Put no slots near our homes either

's article "Numbers Game" in the letter "Gambling generates critical revenue . This is the same Frank Fahrenkopf who said in October 2006: "Now if someone were to come along and tell me that they were going to ...

[mike p]

Slots are going to come weither we like it or not. O'Malley who was against slots when Erhlich was govenor, and is now for slots, will make sure of their victory. Most people in this State don't even know that the referendum vote is an admendment to the States constuition. Slots will come due to the adverage voters lack of knowing whats going on. This plays well for the Dems and their spending plans.

[Tommy]

If you don't want slots in your neighborhood just make sure that one of the boy governor's friends doesn't own any property near your home.

[Steven Lessner]

this letter is garbage,the democrats have held off approving slots and then tax us to death.this state is surrounded by states that have slots and their racing industry is doing well while maryland's racing is going down the tube.this state needed slots to compete and help lower taxes years ago but all democrats care about is finding ways to kill people with taxes.Now businesses and people are leaving this state thanks to owe'malley,busch,and miller the thieves of Maryland.These are the jackasses stealing taxpayers blind along with Dixon. We need slots now!!!!!!

[Surf52]

NIMBY, NIMBY, NIMBY!

[Actually]

mike p wrote:

Slots are going to come weither we like it or not. O'Malley who was against slots when Erhlich was govenor, and is now for slots, will make sure of their victory. Most people in this State don't even know that the referendum vote is an admendment to the States constuition. Slots will come due to the adverage voters lack of knowing whats going on. This plays well for the Dems and their spending plans.

Actually, governor O'Malley was never against slots, he was opposed to Governor Erlich's plans for them because he felt they overly favored the owners.

[Actually]

Tommy wrote:

If you don't want slots in your neighborhood just make sure that one of the boy governor's friends doesn't own any property near your home.

Do you Feel O;malley is too young to be governor?

[James Lee]

Exactly how much do you think that slots will save us in taxes? Perhaps 20 or 30 dollars each (if that much)? Do you think that is worth all the pain that slots will bring in the future? At Atlantic city and Las Vegas, I have seen the zombie like expression of people in front of slots and the despondent and desperate looks of people at the ATM trying to get more money. It simply is not worth it.

[Surf52]

Actually wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, governor O'Malley was never against slots, he was opposed to Governor Erlich's plans for them because he felt they overly favored the owners.

Actually, Governor O'Malley was never against slots, he was opposed to Governor Ehrlich's plan for them because it was Governor Ehrlich's plan.

[Steve-Laurel]

I still wonder about why Gettysburg wasn't chosen for a resort with slots.
What Fahrenkopf stated about not having it in his backyard could be true of many establishments, bars, car dealerships, just about any business. I have seen in the past of the same thing said for
new churches and schools.

If done right it could be an asset. If done wrong a lot of people will suffer.

[Surf52]

Actually wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you Feel O;malley is too young to be governor?

Young? No. Sly, cunning and disengenuous? Pretty much.

[Edd]

As a moderate democrat who voted for Ehrlich twice, it would be nice if we could stick to some facts here.

1. "Democrats" did not block Ehrlich's slots measure, ONE key democrat did -- Mike Busch. As Ehrlich has often repeated on his talk show, he and Mike Miller were in agreement on slots.

2. If Cas Taylor had not been voted out of office the same time Ehrlich was elected governor, we would have had slots 4 or 5 years ago. Taylor was targeted by the NRA not because he was the most liberal dem in the state on gun issues, but because they felt he compromised with urban/suburban dems on gun issues and they knew he'd be vulnerable in his dictrict on the issues. So in return, the NRA and Marylanders got stuck with a speaker (Busch) who is more liberal on gun issues than Taylor was and who is anti-slots.(As an added bonus, Taylor's replacement is a conservative anti-gambling republican.) Which leads to my next point:

3. About one-quarter of the repubicans in the GA are against slots, most for conservative religious reasons (ie, gambling is a sin and shouldn't be promoted by the state).

4. as stated before, O'malley was never against slots. He was against the slot plan of Erlich.

5. Ehrlich needs to take some criticism on this issue too. He did not have the stones to stand up to his friends in Timonium or on the lower shore and say that those tracks had to be part of the discussion. You can agrue Pimlico vs. Timonium on a lot of levels, but there was never any discussion because Ehrlich caved in to the Timonium and lower shore NIMBYs and never allowed those facilities to be part of his plan.

6. Local officials have been all over the map on this issue, and not just in Baltimore. Rural legislators in Cecil and Frederick Counties have not helped in the discussion.

7. Slots in Gettysburg were voted down by the area residents as I recall, so the state put them elsewhere. Slots in Gettysburg would have rendered any plan to put them in maryland as almost useless. Thank God they are not there. Dover and Charles Town will still bleed Maryland slots in some parts of the state.

8. James Lee, I've seen those same expression with people watching sports on TV, drinking in a bar and shopping (or window shopping) in high end stores. Should we ban those, also? Look, I can go to a casino and milk a few hours of play on video poker machines for just $40 or $60 bucks. I don't spend the mortgage, utility or food budget and I only do it once, maybe twice a year. I can also go to a bar and have one or two beers. Some can't. Is that a reason to try banning alcohol again?

Can we try to discuss the slots issue based on some of these facts instead of blaming republicans or democrats for everything that goes wrong?

[name not important]

If my town gets revenue and jobs, put it in my town. I want full casinos, not just junky slot machines. One in Balt, one in Ocean City, one in Deep Creek lake. We deserately need the revenue that is going to Vegas and AC and a zillion other places.

If you don't like them, don't go to them; why is it anymore complex than that?

[name not important]

Edd wrote:

As a moderate democrat who voted for Ehrlich twice, it would be nice if we could stick to some facts here.
1. "Democrats" did not block Ehrlich's slots measure, ONE key democrat did -- Mike Busch. As Ehrlich has often repeated on his talk show, he and Mike Miller were in agreement on slots.
2. If Cas Taylor had not been voted out of office the same time Ehrlich was elected governor, we would have had slots 4 or 5 years ago. Taylor was targeted by the NRA not because he was the most liberal dem in the state on gun issues, but because they felt he compromised with urban/suburban dems on gun issues and they knew he'd be vulnerable in his dictrict on the issues. So in return, the NRA and Marylanders got stuck with a speaker (Busch) who is more liberal on gun issues than Taylor was and who is anti-slots.(As an added bonus, Taylor's replacement is a conservative anti-gambling republican.) Which leads to my next point:
3. About one-quarter of the repubicans in the GA are against slots, most for conservative religious reasons (ie, gambling is a sin and shouldn't be promoted by the state).
4. as stated before, O'malley was never against slots. He was against the slot plan of Erlich.
5. Ehrlich needs to take some criticism on this issue too. He did not have the stones to stand up to his friends in Timonium or on the lower shore and say that those tracks had to be part of the discussion. You can agrue Pimlico vs. Timonium on a lot of levels, but there was never any discussion because Ehrlich caved in to the Timonium and lower shore NIMBYs and never allowed those facilities to be part of his plan.
6. Local officials have been all over the map on this issue, and not just in Baltimore. Rural legislators in Cecil and Frederick Counties have not helped in the discussion.
7. Slots in Gettysburg were voted down by the area residents as I recall, so the state put them elsewhere. Slots in Gettysburg would have rendered any plan to put them in maryland as almost useless. Thank God they are not there. Dover and Charles Town will still bleed Maryland slots in some parts of the state.
8. James Lee, I've seen those same expression with people watching sports on TV, drinking in a bar and shopping (or window shopping) in high end stores. Should we ban those, also? Look, I can go to a casino and milk a few hours of play on video poker machines for just $40 or $60 bucks. I don't spend the mortgage, utility or food budget and I only do it once, maybe twice a year. I can also go to a bar and have one or two beers. Some can't. Is that a reason to try banning alcohol again?
Can we try to discuss the slots issue based on some of these facts instead of blaming republicans or democrats for everything that goes wrong?

excellent post!

[Fang Guy]

Why is this still an issue? The barn door is already open.

The only question is where the money goes? Either Delaware and West Virginia continue to rake in Maryland dollars or Maryland shares in their own dollars.

Also consider that slots are the purest form of taxation - completely voluntary. And that there is no NIMBY issue to it. Slots will be at existing racetracks; full-blown casinos - should it ever come to that - will be at the inner harbor.

Typical Baltimore stuff - as with both bay bridges, Harborplace, and both stadiums, progress in any form in this town is considered heresy. How anything useful ever gets done in this town is beyond me.

[Marty]

While I agree that I wouldnt want slots in my neighborhood, I live in a wealthy area. I dont see why we cant put them in the poor areas or by the race tracks. I mean what difference does it make? It might actually revitalize certain area, like Park Heights and if it doesnt who cares, it is already a dump inhabited by subhumans anyway. Poor people are responsible for much of the ills in this state so let them deal with the issues that may arise from gaming.

[name not important]

Marty wrote:

While I agree that I wouldnt want slots in my neighborhood, I live in a wealthy area. I dont see why we cant put them in the poor areas or by the race tracks. I mean what difference does it make? It might actually revitalize certain area, like Park Heights and if it doesnt who cares, it is already a dump inhabited by subhumans anyway. Poor people are responsible for much of the ills in this state so let them deal with the issues that may arise from gaming.

You may have been tongue in cheek, or serious (pretty un PC), but you have points. They could walk to work, the jobs as waiters, dishwashers, janitors, change makers, etc. With gas going to $5 and the poor people need public transit, it's not as bad of an idea as it seems, plus the real estate is a lot cheaper.

On the other hand, the customers may not want to go there. I'm not sure that all casino visitors are poor based on whom I know that go regularly. They like Dover and places because it seems safe.

I say put them where masses of people already go to spend money on entertainment: near or in the convention center in Baltimore, in Ocean City, and somewhere in Deep Creek Lake area. This way we're taking money from visitors, not necessarily the locals. Put in full casinos, take money from AC/Vegas, etal. They have done this in Niagara Falls which was healthy to begin with (on the Canadian side, now the NY side is trying another casino as well, they have three within a few miles of each other).

This is Nero fiddling. Other locales are taking gambling money away from us.

[Surf52]

Edd wrote:

As a moderate democrat who voted for Ehrlich twice, it would be nice if we could stick to some facts here.
1. "Democrats" did not block Ehrlich's slots measure, ONE key democrat did -- Mike Busch. As Ehrlich has often repeated on his talk show, he and Mike Miller were in agreement on slots.
2. If Cas Taylor had not been voted out of office the same time Ehrlich was elected governor, we would have had slots 4 or 5 years ago. Taylor was targeted by the NRA not because he was the most liberal dem in the state on gun issues, but because they felt he compromised with urban/suburban dems on gun issues and they knew he'd be vulnerable in his dictrict on the issues. So in return, the NRA and Marylanders got stuck with a speaker (Busch) who is more liberal on gun issues than Taylor was and who is anti-slots.(As an added bonus, Taylor's replacement is a conservative anti-gambling republican.) Which leads to my next point:
3. About one-quarter of the repubicans in the GA are against slots, most for conservative religious reasons (ie, gambling is a sin and shouldn't be promoted by the state).
4. as stated before, O'malley was never against slots. He was against the slot plan of Erlich.
5. Ehrlich needs to take some criticism on this issue too. He did not have the stones to stand up to his friends in Timonium or on the lower shore and say that those tracks had to be part of the discussion. You can agrue Pimlico vs. Timonium on a lot of levels, but there was never any discussion because Ehrlich caved in to the Timonium and lower shore NIMBYs and never allowed those facilities to be part of his plan.
6. Local officials have been all over the map on this issue, and not just in Baltimore. Rural legislators in Cecil and Frederick Counties have not helped in the discussion.
7. Slots in Gettysburg were voted down by the area residents as I recall, so the state put them elsewhere. Slots in Gettysburg would have rendered any plan to put them in maryland as almost useless. Thank God they are not there. Dover and Charles Town will still bleed Maryland slots in some parts of the state.
8. James Lee, I've seen those same expression with people watching sports on TV, drinking in a bar and shopping (or window shopping) in high end stores. Should we ban those, also? Look, I can go to a casino and milk a few hours of play on video poker machines for just $40 or $60 bucks. I don't spend the mortgage, utility or food budget and I only do it once, maybe twice a year. I can also go to a bar and have one or two beers. Some can't. Is that a reason to try banning alcohol again?
Can we try to discuss the slots issue based on some of these facts instead of blaming republicans or democrats for everything that goes wrong?

That about sums it up.

[Surf52]

When I was in high school, the 3 southern counties in Maryland, Charles, Calvert and St. Mary's had slots. They were in every restaurant, bar, and marina, as well as the local drug store, grocery store, and movie theater.

The property taxes in these counties were low and the piggy back income tax was half what it was in the rest of the State.

We didn't have the problems envisioned by the critics of the current proposal, and the restaurants and clubs along US301 between the Charles County line and Waldorf thrived.

Of course times have changed and maybe that wouldn't work as well today.

[James Lee]

Edd wrote:

As a moderate democrat who voted for Ehrlich twice, it would be nice if we could stick to some facts here.
1. "Democrats" did not block Ehrlich's slots measure, ONE key democrat did -- Mike Busch. As Ehrlich has often repeated on his talk show, he and Mike Miller were in agreement on slots.

2. If Cas Taylor had not been voted out of office the same time Ehrlich was elected governor, we would have had slots 4 or 5 years ago. Taylor was targeted by the NRA not because he was the most liberal dem in the state on gun issues, but because they felt he compromised with urban/suburban dems on gun issues and they knew he'd be vulnerable in his dictrict on the issues. So in return, the NRA and Marylanders got stuck with a speaker (Busch) who is more liberal on gun issues than Taylor was and who is anti-slots.(As an added bonus, Taylor's replacement is a conservative anti-gambling republican.) Which leads to my next point:
3. About one-quarter of the repubicans in the GA are against slots, most for conservative religious reasons (ie, gambling is a sin and shouldn't be promoted by the state).
4. as stated before, O'malley was never against slots. He was against the slot plan of Erlich.
5. Ehrlich needs to take some criticism on this issue too. He did not have the stones to stand up to his friends in Timonium or on the lower shore and say that those tracks had to be part of the discussion. You can agrue Pimlico vs. Timonium on a lot of levels, but there was never any discussion because Ehrlich caved in to the Timonium and lower shore NIMBYs and never allowed those facilities to be part of his plan.
6. Local officials have been all over the map on this issue, and not just in Baltimore. Rural legislators in Cecil and Frederick Counties have not helped in the discussion.
7. Slots in Gettysburg were voted down by the area residents as I recall, so the state put them elsewhere. Slots in Gettysburg would have rendered any plan to put them in maryland as almost useless. Thank God they are not there. Dover and Charles Town will still bleed Maryland slots in some parts of the state.
8. James Lee, I've seen those same expression with people watching sports on TV, drinking in a bar and shopping (or window shopping) in high end stores. Should we ban those, also? Look, I can go to a casino and milk a few hours of play on video poker machines for just $40 or $60 bucks. I don't spend the mortgage, utility or food budget and I only do it once, maybe twice a year. I can also go to a bar and have one or two beers. Some can't. Is that a reason to try banning alcohol again?
Can we try to discuss the slots issue based on some of these facts instead of blaming republicans or democrats for everything that goes wrong?

Edd,

I agree that slots should not be politicized but I am afraid that pandora's box has been opened on that issue.

As for your point, "I've seen those same expression with people watching sports on TV, drinking in a bar and shopping (or window shopping) in high end stores. Should we ban those, also? Look, I can go to a casino and milk a few hours of play on video poker machines for just $40 or $60 bucks. I don't spend the mortgage, utility or food budget and I only do it once, maybe twice a year. I can also go to a bar and have one or two beers. Some can't. Is that a reason to try banning alcohol again?,"

Since we already have all these numbing distractions, why do we want to have even more?

If we follow your line of reasoning, then why dont we legalize prostitution, drugs etc? There are plenty of people who can "handle" these things, yet do we as a society want our state to sponser these activities?

I wonder if you are willing to accept a gambling casino or slots parlor in your block?