If voters say “no” to slots - what will that mean?
November 4, 2008
If voters reject a proposal to place 15,000 slot machines in specific locations around the state, it might be hard to tell what they are saying. Is it that opponents don’t want slots in Maryland at all, or that they don’t like the state’s proposal to put them in place?
The outcome is by no means a foregone conclusion. Recent polls show public opinion split, and the gap between supporters and opponents appears to have narrowed over the course of the year. Still, there should be some good debate about what the verdict means, regardless of the outcome.
The major opposition group, Marylanders United to Stop Slots, argues generally on its Web site about the downsides of slots. You know, the usual stuff … the social costs of gambling are higher than the tax revenues it would generate, and so on. But some of their arguments are nuanced, as well. In fact, the first talking point is about putting slots in the state’s constitution.
Some who have otherwise supported slots don’t like the idea of putting the gambling machines in Maryland’s constitution, but a constitutional change is the only way to put a question to referendum in the state. As a compromise with opponents and lawmakers on the fence, supporters decided to bring the question to vote during a special legislative session last fall instead of attempting to move it forward as a legislative proposal.
Many of the Republican opponents of the referendum formerly supported slots proposals under GOP Gov. Robert. L. Ehrlich Jr. Regardless of what their party affiliation is, the Republicans’ argument at face value is not against slots, but against the specific plan. House Minority Leader Anthony O’Donnell told me a few months ago that his caucus is working on an alternative plan to be considered during January’s legislative session.
This is all to say that there are questions — mostly related to the methods and locations that the state wants to use to regulate slot machines — that are not contemplated by a yes or no vote on Question 2. Did you vote for slots or against them based on an overall opinion of the machines’ use in Maryland, or was there something else that affected your vote?
ANDY ROSEN, Business Writer
Sphere: Related ContentSlots groups make waves with radio ads
October 2, 2008
I received a press release this week from Marylanders United to Stop Slots announcing its lobbying effort to get local radio outlets to pull the plug on ads by For Maryland, For Our Future (a pro-slots group) those stations have been airing recently.
A sample letter sent to station managers included in the release says the “advertisements are false and misleading, and knowingly misstate facts” about Question 2, the ballot measure Maryland voters will take up this fall to decide whether to legalize slot machines in the state.
The group is claiming one ad’s statements that passing the measure will guarantee $650 million for public schools and will generate new money for education is misleading — that it isn’t a sure thing schools will receive that much money, and while Question 2 would create an Education Trust Fund, the measure does not require any overall increase in school funding.
“These two falsehoods in ‘Choice’ are clearly meant to mislead and trick voters, and we urge you, if this ad has been submitted for play on your station, to cease airing it immediately,” the letter says.
Another statement the group takes issue with: “that those opposing slots have proposed a $700 million tax increase to make up for an alleged and, frankly made up, short fall of $700 million. The anti-slots groups in this campaign have made no such proposal.”
MUSS urges stations “for the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest,” to stop airing the ads.
Does this group have any business telling radio stations which ads to air and which ones to pull?
LIZ FARMER, Business Writer
Sphere: Related ContentLowering the stakes
August 19, 2008
As the November referendum in which voters decide whether to legalize slot machines in Maryland gets closer, Laurel Park Tuesday officially signed off on cutting the number of stakes races this fall for the third year in a row.
This year’s schedule is limited to just 11 state-bred stakes races with $50,000 purses and the 12 races on Maryland Million Day, a day of races restricted to the offspring of Maryland-based stallions. The 23 stakes races will total $2.23 million according to a news release from the Maryland Jockey Club, which runs Laurel and Pimlico race tracks.
Earlier this month the Jockey Club and Maryland Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association eliminated all the open stakes races for the fall, including the Frank J. De Francis Memorial Dash, one of only three Grade I races — along with the Preakness and Pimlico Special — run in Maryland. The club cited financial shortfalls in its purse account, according to the release.
Last year’s fall meeting featured 32 stakes races for $3.285 million, and in 2006, 43 stakes races totaled $4.725 million in purse money.
Leaders in the Maryland horse industry have long said that only slot machines will help save horse racing in the state. They argue that slots and “racinos” in surrounding states have inflated the purses there, creating an uneven playing field for Maryland racetracks.
But with the purse money dropping so drastically — by nearly a third each year — is hotter competition in other states really the only thing to blame?
LIZ FARMER, Business Writer
Sphere: Related Content“If we have the money, we must spend the money”
July 8, 2008
O’MalleyWatch.com took notice of the most recent piece from our Editorial Advisory Board.
In, “Slots won’t help if state can’t live within its means,” the board makes the argument that slots revenue would do little to solve Maryland’s budget issues:
“The truth is, no matter how much revenue slots produce, inevitably the state’s slots revenues will be insufficient to satisfy all the promises that have been and are being made about ‘investments’ in Maryland, its economy, its schools and its people…
“Slot revenues will only mask the fact that Maryland is living beyond its means. Even if slots are approved, after only a few years, more revenue will be necessary to meet all of the expectations that have been raised by the promise of the river of slots revenue.”
O’Malley Watch boils down the state’s problem to this: “There is a dangerous concept in Government: If we have the money, we must spend the money.” Maryland certainly seems to be suffering from this ailment.
If you haven’t seen it yet, read the board’s article from Monday’s edition of Maryland Lawyer.
JOE BACCHUS, Web Specialist
Sphere: Related ContentA glimpse of the preparations for Preakness
May 15, 2008
When Photographer Sarah Beck returned from Pimlico Race Course this morning and said she’d been kicked out of a trainers-only area, I knew she’d have some good footage of the celebrities — the horses that will compete Saturday.
The video below is just a warm-up to The Daily Record’s Preakness coverage. Check out our Business Friday issue tomorrow (or the TDR home page tonight) to read about businesses that use Preakness as a networking tool.
Or, maybe you’re interested in how November’s slots referendum may impact racing in the state. Either way, Andy Rosen and Liz Farmer have you covered.
JACKIE SAUTER, Web Editor
Counties want slots
April 24, 2008
Not a huge surprise, but…
The Maryland Association of Counties is calling for a “yes” vote in this fall’s referendum on whether to allow slot machines around the state. MACo has backed slots since Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. was in office, largely as a way to pay for public education improvements.
At a news conference Thursday, MACo leaders struck a tone that you’re likely to hear throughout the campaign. Essentially, advocates say we need slots to shore up the state’s finances once and for all. After all, slots are expected to bring in more than $1 billion by fiscal 2012.
Here’s what Baltimore County Executive James T. Smith Jr., who is also MACo president, had to say:
“Without the slots revenue, Maryland will be looking at creating a new budget deficit or higher taxes or significant cuts to education.”
Slots foes say it is not fair to ask people to make what they see as a distasteful choice in order to avoid a perceived outcome that is even worse.
“There can be investments made that don’t come with the incumbent cost of slots,” Scott Arceneaux, a senior adviser to Marylanders United to Stop Slots, said during a panel discussion last week. He says slots will wind up hurting Maryland by causing problem gambling.
Do you think it’s just politics? What do you think would happen if the referendum were to fail? It will surely make for some interesting reading over the next year or so.
ANDY ROSEN, Business Writer
Sphere: Related ContentPolls, polls, polls
January 17, 2008
There’ve been a few notable Baltimore Sun polls released this week, including one that found the majority of Marylanders polled favor legalizing slots, one that found Gov. O’Malley’s job approval rating dipping into the 30s post-special session, and another that revealed 57 percent of Marylanders support the death penalty.
Well, here’s the latest poll on a controversial issue: most voters in Maryland support some form of legalized same sex unions.
The poll shows 19 percent support gay marriage while 39 percent support civil unions; 31 percent of those polled oppose either form of same-sex unions.
Would you have expected these poll results to unfold as they have? How much faith do you place in this data?
JACKIE SAUTER, Multimedia Editor
Sphere: Related Content-
Business
Business posts- UnderArmour to supply apparel for SEC
- The next Great Depression: How ya like them apples?
- It’s all for the kids
- Will CEG shareholders support EDF’s bid?
- Battle of the Beltway
- Any price is too high if you’re broke
- Maryland: 10th-fastest internet speeds in nation
- Where the deals are
- Phelps named Sportsman of the Year
- Can SUV sales make a comeback?
Law
Law posts- Tis’ the season for layoffs
- A case of mistaken identity
- Beware of the blogging juror
- Inmate sought to intervene in Wells Fargo suit
- What’s behind that law firm’s headcount?
- Law blog round-up
- This week in Maryland Lawyer
- A history of football in Baltimore, courtesy of a lawsuit
- Baltimore crime stuck at 12th-worst in U.S.
- First a mongrel Mercedes, now a botched Bentley
Recent Posts
- Tis’ the season for layoffs
- UnderArmour to supply apparel for SEC
- The next Great Depression: How ya like them apples?
- A case of mistaken identity
- It’s all for the kids
Recent Comments
- Jacki Pearlman: Unfortunately, the game will not live up to it’s hype. I am a diehard Redskins fan after being...
- Isolde: Anybody remember GreedyAssociates.com? That’s basically a forum for ads and political weirdos now. Why?...
- Liz Farmer: Thanks for chiming in guys. Ed, you are exactly right. I did not include this in my original post but...
- Rick Rigini: Did you ever read the children’s book Norman the Doorman?
- Ed Waters Jr.: In many articles, it seems the writers tend to overlook the fact that some people need an SUV (or...
On Commenting
We ask that our readers follow a few guidelines, noted below.Please do not post any personal attacks, profanity, spam or other advertisements — they will be removed. Also, please post using only one name or pseudonym, as this consistency helps establish a sense of community. We will delete posts if they are signed with different names but originate from the same IP or email address. And if you’re going to comment using a proper name, please make it your own. Deliberate misrepresentations will be removed.