Kudos to Mark Shrider for beating me to a post using the title "I Got Issues". In retrospect, perhaps it's better that I didn't get to use it...family, friends and co-workers could have a field day with that.
OHIO ISSUE 1
If approved by the voters, the measure would change the deadline for submitting initiative petitions in the state, moving the deadline backward from its current 90 days before the election to 125 days before the election.
Supporters say Issue 1
- Prevents waste of taxpayer dollars
- Helps maintain voter confidence in elections
- Promotes efficient and effective elections
Opponents say Issue 1
- Creates delays in new laws taking effect
- Means more expensive state issue campaigns
With earlier voting, there is an increased burden on state and local boards of election to make sure everything is in order. Whether counting/confirming signatures on petitions and referendums, or concluding legal battles so ballots can be printed, giving our election officials some extra time to do their jobs is not unreasonable. Anything the public can do to assure that voting is done fairly and accurately should be encouraged and supported.
Politico recommends voting YES on Ohio Issue 1.
OHIO ISSUE 2
If approved by the voters, the measure would authorize the state to borrow $400 million for environmental conservation, preservation and revitalization purposes.
Supporters say Issue 2 will
- Keep our drinking water clean and safe
- Keep our drinking water clean & safe
- Clean up and redevelop polluted abandoned industrial sites
- Protect our lakes, rivers and streams
- Conserve wildlife habitat
- Preserve working family farms
- Expand outdoor recreational opportunities
- Create new jobs and economic development
- Ensure that our children and grandchildren can enjoy Ohio’s land, water, and natural habitats – now and for generations to come
Opponents say Issue 2
- Would authorize the government to spend more on bond money
- Means taxpayers will have to pay back these bonds
This measure has bi-partisan support, with Governor Strickland, House Speaker Husted and Senate President Harris as co-chairmen of the campaign. In September, a Columbus Dispatch poll has the issue being favored 56%-22%, and almost all major Ohio newspapers are recommending passage. This measure will not raise taxes, but will create jobs. I cannot find anything to argue against this.
Politico recommends voting YES on Ohio Issue 2.
OHIO ISSUE 3
If approved by the voters, the measure formalizes in the Ohio constitution the right of property owners to groundwater on their land, says that property owners have a property interest in the groundwater and non-navigable waters located on or flowing through their land and that water cannot be held in trust by any governmental body.
Supporters say Issue 3 will
- Affirm that a property owner has a property interest in the reasonable use of ground water under the property owner’s land
- Affirm that an owner of land along lakes and watercourses has a property interest in the reasonable use of water in that lake or watercourse located on or flowing through that land
- Ensure that Ohio law continues to protect these water use rights for all Ohio citizens
Opponents say Issue 3
- Is an unnecessary addition to the Ohio Constitution
- Makes changes to the Constitution so specific that they mention legal doctrines that are not contained in the Constitution
- Gives private property owners the false sense of security that their land cannot be taken away at a later date
When the biggest argument I can find against an issue is not about what it aims to accomplish, but whether it should be a constitutional amendment, what else can you say?
Politico recommends voting YES on Ohio Issue 3.
OHIO ISSUE 4
If approved by the voters, the measure would force businesses with 25 or more workers to provide employees that work full-time (32 hours a week) to earn 7 rollover paid sick days per year.
Ohio Issue 4 has been REMOVED from the ballot.
OHIO ISSUE 5
If approved by the voters, the measure would approve section 3 of Ohio House Bill 545 which caps Ohio payday loan industry's interest rate at 28%, maximum loan amounts would be $500 and borrowers would have at least 30 days to repay the loan.
Supporters say Issue 5
- Keeps the 28% interest rate cap
- Forbids lenders from charging 391% APR on a typical two-week loan
- Helps breaks the cycle of debt
- Gives borrowers more time to pay back loans and helps create more affordable small loans
- Does not take a good credit choice away from borrowers
- Does not mean an end to 6,000 jobs
Opponents say Issue 5
- Preserves a short-term loan option that is simple, reliable, and confidential - and often the cheapest available
- Ensures that those who need short-term financial help will have a choice
- Guarantees your right to access practical credit
- Preserves financial choices, confidentiality and privacy in personal borrowing and the retention of up to 6,000 jobs for Ohio workers
- Approval eliminates a valued credit choice for many hardworking Ohioans who need temporary financial help, and jeopardize thousands of Ohio jobs
- Approval infringes on personal privacy and require that everyone taking out short-term loans be listed by name in a government database
- Approval limits consumers to four short-term loans per year and deny consumers access to other affordable choices
If our state government wants to protect us economic predators, then they should create a bill the not only limits the fees that payday lenders charge, but they need to limit ATM fees, bank fees, cable fees, phone surcharges, late fees for an overdue library book...everything across the board.
I believe that a potential interest 391% is too high, but then the potential of losing 6000 jobs is too high. I believe that if someone uses a payday lender, the potential is there for debt to spiral out of control, but some people have no other place to turn. It is trendy to be for Issue 5. It is supported by both major political parties, as well as a good portion of major newspapers across the state.
However, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce ("not the way to revitalize Ohio’s economy"), Ohio Grocer's Association (OGA’s members could be hurt through an increased number of bounced checks, fraudulent checks and even theft") and National Taxpayer's Union ("there could be additional political pressure to boost government assistance programs when Ohioans can no longer help themselves because the most common – and often only – method to help cover unplanned expenses has been eliminated") are against it.
Will these loan businesses close their doors if Issue 5 passes? Probably not. But taking away an option from Ohioans, not to mention the potential impact on our economy and other sectors of our business community, is not worth mandating a change.
Politico recommends voting NO on Ohio Issue 5.
OHIO ISSUE 6
If approved by the voters, the measure would approve an Ohio constitutional amendment that authorizes the building of one privately owned $600,000,000 resort/casino.
Supporters say Issue 6
- Will allow a $600 million first class gambling and entertainment destination casino resort to be built in southwest Ohio
- Will create up to 5,000 new jobs in Ohio with average projected salaries of $34,000 – Jobs that cannot be outsourced
- Will generate thousands of new construction jobs required to develop and construct the casino, hotel, restaurants, golf course, live theater and other amenities one finds at a first class casino resort
- Will annually generate an estimated $200 million dollars from a special tax that only the casino operator will pay
- Will allow Ohio to compete with the 38 other states that currently allow casino
gambling
Opponents say Issue 6
- Will drain billions from Ohio’s economy and cost jobs
- Creates a private monopoly for a single casino owner
- Does not guarantee even a minimum number of Ohio jobs or other amenities
- Language promising money to counties is filled with loopholes; there is no guarantee that the counties will see any revenue and could end up with nothing when another casino opens in Ohio
- Will make Ohio a Class III gambling state, making it easier for Indian casinos to
open, which will reduce or eliminate proposed funds to Ohio counties - Will create new gambling addicts, ruining thousands of lives
- Will not stop Ohioans from traveling to gamble
- Will hurt honest businesses in Clinton County and the people of Wilmington
who voted overwhelmingly against casinos in 2006
Ohio has a history of rejecting gambling initiatives, but as we know, the times - they are a changin'. A SurveyUSA poll in September show that Issue 6 is favored by Ohio voters 62%-31%.
I don't believe that if Ohioans allowed gambling, we would see nearly the number of problems that opponents continuously state would occur. With a lottery system in place, keno and bingo readily accessible, and poker tournaments springing up everywhere, we have already implied that wagering money is a social norm and given tacit approval.
I want to see Ohio pass a resolution that makes gambling possible. With the correct legislation, the potential is there for thousands of jobs to be created, tax money can be routed to county treasuries, and revenue stays within Ohio. Unfortunately, I don't think that Issue 6 is the correct legislation.
What's the old saying about 'if it walks and talks like a duck'? Well, there are just too many signals that something isn't right with this amendment. If there is a tax loophole, close it. If there is the potential for a monopoly to be built, stop it. There is plenty of time to do this, and do it correctly. Get the language right and put it in front of voters next year.
Politico recommends voting NO on Ohio Issue 6.
OTHER REPRESENTATIVES
Sometimes the best sign that a public official is doing a great job is when you don't hear anything about them. If they were doing something wrong, then there would be all sorts of reasons to bring in someone new.
I know that these individuals have been doing their jobs well, and their opposition has not made the case for change. We have some outstanding local leaders, and they deserve to be returned to office.
Politico recommends CLIFF HITE for Ohio House of Representatives - 76th District.
Politico recommends MARK MILLER for Hancock County Prosecuting Attorney.
FINDLAY RIVERPLACE ISSUE
If approved by the voters, the measure would repeal the ordinance regarding the development of city property (Brandman/Swale) and make sure that any potential commercial or residential development on the property is put before the voters.
If you have not heard both sides of the issue by now, then where have you been hiding? Instead of electing leaders to make decisions, the citizens sometimes want to make the call. If it is important enough to people to make it to the ballot, then a vote like this is truly democracy in action.
Instead of two minutes at a council meeting, the public wants to have their say via the ballot box. The issue may pass, and face legal challenges in court. The issue may fail, and Burgess and the city may get their development. There has been enough opposition, and enough signatures, to get this on the ballot. It's important to let all voices be heard, and in a deal of this magnitude, the public wants a vote on whether to proceed.
RiverPlace is the issue that will not go away, but perhaps that is for a good reason. I'm not against the development of retail, restaurants, housing, an arts center and new ball fields, but what wisdom is there in still wanting to deal with an individual who does not have the common decency to return even a phone call from our city's leaders?
It has been a year since Tony Iriti and council at the time gave approval and entered into an agreement with Brad Burgess. Looking back, you almost get the impression that this project was rushed through. Since then, the lack of payments from Burgess to the city, let alone any sort of regular communication, are now taking on legendary status.
I understand that Burgess may be hesitant about spending money on a project that may never come to fruition, but organized opposition came long after payments were due. Why hasn't the money been put into some account that could be drawing interest on the city's behalf; at a minimum, the principal could be refunded to Burgess if the project never proceeds.
Remember what I said for Ohio Issue 6 about the duck? Well, this issue is similar. There is just something not right about what has been going on, and if we start over from the beginning, perhaps that is for the best. As a part of a deal with any developer, the city could mandate the costs for cleaning the area. Should we build anything before the Army Corps of Engineers issues their report? Too many issues, and not enough answers (or even phone calls/e-mails from a certain someone) make me want to take a step back and make sure we get this right.
Politico recommends voting YES on the Findlay RiverPlace issue.
FINDLAY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX LEVY ISSUE
If approved by the voters, the measure would institute a replacement tax levy for Findlay City Schools.
As an alum of FCS, and with two children currently going to Glenwood, I think that our school system is headed in the right direction. Despite some issues that have come up over the past few years regarding the building of schools, security, and the district stuck at an 'effective' rating, the schools need to receive our support. Since this is not a new levy, and just the continuation of an existing one, I can get behind that.
Politico recommends voting YES on the Findlay City School District Tax Levy issue.
As always, your comments are always welcome. Show me the error of my ways. ;-)
-RSKnopfJr






National Right to Life
Recent Comments