Objectivity Lacking as Groups Conduct Differing Studies on Casinos

The issue of casinos in Ohio is one that has been put forth to the voters and voted down countless times over the past decade. This fall, there is yet another casino issue on the ballot, and for the first time it has a real chance of passing. Ohioans, who are experiencing the ill effects of the economic crisis manifested into job and benefit losses, are desperate for change and the prospect of a few shiny, new casinos being erected offers a glimmer of hope to the downtrodden masses. Support for the issue is also high because it seems to be one of the best proposals we've seen yet in this state.

In a battle to win over the hearts and minds of Ohioans and have them vote their way, groups both in favor of and opposed to casinos in Ohio have contracted with various universities to conduct studies of the possible impact of the ballot issue's proposal. Not unsurprisingly, each study has found results in supporting the stance of the organization paying them to do it.

The first study was conducted by the University of Cincinnati and the results were revealed in early July 2009. This study found that the casinos would create 34,000 jobs and would generate an $11 billion impact on the state in the first five years. 19,000 of those jobs would become available in 2010 related to the construction of the casinos, if the issue passes. 15,000 permanent jobs would be created once the casinos are up and ready to go. This study was paid for by the Ohio Jobs & Growth Committee, a sponsor of the casino proposal.

Fast forward to now, late September, and we have yet another study to potentially sway opinions. This time it's one conducted by the Hiram College Public Policy Research Group, which has found that Ohio's casinos will only attract local visitors, and won't bring in a large amount of money that wouldn't normally be spent in the community. Furthermore, the study suggests that local businesses would actually be hurt - not helped - by the casinos. Instead of restaurants and shops seeing an increase in sales due to out-of-town visitors, the Hiram study says that they will be hurt because the casino will have its own restaurants, spas, and shops and there will thus be no need for casino-goers to even leave the casino and spend their money in the surrounding community. This study was paid for by the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association.

So here we have two studies, both paid for by parties with a vested interest in the outcome of the vote. One promises jobs and riches, the other warns of doom and gloom. Where does the truth lie? We can't pull the truth from either of these studies because of who pays for them and the inherent bias built-in. What we need is an objective, third party study that isn't paid for by a group with an interest in the outcome of the vote.