Issue 3 is not good for Ohio, not good for Cleveland, only good for the casino owners.

Why else would Cav’s employees be standing at the exits at the Q handing out yard signs saying Vote Yes for Issue 3? A few weeks ago, there was a “commercial” playing for Issue 3 during one of the pre-season games – on the scoreboard at the Q. The Cav’s lease the Q from the Gateway Economic Development Corporation, a non-profit organization created by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners and the City of Cleveland – the Board of Trustees are publicly appointed by the County Commissioners. I know Gilbert pays the rent but it seems to me that it’s a gray area for him to have been touting all the purported benefits in a building established with public funds.

Brent Larkin, former editorial director for the PD, came out against Issue 3 in Sunday’s PD – perhaps if he was still the editorial director, the PD would have had some balls and said vote no on Issue 3.

And besides all of that – it’s another amendment to Ohio’s constitution – we need to stop messing with the constitution – or as it was previously stated stop “wiping our asses” with it.

He’s against Issue 2 because:

1) I question the constitutionality of an executive board for policing animal humanity issues. The Ohio constitution (like all constitutions), in my understanding, is designed to create a framework for which government may operate efficiently and with checked powers.

2) I think that such a board is not conducive to free market competition. Creating a board that sets an industry standard for animal humanities removes the free market competition of producers competing to provide a safe, high quality product based on the way they treat their animals. Depending on what regulations the board creates, many producers may not be able to afford to comply with the regulations or have the resources to complete the paperwork, inspections, etc. These producers (likely small farmers I work with) will then have an uphill battle educating their customers on how they comply or exceed those animal humanity standards but still don’t have the stamp of approval.

3) Farmers probably don’t need more regulation. This regulation is an added cost to producers and it is particularly a heavy burden on small producers who don’t have the resources of large producers.

Many of the arguments you hear make assertions that it protects the “factory farms” and that it’s funded by “big ag” or that “factory farms are harmful to the environment.” I don’t buy these arguments because they are blanket statements. Yes, large producers have a lot of “skin in the game” on this piece of legislation. Some may be supporting a Yes vote; others may be supporting a No vote. Furthermore, not all “factory farms” are bad. Our economy has a need for low cost, mass produced product. And some of the “factory farms” actually have very innovative ways of recycling their waste and turning it into other useful products. These are processes that small farmers may not have the resources to do.

Oh, and finally, the idea of a bipartisan board appointed by the governor is silly. Anything appointed is likely not 100% bipartisan; further, in my skepticism of government, I believe that the seats on the board will be reserved for those with the deepest pockets and providing the most support to the one making the appointments (governor). As a result, myself and small farmers alike probably won’t be sitting on this board and therefore our concerns may not have equal weight.