IF STATE Issue 1 looks vaguely familiar, it's because Ohioans got a good look at it two years ago and rejected it. Known then as Gov. Bob Taft's "Third Frontier" bond proposal for investment in high-tech research and job development, the plan lost at the November, 2003, election.

Voters recognized, as did we, that bond yields for R&D grants would be skewed heavily to the benefit of the state's major university centers in Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinnati. The rest of the state, from Lucas County in the northwest to Meigs County in the southeast, would get whatever crumbs remained.

This year, the idea is back, tucked neatly inside a much broader, three-pronged proposal designed to make the Third Frontier more acceptable. From our perspective, there's still a skunk in the flower garden.

If indeed state investment in high-tech enterprises would bring prosperity to all corners of Ohio, this year's Issue 1 would make a lot more sense. But while a new wrinkle this time would establish an advisory board with regional representation, there are no guarantees that all 88 counties will benefit.

Independent drafted research proposals will come from all parts of Ohio, but as history has shown, applications from our corner of the state - whether from Bowling Green State University, from the University of Toledo, from the Medical University of Ohio, or from some combination of institutional and business partnership - seldom make an impression on the decision-makers down south.

Can a state government which foolishly invests millions of taxpayer dollars in rare coins because of the connections of the applicant be expected to give a fair break to researchers who don't have tight relationships in Columbus, an advantage Ohio State University routinely exploits?

This year's prettied-up Issue 1 also renews state support for the local government road and bridge program and provides grants to communities to prepare "job-ready sites" as they compete for new businesses and jobs.

We have no particular quarrel with either of those programs, but they could have been voted on separately. They are lumped in with the Third Frontier plan for one very basic and very political reason: to improve its chances for success the second time around.

In that sense, Issue 1 in 2005, just as with Issue 1 in 2003, is a referendum on the performance of Gov. Bob Taft, and that alone could spell trouble. Two years ago nobody had heard of Coingate. Two years ago Ohio had never had a sitting governor convicted of a crime. That, as we have all learned to our dismay, has changed.

The original Third Frontier proposal called for a $500 million bond issue. The new and expanded Issue 1 includes the same $500 million for the same purpose, but overall the package totals $2 billion in bonded indebtedness.

Last time around The Blade was the only major newspaper in Ohio to oppose Issue 1, and the voters concurred. We may be the only major paper to do so again. We recommend Ohioans vote NO on State Issue 1.

This is cache, read story here