Casino Report: The Power of Objectivity

Both proponents and opponents of the Casino debate utilized the same research report

Rarely does an analysis by the Economics Center receive the level of attention given to our recent report on the economic and fiscal impacts of the proposed Ohio casinos.

The Economics Center committed to preparing a careful, empirical analysis of the anticipated statewide and community-level impacts of building and operating the four casinos, following established procedures.  Staff members spent over 300 hours collecting data, evaluating research, preparing and checking calculations, and writing up the results of the analysis.

When the study was released, the jobs and tax revenue numbers were quickly picked up by the media, and they also became centerpieces of the TV campaigns of both the proponents and the opponents.  Both sides of the debate found valuable information within the report to bolster their arguments.

Ads by the pro-casino group emphasized the study’s findings about new revenues for school districts and local governments, as well as the overall job creation impact.  In response, the anti-casino forces emphasized the distinction between 18,000 temporary jobs during the construction period and 15,000 permanent jobs once operations would begin.  In both cases, the report was accurately cited, indicating that despite being perceived by some as a supporting document for the casino campaign, it was an analysis that brought impartial and objective facts to the discussion table for consideration.

In fact, the Ohio Department of Taxation prepared its own analysis of state fiscal impacts, and concluded that the casino gross revenue tax would initially generate $643 million annually.  This estimate was comparable to that generated by the Economics Center.

When reporters asked questions about other issues raised in the campaign, particularly possible job losses and social costs, the Economics Center’s research staff noted that the study was a transparent analysis, in which the limitations – based on practical considerations – were expressly stated in the study’s introduction.

The Economics Center continued to play a valuable role in the public dialogue on the subject.  Because of the attention given to the economic issues in the campaign, Jeff Rexhausen, the Economics Center’s associate director of research, was asked to participate in a debate televised locally by Channel 5, as a non-partisan researcher.

The importance of these economic considerations was cited by voters in response to a statewide poll conducted Oct. 14-20 by UC’s Institute for Policy Research.  Of those respondents supporting the casino proposal, 94% cited some economic reason (jobs and/or tax revenues), and 23% of those opposing the issue referred to the economic arguments as well.