Will Question 7 fund Md Schools? by increasing casinos?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Voting a big no!

1. Gambling increases crime and poverty which costs more money to address. MD will lose money not gain money.
2. This money goes primarily to the casinos and then into the MD budget, there will be no change to the deficit situation in the schools.
3. The obnoxious robo calls on this one have been far too numerous. Angry at the misleading nature of the calls. Even more angry that these calls for "education" have woken up my kids on school nights several times.

1. Urban legend. Crime has gone down in Charles Town since the casino opened.

2. of course most of the money goes to the casinos. they are the ones running the show. but a portion of the money goes to the state. look at how much money west virginia and pa have received.

3. the primary opposition to the gambling initiative has come from Penn National which runs the casinos in WV and PA. They are the ones funding all of the calls and mailings and advertisements on tv. They don't oppose gambling. They like gambling except when its in Maryland.

-how much money HAVE West WVa and PA received?
-"For Maryland Jobs & Schools" is the front for MGM, so it's not like the other side is transparent either.

[Anonymous]

MD's share of casino money is going down-- from about 2/3 to under half-- so there would have to be a big increase in gaming just to keep $ level.

Here's the start of the Bal. Sun editorial--

We support Maryland's slot machine gambling program, and we think it would be wise to eventually expand it to include table games, which would attract additional economic development and create more jobs. It might even be a good idea one day to allow a sixth casino in Prince George's County to take better advantage of the tourist and convention trade in nearby Washington, D.C. But we oppose Question 7, the gambling expansion measure on November's ballot, because it's a bad deal for Maryland's taxpayers.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-10-24/explore/bs-ed-gambling-referendum-20121024_1_maryland-live-cordish-cos-table-games

[Anonymous]

Plain and simple. Should $$ stay here in MD or go to neighboring states? Easy answser; stay here! I'm voting yes!

[Anonymous]

Have any of you people BEEN to West Virginia? No offense, but the entire state is basically a shithole. I grew up there and I know. If you feel that you need to use their strategy to increase revenue when you are bordering the nation's capital and have all the potential for fabulous industries like biotech and IT, then there are much bigger problems here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you people BEEN to West Virginia? No offense, but the entire state is basically a shithole. I grew up there and I know. If you feel that you need to use their strategy to increase revenue when you are bordering the nation's capital and have all the potential for fabulous industries like biotech and IT, then there are much bigger problems here.

Why should MD money cross the border to prop up the "shithole" next door?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you people BEEN to West Virginia? No offense, but the entire state is basically a shithole. I grew up there and I know. If you feel that you need to use their strategy to increase revenue when you are bordering the nation's capital and have all the potential for fabulous industries like biotech and IT, then there are much bigger problems here.

Yes there is a bigger problem here. Complete mismanagement of funds and years of terrible fiscal policy. There is no doubt large MD dollars go out of state, and yes people will always gamble. The amount of online sports betting must be enormous based on the number of people I know who bet on football. But don't for a second believe this money will improve education. They are not increasing the amount of money spent on education, only allocating these particular funds to pay for current programs. If they are increasing spending in other areas, they certainly haven't indicated such.

[Anonymous]

If the casino were to be built in downtown Bethesda, would you vote for Question 7?

[Anonymous]

MGM had a bad 3rd Q financial report. I dread the idea that it would have financial problems and pull out of the casino or reduce its commitment.

Balto sun shows MD revs % at 25%, not half or a third.

Per OP, $145M and MCPS budget is 2.1B. And that $145 is spread across the state ..

I can see MGM running circles around legislators in Annapolis and PC county, and working the numbers even further in their favor especially if they are financially stalked by their shareholders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the casino were to be built in downtown Bethesda, would you vote for Question 7?

I posed a question similar to yours to a colleague who was for Q7.

crickets chirping!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am voting big YES!

Me too, I think it will provide undesirables with a nice distraction and keep them corralled in PG county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the casino were to be built in downtown Bethesda, would you vote for Question 7?

Why dabble in "if/then's"? A casino will not be built in MoCo. It will be built in National Harbor,and PG needs the stimulus such a casino would provide in terms of both short term (construction) and long term jobs. Are they great jobs in the long term? Of course not. Fact is, though, that Q7 will keep MD $$ here in MD. So what if it's "only" $100 or so million, and so what if it just supplants what is already spent on education rather than an addition. It's still $100 million MORE than the state of MD had before!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the casino were to be built in downtown Bethesda, would you vote for Question 7?

Why dabble in "if/then's"? A casino will not be built in MoCo. It will be built in National Harbor,and PG needs the stimulus such a casino would provide in terms of both short term (construction) and long term jobs. Are they great jobs in the long term? Of course not. Fact is, though, that Q7 will keep MD $$ here in MD. So what if it's "only" $100 or so million, and so what if it just supplants what is already spent on education rather than an addition. It's still $100 million MORE than the state of MD had before!

Longterm it may reduce $ from gambling, because of the lowering of the state's share, and it might hurt PG's prospects for better development, not to mention that gambling does have social costs. We can do a lot better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the casino were to be built in downtown Bethesda, would you vote for Question 7?

Why dabble in "if/then's"? A casino will not be built in MoCo. It will be built in National Harbor,and PG needs the stimulus such a casino would provide in terms of both short term (construction) and long term jobs. Are they great jobs in the long term? Of course not. Fact is, though, that Q7 will keep MD $$ here in MD. So what if it's "only" $100 or so million, and so what if it just supplants what is already spent on education rather than an addition. It's still $100 million MORE than the state of MD had before!

Longterm it may reduce $ from gambling, because of the lowering of the state's share, and it might hurt PG's prospects for better development, not to mention that gambling does have social costs. We can do a lot better.

I don't follow your argument about the lowering of the state's share over the longterm. Is there wording in the referendum that specifically states that will happen, or is it conjecture on your part? I agree that gmbling has social costs and that's why I voted against gambling when it first came up. The casinos already exist in MD. Yes, an additional one would be built in PG should Q7 pass and yes table games are an addition. I believe the social costs of the additional casino and of adding table games is most likely miniscule compared to the benefit of the increased revenue to the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the casino were to be built in downtown Bethesda, would you vote for Question 7?

Why dabble in "if/then's"? A casino will not be built in MoCo. It will be built in National Harbor,and PG needs the stimulus such a casino would provide in terms of both short term (construction) and long term jobs. Are they great jobs in the long term? Of course not. Fact is, though, that Q7 will keep MD $$ here in MD. So what if it's "only" $100 or so million, and so what if it just supplants what is already spent on education rather than an addition. It's still $100 million MORE than the state of MD had before!

Longterm it may reduce $ from gambling, because of the lowering of the state's share, and it might hurt PG's prospects for better development, not to mention that gambling does have social costs. We can do a lot better.

I don't follow your argument about the lowering of the state's share over the longterm. Is there wording in the referendum that specifically states that will happen, or is it conjecture on your part? I agree that gmbling has social costs and that's why I voted against gambling when it first came up. The casinos already exist in MD. Yes, an additional one would be built in PG should Q7 pass and yes table games are an addition. I believe the social costs of the additional casino and of adding table games is most likely miniscule compared to the benefit of the increased revenue to the state.

The central piece of Question 7 is that it provides tax breaks to the existing casinos of up to 27%. The reasoning was to offset loss of income from a new competitor in PG. Also the measure allows for the state to pay for costs associated with development of PG casino (for road improvements and infrastructure), not the developer of the casino. And there is nothing stating that PG casino must hire Maryland workers. I'm not necessarily against letting table games in, or opening up a new casino - but I don't think this was the best deal MD could get. We let gambling into MD, let's be smart about how we mange its growth.

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/penn-national-gaming-kicks-in-another-6-million-in-bid-to-defeat-question-7/2012/11/02/9194f44a-252d-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html?hpid=z5