The proposal is Issue 3 on the Nov. 3 ballot.
“It’s just ... abundantly clear that the costs will outweigh the benefits,” said Jacob Evans, vice president of legislative affairs for the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association.
Evans’ group paid researchers from Hiram College to produce the study that said:
• The estimate from casino backers of 34,000 new jobs — 19,000 construction and 15,000 permanent — is too high. The estimate comes from a University of Cincinnati economic impact study paid for by the casino backers.
• The 33 percent tax rate on gross casino revenues should be about 55 percent.
• The $50 million-per-casino franchise fee is too low. The state should auction franchises to the highest bidder.
The study said previous research has shown regional casinos make it likely there would be net job losses in areas that get casinos because they provide food, lodging and entertainment under one roof.
Jennifer Pitzer, a researcher on the UC study, said the UC study estimated gross job creation and she acknowledged other businesses would be impacted. She said it wasn’t possible to say what related job losses might be.
Evans said he expected the casinos would lead to job losses in bars and restaurants.
The Ohio Jobs and Growth Plan proponents, in a statement, defended the UC study “which painstakingly documents the methodology used to develop the estimate of 34,000 new Ohio jobs and $11 billion in economic impact for the state during construction and the first five years of casino operation.”
The Hiram study mistakenly compared tax revenue and job comparisons with gambling facilities in Pennsylvania that offer only slot machines, not the full-service gambling the Ohio casinos are supposed to provide, the statement said.
About the Author