Government

Prince George's shouldn't gamble public money on casinos

by Bradley Heard   •   February 21, 2012 10:13 am

Prince George's County Executive Rushern Baker recently took a bold, yet controversial, step by identifying National Harbor as the one site where the county would support building a casino. Now, he should add an additional rule: any gaming deal must happen with no public subsidy.

Photo by Thomas Hawk on Flickr.

Maryland's gaming law currently allows for only 5 video slot casinos throughout the state. This legislative session, State Sen. Douglas J. J. Peters (D-Prince George's) introduced a bill to allow a 6th casino in southwestern Prince George's County, near Rosecroft Raceway and National Harbor. This bill would also let the casino include table games, such as blackjack, craps, and poker.

As currently drafted, most of the county's public officials oppose the bill. Likewise, Governor Martin O'Malley has given the overall effort to expand gambling in the state a fairly chilly reception.

The bill would make a new and much-needed regional hospital dependent on building the casino, a link that Baker specifically opposes. On the positive side, the bill would dedicate a portion of the gambling profits to the county's economic development incentive fund and education trust fund.

Baker was right to specify National Harbor as preferred choice for a casino

County Executive Baker says the casino should locate at National Harbor, because that picturesque Potomac River site would be a better draw for tourists than Rosecroft Raceway. Also, the existing transportation infrastructure would better support the anticipated traffic, and impose less of a burden on traditionally residential areas.

National Harbor. Photo by Geoff Livingston on Flickr.

By making the specific proposal for National Harbor, Baker is attempting to provide some much-needed local perspective and guidance in this brewing debate. Any casino that comes to Prince George's must be "high-end," Baker says. He wants the developer to invest $1 billion in the facility, to ensure it doesn't become a low-grade "slots barn."

State Senate president Thomas "Mike" Miller, whose support for Rosecroft Raceway is well known, rejected Baker's expression of support for National Harbor, and also opposes decoupling the casino from funding the county's new regional hospital.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Baker's decision, it's exactly the type of decisive action that the head of county government should take in this kind of situation. Indeed, this is the very type of action that I recently called for the county to take in its effort to lobby the GSA to relocate the FBI's headquarters to Prince George's.

Just as the county will ultimately be better served by articulating a specific site and vision for any new casino (e.g., National Harbor vs. Rosecroft Raceway; "high-end" vs. "slots barn"), so will it be better served by recommending to the GSA a preferred site for the relocation of the FBI headquarters, like the Morgan Boulevard Metro Station area.

Casino must not receive public subsidies

To ensure that the county wins and doesn't "crap out" on this move to bring Vegas to the Potomac, it must insist that not one penny of public money goes to assist the developers or the property owners at National Harbor in constructing the casino.

No tax-increment financing (TIF) districts, special assessment districts, public bond issues, or tax breaks—nothing. If expensive roadways, overpasses, and parking garages have to be built to accommodate the additional anticipated vehicle traffic, they must be fully funded and guaranteed by the developers.

Additionally, to alleviate the need for at least some of the expensive roadways and parking garages, the developers must be required to contribute a substantial sum to improve the public transit connections to National Harbor.

And no, this does not mean bringing Metro or the Purple Line to National Harbor. That would entail significant amounts of public expense that the county cannot afford right now. Frequent express bus service between National Harbor and one or more of the existing Metro stations should suffice.

This "no public subsidy" stance is important for several reasons. First, regardless of whether it is actually true, the county simply cannot afford the negative perception that this casino project is just the latest in a series of Upper Marlboro- or Annapolis-brokered developer sweetheart deals fueled by corruption, political favoritism, or some other under-the-table influence.

For example, people are already asking whether Sen. Miller's vociferous support for Rosecroft Raceway over National Harbor is the result of an off-the-grid deal between the senator and Penn National Gaming, the organization that recently bought the Rosecroft property out of bankruptcy.

To combat any perception of payoffs, bribery, or any other undue influence, this casino deal needs to be a squeaky-clean, completely above-board process that does not involve government handouts of any variety.

Second, this stance is consistent with the county's stated (albeit rarely followed) policy of incentivizing transit-oriented development and neighborhood revitalization efforts around its 15 Metro stations and in surrounding inner-Beltway communities.

In 2010, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission launched a comprehensive, countywide community planning effort called "Envision Prince George's." Among the Envision recommendations (which were subsequently adopted and endorsed by the County Council) was the position that the county should focus 66% of its future growth around its 15 Metro stations and other densely-populated, inner-Beltway corridors.

To ensure that the county meets its TOD goals, Envision recommended that the county "[a]lign public expenditure policies and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) items with the goal of encouraging development in these areas and discouraging further sprawl development in other areas of the County."

Public funding of a National Harbor casino, both far away from a Metro station and outside the Beltway, is simply inconsistent with the county's stated TOD policies.

Third, the casino doesn't need public investment or subsidies. A casino is a natural moneymaker. If you build it, people will come, and they will spend a lot of money. Baker has rightly proposed that, in exchange for building a higher-quality casino, the developers should keep a larger share of the profits than the current 33% provided in state law, and possibly even greater than the 40% proposed by Senator Peters in SB 892.

Prince George's County certainly doesn't need a casino to be economically viable. But having one wouldn't necessarily be the worst thing in the world, either—as long as the county doesn't put any money on the table to get it.

Bradley Heard is an attorney and citizen activist who resides in the Capitol Heights area of Prince George's County. A native of Virginia Beach, Virginia, Brad spent most of his adult life in Atlanta, Georgia before moving to Prince George's County in 2007. Brad hopes to encourage high-quality, walkable and bikeable development in the inner Beltway region of Prince George's County.