Ohio defeats casino issue, keeps lending limits
Print this story
Read comments and discuss this story
Voters approved a new payday lending law that cuts the annual percentage rate that lenders can charge to 28 percent and limits the number of loans customers can take to four per year. It is among the strictest laws in the country.
In early unofficial returns, the gambling issue was defeated 62 percent to 38 percent. Support for the payday lending law was at 66 percent.
“Ohio voters stripped payday lenders of their permit to fleece working people,” Bill Faith, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio and treasurer of the group working in favor of the issue, said in a statement.
Supporters of Issue 6 bet that voters would think more about
MyOhioNow.com, a group of Cleveland-area developers backing the proposal, said the resort would create up to 5,000 jobs in an area of the state that stands to lose 10,000 jobs at an air park in
The campaign said all 88 counties would share casino money, promoted as $211 million a year, and that it would draw Ohioans who now have to travel to surrounding states to visit casinos.
Opponents say little-noticed language means counties would have received less money — maybe even none — if an additional casino came to
The vote shows continued strong opposition to gambling in
“People are really tired of this,” he said. “The credibility of the gambling industry in this state is just about shot.”
A “yes” vote on Issue 5 upheld the law. Voting “no” rejected the limits and cap on interest rates, allowing lenders to charge rates and fees that amount to a 391 percentage annual percentage rate.
Ohioans for Financial Freedom say the new law would force payday lending businesses across the state to shut down and as many as 6,000 people to be laid off. The industry argued that while loan rates multiply out to 391 percent over a year’s time the percentage on a single loan is generally $15 for every $100 and 90 percent of borrowers repay their loans within two weeks.
Backers of the law say such loans are defective products that trap borrowers into a cycle of debt. Borrowers typically end up with 12 or more loans each year, according to the committee backing the proposal.
Voters also easily passed the other three state issues, with each getting at least 69 percent of the vote.
Issue 2 allows the state to issue bonds to pay for conservation of natural open spaces and the environmental revitalization of other lands.
The other two initiatives were proposed constitutional amendments.
Issue 3 strengthens landowners’ rights to make “reasonable use” of water that runs on or through a property. It was proposed alongside the recently approved Great Lakes Water Compact, which strengthens legal protections for the use of water from the five
Issue 1 requires an earlier filing deadline for statewide ballot issues. Citizen-initiated petitions for the issues would need to be submitted at least 125 days before an election as opposed to 60 days for state referendums or 90 days for constitutional amendments.
Print this story
Report an innappropriate comment
In order to comment, you must agree to our user agreement
and discussion guidelines.
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. If you aren't already registered,
click here.
If you are registered, click here to log in.
Need help? Email Us.

Lorain/Elyria, OH


I don’t think the people of Ohio voted against having casinos in Ohio. I think they voted against amending our constitution to give a monopoly to one owner. Set up stringent but reasonable laws to control them and then open up the State to any operator who wants to play by our rules: not make the rules for one operator, and I feel the voters would approve. Voters aren’t as stupid as these people,who put this issue up for vote, think they are.
(Report comment)
I agree with BNCNTR… I read basically the same article a little while ago on the WEWS website, and there was a quote about the issue from one of the “No on 6″ people that “Perhaps after this third Casino defeat, proponents will realize that when it comes to Ohio voters, no means no.”
I wouldn’t be so fast to lump this defeat in with the others. Ohio voters aren’t stupid, and knew this particular ammendment was a bad plan all together. I am NOT an opponent to legalized gaming in Ohio. I may have even voted FOR the ammendment had the location been in Lorain or somewhere where I could have gotten the direct benefit of it’s existance (new construction, jobs, taxbase, etc.). But to write it into the state constitution that can and will ONLY be ONE, and that it can ONLY exist at a SPECIFIC LOCATION in southwestern Ohio automatically made me vote against it, as it allowed for NO future expansion into other areas of the state.
And I will not be surprised when the issue comes up again in a few years. Eventually there will be verbage in the proposal that will suit the majority of the people. And there will be proponents, those who stand to GAIN from the new gaming laws and local casinos (local cities, businesses, schools, investors, developers, realtors, etc.). And there will be opponents, those who will LOSE (usually money) when the casinos are built (outside-Ohio Casinos, Churches (no more BINGO or VEGAS NIGHT revenue), the Ohio Lottery, Social & Veteran’s clubs (no more pull-tips), the horse tracks, etc.). And of course there will be no shortage of back-and-forth advertizing from both sides (Jobs, Money, prosperity VS. Mafia, Prostitution, & socio-religious collapse).
All that I know is that Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Niagra Falls, Windsor, or any other city with a casino have not been biblically destroyed (with the possible exception of Detroit). Most are thriving cities. Remember, these casinos are in business to MAKE MONEY, and do NOT tollerate activities that will drive away their customers. They would much rather WORK with the communities they are a part of to make it safe and enjoyable.
I think that only time will tell…
(Report comment)