Issue 1
YES
Among the many shortcomings of those leaders who brag about
supporting the troops is a tendency to forget those men and women once
they’vereturned home. Issue 1 would help to fill the gap between
rhetoric and reality by renewing the state’s tradition of paying
bonuses to veterans of the wars — in this case, the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan and Operation Desert Storm. The funds would come from
selling $200 million in bonds. — Lewis
Issue 2
NO
It’s unfortunate that the backers of Issue 2 have tried to obscure
the real debate behind a haze of hypnotic happy talk (Safe, affordable
and healthy food! Who could oppose that?) and wild claims (Vegans want
to take away your burgers and wings!). This proposed constitutional
amendment would permanently shift most regulatory power over the
livestock industry to a 13-member board appointed mostly by the
governor. We can’t prove that this is nothing more than the Ohio Farm
Bureau’s way of heading off livestock-handling reforms like those
passed in other states, but it sure sounds that way when farmers make
statements like this: “I don’t want a radical organization [the Humane
Society] coming in and telling me I have to put my animals in a
five-star hotel.” And this: “We do believe that their ultimate agenda
is to end man’s dominion over animal.” (Both comments appeared in
Scene‘s October 14 article “Rattling Cages.”) Grossly
exaggerating opponents’ aims and resorting to biblical references are
cynical moves intended to frighten and mislead, and should never be
rewarded with votes.
Thanks in part to books like Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s
Dilemma and documentaries like Food Inc., more and more
Americans are beginning to ask questions about the food they eat
— how it’s raised or grown, and how those processes affect the
environment. Admittedly, animal-rights activists whose agendas include
banning certain livestock-raising practices are seizing this
opportunity to spread their messages. But that’s democracy; the most
compelling ideas survive and become law. To allow the deep-pocketed
farm industry to render any such debate in Ohio moot before it’s even
gotten started would be undemocratic and unwise. Even the Ohio Farmers
Union (ohfarmersunion.org)
says that passing Issue 2 would be nothing more than “cementing
corporate agribusiness into the Ohio Constitution.” Vote no on Issue 2.
— Lewis
Issue 3
NO, BUT
Once again, the glittering promises/dark threats that always swarm
around casino-gambling issues are flying: Look! It’s Dan Gilbert,
the magician who brought us LeBron James — surely we can
trust him to transform Cleveland’s economy with casino
gambling. Oh no! Addiction! Crime! And didn’t you hear that Gilbert was
involved in some kind of betting scandal — when he was in
college?
The lure of betting profits always draws out heated rhetoric. Each
ballot measure tries to slip past the voters by pretending it’s about
something else. This one is tagged “Ohio Jobs and Growth.” But the
promise of jobs and a new tax revenue stream, and the threats of crime
and broken families, are all beside the point. There’s really one key
issue: Like the last several gambling issues, this is a constitutional
amendment that the would-be gaming operators (this year, it’s Gilbert
and Penn National Gaming; next year, it’ll be someone else) have
written to put a sweet deal and a monopoly for themselves into our
governing document. Once it’s in place, they’ll almost certainly spend
hundreds of millions to guarantee that their monopoly can’t be
challenged.
Issue 3 is a profit grab by private interests, and it should be
defeated. Then — and here’s where the “but” comes in —
Ohioans need to end the parade of deceitful gambling ballot measures
with a frank discussion about repealing the gambling ban. We’re already
skirting it in so many ways. It’s time we stopped pretending gambling
doesn’t exist in Ohio and deal with regulating it in a fair and open
way. — Pantsios
Issue 4
YES
Issues 3, 5 and 6 are all making hard-to-assess promises of economic
development. Issue 4 virtually guarantees economic growth by providing
the thing workers and businesses alike need the most: education. Issue
4 is Cuyahoga Community College’s every-five-years replacement levy.
The levy system cuts the middleman out of democracy, but it also makes
beggars of institutions that unquestionably deserve our support. This
year, in addition to the 1.6 mills for replacement funding, Tri-C needs
another .3 mills, due to decreasing state funding and skyrocketing
demand. Enrollment is at an all-time high, and the recent high-school
grads, returning war vets and displaced workers filling Tri-C’s
classrooms are overwhelmingly fellow Cuyahoga County residents for whom
Tri-C is often the only affordable choice for higher education or
retraining. And skilled, educated workers are key in attracting new
business and growing old business. So don’t quibble over “yet another
tax” — it’ll cost about $18 per year on a $100,000 home. Vote yes
on Issue 4 and help your neighbors. We’re all in this together.
— Lewis and Pantsios
Issue 5
NO
This was our toughest call. We are loathe to take a stand against a
thoughtful and inclusive approach to county government reform, but we
fear that any discussion would be poisoned by the ongoing corruption
probe and by the rhetoric of the Issue 6 crowd (see below). We need to
take a break from the matter and come back to it with cool heads and
fresh eyes. So with all due respect to commissioner Peter Lawson Jones,
whose intentions we support, we urge you to vote no on Issue 5. —
Lewis
Issue 6
NO
In August we reported on growing frustration among local politicians
with Northeast Ohio’s state representatives and senators. They have a
bad habit of voting against their constituents’ best interests, as if
the atmosphere in Columbus clouded their judgment. State representative
Eugene Miller admitted that things do look different from there, but
noted a factor we hadn’t considered before: term limits. By the time
legislators are getting comfortable with issues and procedures, he
said, “You’re gone.”
Term limits were the result the last time voters got so thoroughly
fed up with their elected officials that they wanted to throw everyone
out and start from scratch. This year, in Cuyahoga County, we have
Issue 6, which calls for a radical remaking of county government. But
little of what we’ve heard from Issue 6’s backers holds up under
scrutiny, as revealed in reporting by Scene’s Anastasia Pantsios
(page 11) and Damian Guevara (page 16). Behind vague declarations about
needing change now and promises of economic growth and savings, there
are more questions than answers.
But the most fundamental and compelling reason for rejecting Issue 6
is the simplest: It does nothing to prevent the kind of corruption that
has plagued Cuyahoga County and which has fueled this rushed and
transparent power-grab. Attributing the sins of Jimmy Dimora, Frank
Russo and others to the structure of county government comes
dangerously close to excusing what they did and only encourages future
abuses. Congresswoman Marcia Fudge said it best: “Systems aren’t
corrupt; people are corrupt.”
Vote no on Issue 6. — Lewis
This article appears in Oct 28 – Nov 3, 2009.