Reason #12 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3
CLICK THIS TEXT TO VISIT THIS BLOG'S CURRENT SITE
Because it fails technically as a constitutional amendment, Part VI.
The remainder of the Issue 3 proposed amendment language outlines the gambling aspects of what would become a constitutional provision, as opposed to statutory law.
Because of the poor drafting, I'm going to re-produce the first of the nine paragraphs (notice the education piece only had four) and then summarize, as opposed to going line by line.
If you want to remember the myriad problems with the education language, read the reasons to vote no Part I here (Reason 18), Part II here (Reason 16), Part III here (Reason 15) and Part IV here (Reason 14) and Part V here (Reason 13).
And if you want to follow along, here's the amendment language in its entirety.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, slot machines shall be permitted at the seven permitted commercial horse racing tracks, and at two locations each fronting on the existing main channel of the Cuyahoga River in the City of Cleveland, one on the west bank within the area generally known as the Nautica Entertainment Complex and with frontage of approximately 1,430 feet in length, extending 560 feet to the northwest and 870 feet to the southeast of the intersection of the center line of vacated Main Avenue and the Cuyahoga River, and one on the east bank within the area generally known as Tower City and starting at the northeast corner of West Third Street, where it meets the east bank of the Cuyahoga River and extending north and west along the east bank of the Cuyahoga River for not more than 1,700 feet and having a depth of not more than 460 feet from the east bank of the Cuyahoga River. The games authorized in this section shall be conducted only at the locations authorized herein, and, in the discretion of the facility owner, may be conducted twenty-four hours each day. No more than three thousand five hundred such devices may be operated at any one facility, except that facilities located within the same county may, by agreement, provide for the transfer of such devices between such facilities, provided that no more than four thousand such devices may be operated at a facility not located at a permitted commercial horse racing track. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to authorize live games associated with casinos, including, but not limited to roulette, card games, and dice games, except that such games may be conducted at the non-track facilities and at the facilities located at a permitted commercial horse racing track situated wholly or partially within Cuyahoga County if the voters of Cuyahoga County approve the conduct of such additional games by a majority vote. No such vote may be conducted prior to the fourth general election following the approval of this amendment.
Is that the longest damn single paragraph you've seen in a while? Did the person responsible for that even pass the OGT writing section? Man. And it's not even the longest one in the proposed language.
Let's go!
1. What are we talking about: Slot machines. But there's no definition for "slot machines" until the end of the section. Again, some laws are organized with the definitions section first. I like that approach because then all readers are on the same page, from the start.
2. What about slot machines:
They will be permitted at
a. "the seven permitted commercial horse racing tracks..." Again, "permitted commercial horse racing tracks" has a definition but it's at the end of the section. What bothers me about this phrase is that it uses the definite article, "the." Because only seven specific tracks will ever be able to benefit. None that come into existence after the amendment is passed, unless a "permit holder" relocates the facility, if it's one authorized by the amendment, to another location within the same county.
Now, I don't know much about how people get permits for tracks, but no one who does get a permit after the amendment passes gets to have slots.
That monopoly complaint others mention comes in at this point. And those monopolies will operate in very defined locales within the state. How fair is that to the remainder of the population? Here are the OLE people saying, oh, poor Ohioans, can't lose money in their own state, and yet what they're proposing will only be easily available (at least more easily available than going over state lines) to that portion of Ohioans who live in proximity to the nine facility locations.
This, by the way, is part of why folks like Ed Morrison assert that Issue 3 won't raise the money it says it will: because to raise the money the proponents say will be raised, we need people from outside Ohio to come into Ohio, in addition to attracting Ohioans to Ohio locations.
But if the seven locations are so concentrated or placed in such places that they'll fail to draw those out of state numbers, the money ain't gonna be coming here. (I assume that this is part of how, if Issue 3 passes, the developers will sell the convention center, saying that having the convention center will bring in the necessary out of staters to keep the now existing slots parlors afloat - how sick is that?)
b. And at two other precisely defined locations in Cleveland, one on the east side of the Flats and one on the west side of the Flats.
Wow. An Ohio Constitutional provision that basically applies to one of 88 counties. Does any other constitutional provision so narrowly provide for only one of our state's 88 counties?
Sure - as we'll see, this proposed language metes out teeny bits of love to the other counties. But if you want a textbook definition of unfair and imbalanced, this would be it.
Two serious questions:
1) Can the Nautica Entertainment Complex have naming rights change hands? I don't know the history of the Complex, but I thought it actually did have a different name when it first went up. If it's name can change, does that mean that the slots will have to be removed? Because according to the constitution, it's just the Nautica Entertainment Complex that's allowed to have the slots. There's no provision for a successor facility. (When you write contracts, you almost always include language about successor organizations etc. since you just can never know what names and owners can change.)
2) What exactly is described in this portion of the proposal? It's a plot of land right? The location itself?
That just seems so odd to me - to grant permission to a location, a geographical place on a surveyor's chart that currently has no such facility on it. Does that seem weird to anyone else?
3. What else about slot machines and these nine locations?
a. "Games authorized in this section shall be conducted only" at these locations, no where else in the state of Ohio.
b. This set of games can be conducted 24/7 is the facility owner wants to.
Two problems:
1) Are "games" the same as "slot machines", or something else? Wouldn't it be nice to know before the phrase pops up?
2) I don't like this back and forth between "locations" and "facility owner." I mean, there ARE no facility owners yet for the two locations described in excrutiating detail, even though we all know who is intended. There's not even a facility.
What happens if Forest City sells itself? Or goes private the way so many other companies are going?
I so dont' like this stuff.
And one extra thing I don't like: 24/7 slot facilities in downtown Cleveland? Double blech.
4. How many slots can operate at each location?
a. No more than 3,500 at any one facility
b. BUT facilities in the same county can transfer devices between themselves as long as
-there are no more than a total of 4,000 at any one facility,
-and, isn't this cute - the facility is not located at a race track - oh well - guess that means only the Flats locations can have 4000 each if the tracks want to give 500 to each Flats location.
Questions:
1) "Such devices" is used in this part to refer to the slot machines. Why don't they just say, "slot machines" - why do they say "such devices" - consistency is not a four-lettered word.
2) What did the drafters anticipate with this section? It's not quite clear to me. Will subcontracts be allowed between the Flats facility owners and the tracks for those 1000 machines? I know I'm missing something here.
5. What games, machines and devices are not authorized here
First - please notice: usually you don't say "not authorized" when you don't want something somewhere. You say, "prohibitied." Again, what did they have in mind by saying "not authorized"? Do they want to say that other machines aren't prohibited?? simply "not authorized"? Not sure.
"Live games associated with casinos, including, but not limited to roulette, card games, and dice games,..."
There's no definition of "live." Laugh, but I keep imagining the Sally, Euclid Beach Lady - didn't she talk? I also think about that fortune teller guy, Zoltan, in the movie Big.
Then there are cyber and virtual hosts. Will they be considered live and therefore prohibited, or could games conducted by such beings be constitutional? Can you believe that we're even talking about this crap in the constitution?
Who will further define "live"? The Gaming Integrity Commission, the General Assembly or the Lottery Commission?
6. Games like these that we just said aren't authorized may eventually be conducted
-at non-race track facilities or
-tracks located wholly or partially in Cuyahoga County
IF
voters of Cuyahoga County approve, by majority vote, the conduct of such additional games
Hmm. What about the residents of the other counties for those facilities only partially located in Cuyahoga County? They don't get a say.
Again, we know the authors of this language had goals in mind - what were they? What are they?
7. When is "eventually" re: approving live games?
No vote on approving the conduct of the games can occur prior to 2014 (a mid-term year).
Why that year is picked, I'm not sure - although obviously a midterm election year has a lower turnout than a presidential election year so one would assume that the proponents believe lower turnout favors approval to expand gambling options in Cuyahoga County.
My comments:
1. If passed, this constitutional amendment would legalize discrimination and monopolies.
2. This proposed language is overly prescriptive (much like the education language which purports to leave everything to the Regents and then specifies at least 15 criteria which must be met by Ohio college-ready residents who want to be considered for the tuition grants) thus setting in concrete criteria about conditions which can and possibly should change but would require further constitutional action to do so.
3. Words defined should be used consistently (i.e., instead of using slot machines, devices and games, just slot machines should be used, unless they're not talking about slot machines). No need to pull out the thesaurus here.
4. The entire portion of this single section, known as titled "Learn and Earn Amendment," should be a separate section entirely from the education portion.
Ohioans need to recognize that what is written in this portion of the proposed language fails to represent the best our economic development intelligentsia can produce. Rather, this proposed language represents the design by which corporate interests believe they can best enshrine and guarantee for themselves a deeper foothold in the gambling industry in Ohio.
For remember, as Bill Cohen's report indicated today, no school or college groups have endorsed Issue 3.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 13
Reason 14
Reason 15
Reason 16
Reason 17
Reason 18
Reason 19
Reason 20
Reason 21
Reason 22
Reason 23
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn).
The remainder of the Issue 3 proposed amendment language outlines the gambling aspects of what would become a constitutional provision, as opposed to statutory law.
Because of the poor drafting, I'm going to re-produce the first of the nine paragraphs (notice the education piece only had four) and then summarize, as opposed to going line by line.
If you want to remember the myriad problems with the education language, read the reasons to vote no Part I here (Reason 18), Part II here (Reason 16), Part III here (Reason 15) and Part IV here (Reason 14) and Part V here (Reason 13).
And if you want to follow along, here's the amendment language in its entirety.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, slot machines shall be permitted at the seven permitted commercial horse racing tracks, and at two locations each fronting on the existing main channel of the Cuyahoga River in the City of Cleveland, one on the west bank within the area generally known as the Nautica Entertainment Complex and with frontage of approximately 1,430 feet in length, extending 560 feet to the northwest and 870 feet to the southeast of the intersection of the center line of vacated Main Avenue and the Cuyahoga River, and one on the east bank within the area generally known as Tower City and starting at the northeast corner of West Third Street, where it meets the east bank of the Cuyahoga River and extending north and west along the east bank of the Cuyahoga River for not more than 1,700 feet and having a depth of not more than 460 feet from the east bank of the Cuyahoga River. The games authorized in this section shall be conducted only at the locations authorized herein, and, in the discretion of the facility owner, may be conducted twenty-four hours each day. No more than three thousand five hundred such devices may be operated at any one facility, except that facilities located within the same county may, by agreement, provide for the transfer of such devices between such facilities, provided that no more than four thousand such devices may be operated at a facility not located at a permitted commercial horse racing track. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to authorize live games associated with casinos, including, but not limited to roulette, card games, and dice games, except that such games may be conducted at the non-track facilities and at the facilities located at a permitted commercial horse racing track situated wholly or partially within Cuyahoga County if the voters of Cuyahoga County approve the conduct of such additional games by a majority vote. No such vote may be conducted prior to the fourth general election following the approval of this amendment.
Is that the longest damn single paragraph you've seen in a while? Did the person responsible for that even pass the OGT writing section? Man. And it's not even the longest one in the proposed language.
Let's go!
1. What are we talking about: Slot machines. But there's no definition for "slot machines" until the end of the section. Again, some laws are organized with the definitions section first. I like that approach because then all readers are on the same page, from the start.
2. What about slot machines:
They will be permitted at
a. "the seven permitted commercial horse racing tracks..." Again, "permitted commercial horse racing tracks" has a definition but it's at the end of the section. What bothers me about this phrase is that it uses the definite article, "the." Because only seven specific tracks will ever be able to benefit. None that come into existence after the amendment is passed, unless a "permit holder" relocates the facility, if it's one authorized by the amendment, to another location within the same county.
Now, I don't know much about how people get permits for tracks, but no one who does get a permit after the amendment passes gets to have slots.
That monopoly complaint others mention comes in at this point. And those monopolies will operate in very defined locales within the state. How fair is that to the remainder of the population? Here are the OLE people saying, oh, poor Ohioans, can't lose money in their own state, and yet what they're proposing will only be easily available (at least more easily available than going over state lines) to that portion of Ohioans who live in proximity to the nine facility locations.
This, by the way, is part of why folks like Ed Morrison assert that Issue 3 won't raise the money it says it will: because to raise the money the proponents say will be raised, we need people from outside Ohio to come into Ohio, in addition to attracting Ohioans to Ohio locations.
But if the seven locations are so concentrated or placed in such places that they'll fail to draw those out of state numbers, the money ain't gonna be coming here. (I assume that this is part of how, if Issue 3 passes, the developers will sell the convention center, saying that having the convention center will bring in the necessary out of staters to keep the now existing slots parlors afloat - how sick is that?)
b. And at two other precisely defined locations in Cleveland, one on the east side of the Flats and one on the west side of the Flats.
Wow. An Ohio Constitutional provision that basically applies to one of 88 counties. Does any other constitutional provision so narrowly provide for only one of our state's 88 counties?
Sure - as we'll see, this proposed language metes out teeny bits of love to the other counties. But if you want a textbook definition of unfair and imbalanced, this would be it.
Two serious questions:
1) Can the Nautica Entertainment Complex have naming rights change hands? I don't know the history of the Complex, but I thought it actually did have a different name when it first went up. If it's name can change, does that mean that the slots will have to be removed? Because according to the constitution, it's just the Nautica Entertainment Complex that's allowed to have the slots. There's no provision for a successor facility. (When you write contracts, you almost always include language about successor organizations etc. since you just can never know what names and owners can change.)
2) What exactly is described in this portion of the proposal? It's a plot of land right? The location itself?
That just seems so odd to me - to grant permission to a location, a geographical place on a surveyor's chart that currently has no such facility on it. Does that seem weird to anyone else?
3. What else about slot machines and these nine locations?
a. "Games authorized in this section shall be conducted only" at these locations, no where else in the state of Ohio.
b. This set of games can be conducted 24/7 is the facility owner wants to.
Two problems:
1) Are "games" the same as "slot machines", or something else? Wouldn't it be nice to know before the phrase pops up?
2) I don't like this back and forth between "locations" and "facility owner." I mean, there ARE no facility owners yet for the two locations described in excrutiating detail, even though we all know who is intended. There's not even a facility.
What happens if Forest City sells itself? Or goes private the way so many other companies are going?
I so dont' like this stuff.
And one extra thing I don't like: 24/7 slot facilities in downtown Cleveland? Double blech.
4. How many slots can operate at each location?
a. No more than 3,500 at any one facility
b. BUT facilities in the same county can transfer devices between themselves as long as
-there are no more than a total of 4,000 at any one facility,
-and, isn't this cute - the facility is not located at a race track - oh well - guess that means only the Flats locations can have 4000 each if the tracks want to give 500 to each Flats location.
Questions:
1) "Such devices" is used in this part to refer to the slot machines. Why don't they just say, "slot machines" - why do they say "such devices" - consistency is not a four-lettered word.
2) What did the drafters anticipate with this section? It's not quite clear to me. Will subcontracts be allowed between the Flats facility owners and the tracks for those 1000 machines? I know I'm missing something here.
5. What games, machines and devices are not authorized here
First - please notice: usually you don't say "not authorized" when you don't want something somewhere. You say, "prohibitied." Again, what did they have in mind by saying "not authorized"? Do they want to say that other machines aren't prohibited?? simply "not authorized"? Not sure.
"Live games associated with casinos, including, but not limited to roulette, card games, and dice games,..."
There's no definition of "live." Laugh, but I keep imagining the Sally, Euclid Beach Lady - didn't she talk? I also think about that fortune teller guy, Zoltan, in the movie Big.
Then there are cyber and virtual hosts. Will they be considered live and therefore prohibited, or could games conducted by such beings be constitutional? Can you believe that we're even talking about this crap in the constitution?
Who will further define "live"? The Gaming Integrity Commission, the General Assembly or the Lottery Commission?
6. Games like these that we just said aren't authorized may eventually be conducted
-at non-race track facilities or
-tracks located wholly or partially in Cuyahoga County
IF
voters of Cuyahoga County approve, by majority vote, the conduct of such additional games
Hmm. What about the residents of the other counties for those facilities only partially located in Cuyahoga County? They don't get a say.
Again, we know the authors of this language had goals in mind - what were they? What are they?
7. When is "eventually" re: approving live games?
No vote on approving the conduct of the games can occur prior to 2014 (a mid-term year).
Why that year is picked, I'm not sure - although obviously a midterm election year has a lower turnout than a presidential election year so one would assume that the proponents believe lower turnout favors approval to expand gambling options in Cuyahoga County.
My comments:
1. If passed, this constitutional amendment would legalize discrimination and monopolies.
2. This proposed language is overly prescriptive (much like the education language which purports to leave everything to the Regents and then specifies at least 15 criteria which must be met by Ohio college-ready residents who want to be considered for the tuition grants) thus setting in concrete criteria about conditions which can and possibly should change but would require further constitutional action to do so.
3. Words defined should be used consistently (i.e., instead of using slot machines, devices and games, just slot machines should be used, unless they're not talking about slot machines). No need to pull out the thesaurus here.
4. The entire portion of this single section, known as titled "Learn and Earn Amendment," should be a separate section entirely from the education portion.
Ohioans need to recognize that what is written in this portion of the proposed language fails to represent the best our economic development intelligentsia can produce. Rather, this proposed language represents the design by which corporate interests believe they can best enshrine and guarantee for themselves a deeper foothold in the gambling industry in Ohio.
For remember, as Bill Cohen's report indicated today, no school or college groups have endorsed Issue 3.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 13
Reason 14
Reason 15
Reason 16
Reason 17
Reason 18
Reason 19
Reason 20
Reason 21
Reason 22
Reason 23
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn).
JBlog Me
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home