from Councilman Joe Cimperman asking for my consideration on the Charter Commission amendment to allow alternates on the City Planning Commission, so they can have forum, when they meet once each month. 

Here are the current City Planning Commission members.

Anthony J. Coyne, Chairman Lillian Kuri
David H. Bowen Lawrence A. Lumpkin
Joe Cimperman Gloria Jean Pinkney
Norman Krumholz

 See also: http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/

Any feedback? Joe Cimperman is the sitting Council member on the commission.

Here's the text

A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.  Shall section 76 of the Charter of the City of Cleveland be amended to provide for the appointment of two alternate members to the City Planning Commmission who shall be appointed by the Mayor with the approval of Coucil, who may be removed by the Mayor, who shall serve for a six (6) year term, who shall serve in place of a non-Council member of the City Planning Commission who is unable to act or is self-disqualified because of personal interest, and who shall receive compensation for services as determined by the Council, and provide for the appointment of an alternate Council member by the Council member in the absence of the one Council member of the City Planning Commission?