Ohio Voters AGAINST House Bill 7 The Ohio Voters Against House Bill 7, (hereinafter referred to as the "Signators"), understand/agree to the following... A. that through its efforts, House Bill 7 (H.B. 7), The State of Ohio (hereinafter referred to as the "State") is trying to eliminate and/or "over-regulate" the operation of the Internet Based Sweepstakes Parlors (hereinafter referred to as the "Parlors"), B. it has been estimated that there exists 850 Parlors throughout the State, C. the closing and/or over-regulation of the Parlors is based on the notion that the Parlors compete for revenue among the four Casinos located in the State, from which the State receives a percentage of such revenue generated by the Casinos. The Signators feel that, when considering the economical benefits to the State from the Parlors, there are three key factors at issue... #1) RE: The Casinos A. If the Parlors were to be closed, would there be a significant increase in revenue realized by the Casinos, and therefore bythe State, VERSUS the economical loss to the State generated by the Parlors? Recent reports from the media have suggested that 1 of 25 Parlor customers would (or could) afford to make the effort to drive to one of the State's four Casinos. Given that the typical Parlor customer spends $20 per visit, and given that the cost of gas to drive to a Casino PLUS the $25 average parking fee, it is easy to understand why there would be VERY little increase in Casino revenue, hence State revenue. B. Based on media reports, it appears there exists only two (2) OWNERS of the four Casinos within the State which is perceived as a MONOPOLY (if not indeed a monopoly) considering the original conditions in the proposal of the Casino/Gambling Law passed by Ohio voters. #2) RE: The "Racinos" According to a recent Google search, there exists eight (8) legal Horse Racing Sports Books within the State. It is the understanding of the Signators that several of these Racetracks have implemented true slot machines (NOT the Sweeepstakes Based games which have been recognized as LEGAL by Ohio gambling laws for many years) to increase revenue. Yet, in H.B. 7, the State does NOT seek to close and/or over-regulate these Racinos. This GLARING oversight is quite UNCONSTITUTIONAL, or at the very least PERCEIVED as such! #3) RE: The Parlors The major concern of the Signators (including Ohio voters, concerned Ohio citizens, government local and city representatives, Parlor landlords, Parlor merchants, Parlor employees, Parlor customers, Parlor machine/network technicians, as well as Parlor owners and/or operators) is NOT only the direct, personal economical impact of the closing and/or over-regulation of the 850 Parlors state-wide, BUT ALSO the overall economical impact to the State (especially at the time of a poor economy nationwide). The economical impact is outlined, but not limited to, the situations described following... A. With the majority of the Parlors leasing space, 850 locations would suddenly become vacant. Not only would this diminish the income of the landlords, but also its taxable income for the State. In addition to rental income, these small-business Parlors pay GAS, ELECTRIC, and CABLE UTILITIES as well as ATM, FOOD & BEVERAGE, CLEANING SERVICE, and a plethora of other supplies to various MERCHANTS necessary for operation. B. At a conservative estimate of five (5) employees per Parlor, the closing of such small-businesses would lead to the sudden unemployment of 4,250 workers across the State which implicates... 1. an INCREASE to the State UNEMPLOYMENT rate, 2. the loss of TAXABLE INCOME from these workers, 3. an INCREASE to the State in the COST of UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS. 4. and, as shown in #3 Section A, this would lead to a loss of taxable income gained by those affected in #3 Section A. C. Finally, for the past several years, individual counties, cities and/or townships have been regulating the operation of the majority of the Parlors. The municipalities that have installed such regulatyory policies for the Parlors typically have implemented guidelines which govern their operation, but have also attached both a PERMIT and a MACHINE FEE. Research has shown that such fees generate a much needed local revenue in excess of $7,000,000 State-wide!! Assuming that the average Parlor customer spends $20/visit and that the typical Parlor has 30 customers/day, then using the statistic that 1 of 25 Parlor customers WOULD indeed spend that $20 in a Casino, the yearly increase in Casino revenue from the closing of the 850 Parlors would also equate to roughly $7M. However, of this increase, the State would only gain approximately $1.8M. Considering these numbers.... LOSS to the State = ($7M - LOSS of Taxable Income from Employees, Owners & related Merchants + RISE in COST of Unemployement) VS. GAIN to the State = $1.8M (a "calculated guess") it becomes clear that the only logical decision to be made for the economical benefit of both the State and its Citizens is to leave the Parlors operational and not over-regulate such operations. By our signatures below, we fully support the contents of this PETITION of The Ohio Voters AGAINST House Bill 7....

Sponsor

Links