Both sides of casino gambling debate watching votes in two towns

Friday, Oct. 28, 2005 | 6:56 a.m.

With a statewide ballot issue on legalizing gambling possible for 2006, the votes in Monroe and Lordstown offer a potential glimpse of public sentiment about casinos. The referendum votes are on deals the local governments have made with the Eastern Shawnee Indians on revenue-sharing and other issues, in case the tribe is ever allowed to build casinos in Ohio.

In this city along Interstate 75 about midway between Cincinnati and Dayton, gambling opponents think a solid defeat of the issue would take the steam out of the Oklahoma-based Eastern Shawnee efforts to overcome state and federal hurdles to building casinos.

"This is a rare opportunity for the people of Monroe to take a stand on what they think about casino gambling," said the Rev. Brad Olson, pastor of the Monroe United Methodist Church. "A strong 'no' vote would send a clear signal that we don't want a casino."

Olson and nine other Monroe pastors said in a public letter this week that "the moral and social costs" of a casino would outweigh any economic gain, and told voters the referendum "is being watched carefully from Cincinnati to Cleveland."

Terry Casey, a lobbyist for the tribe, said the agreements on the ballots would provide millions of dollars in casino revenue annually for the communities, including funds for increased local needs such as road improvements for increased traffic, and keep sexually oriented and adult businesses away from the operations.

"Anybody can say it's symbolic," he said. "I live in the world where I have to deal with the facts, and the facts are this is a vote on whether Monroe and Lordstown are going to get millions of dollars."

Of casino opponents, he said: "If they get beat, are they going to disappear and stop claiming that gaming will bring the end of the world?"

State Rep. Bill Seitz, a Hamilton County Republican who thinks Ohio should extend gambling beyond lottery and bingo games, said the local-government agreements could build support by residents who see the economic benefits of legalized gambling. But rejection in Monroe or Lordstown wouldn't necessarily show opposition to gambling overall, he said.

"It could do nothing but reflect that we're all for it, but not right here ... not in my backyard," Seitz said. Or the vote could just indicate disapproval of the tribe's proposal, he said.

Seitz is optimistic that a statewide gambling issue will be on next year's general election ballot. Ohio voters rejected casino issues in 1996 and 1990.

The tribe, whose agreements with the Ohio municipalities of Lorain and Botkins have not resulted in referendum issues, still needs approvals from state and federal authorities to establish casinos. The Eastern Shawnee filed a federal lawsuit in June claiming thousands of acres of former tribal land in Ohio in a move the tribe's lead attorney has said is meant to force the state to negotiate on the casino plans. Attorney General Jim Petro is fighting the suit.

Lordstown Mayor Michael Chaffee is urging voters to approve the agreement even if they oppose casinos, because of the possibility that the tribe could eventually gain authority to build without any obligation to share profits with the village.

"The absolutely worst scenario is to have no agreement, because we leave ourselves exposed and we can potentially do nothing," he said.

He said the proposed casino site along the Ohio Turnpike wouldn't disrupt the village of 3,700 and would be a major boost for an economy dominated by a General Motors assembly plant and other auto industry-related employers.

"It would give us a lot of stability," he said.

In Monroe, the tribe proposes an entertainment and resort complex along I-75. City officials say their 2 percent revenue-sharing agreement could mean $8 million to $10 million a year for a rapidly growing city that's jumped from 7,000 to 9,500 residents in five years. City Manager William Brock said a casino seems far from reality now, but officials see the agreement "basically as an insurance policy."

But Monroe resident Emily Bunch said she'll probably vote against the issue because she doesn't want to encourage casino backers.

"I don't think it makes us look good, and I'm against gambling anyway," said Bunch, 19.