More News

The question of whether slot-machine gambling should be allowed in Maryland goes before voters in less than two weeks.

Ballot Question 2, if approved, would permit up to 15,000 machines in five parlors. Proponents of the measure project that slots revenue would add nearly $600 million a year in net revenues for the state in five years.

Amid dim prospects for a quick rebound in the economy, revenue from slots, known as video lottery terminals, is a way of Maryland softening another round of hefty tax and fee increases and government service cutbacks.

In the special session of the legislature last fall, more than $1 billion of new taxes and fees were added, including a 20 percent hike in the sales tax, and that hasn't been near enough to close an impending budget gap that is almost certain to worsen.

The legislature, whose insatiable spending appetite went unchecked far too long, has been skirmishing over slots gambling for years. In that time, the economic calculus has shifted and many taxpayers are nearing the breaking point.

While there's much not to like with the ballot referendum, the dreadful state of the economy has tipped the scales in favor of slots.

Critics have legitimate concerns, pointing out that this is potentially a regressive tax on low- and middle-class populations, a magnet for criminal and social ills, and unhealthy reliance on gambling to underwrite vital public programs like education.

Supporters note that few of the three dozen states that allow gaming have encountered significant social problems — such as bankruptcy, broken families, surging crime — and the Maryland plan provides additional funds for safety net services, such as counseling for problem and pathological gamblers whose problems are most likely already at work in society. Local governments would get control over zoning matters at and near the parlors, protecting against seedy businesses flocking to the neighborhoods.

But, the weight of the argument of supporters falls on the prospect of millions of dollars a year in new revenues — with almost half designated for public schools — and the reality that neighboring states have established slots businesses that have created hundreds of millions of dollars of income from Maryland citizens.

Maryland has sanctioned one form of gambling — the state lottery with its myriad games — since the early 1970s. Private clubs and lodges have been running bingo nights, bazaars and other fundraisers for generations.

Horse tracks, which would benefit from slot revenue subsidies, have been a mainstay in several communities but have fallen on rough times.

Well-run gambling is a form of entertainment, not an insidious vice or menace that leaves a community's moral fiber threadbare.

Slots won't be an overnight fix to Maryland's budget problems, although the prospect of a steady stream of revenues in the years ahead ought to provide a degree of comfort. Maryland must be bolder in confronting spending reductions and, absent slot revenues, some of those cuts could hurt programs that serve individuals and families living on the edge.

No doubt a number of voters will be holding their noses when they get to Question 2 on the Nov. 4 ballot. Voting "for" the amendment to allow slots is a necessary compromise, and the best of a less-than-ideal solution.

Our choices for the Frederick County

Board of Education

Frederick County voters will choose from among five people running for three seats open on the school board: incumbents Donna Crook of Monrovia and Katie Groth of Frederick, and challengers Ron Bird of Frederick, Joe Chmelik of Ijamsville, and Angie Fish of Frederick.

Joe Volz of Frederick dropped out of the race shortly after making it through the primary. Incumbent Leslie Mansfield is not running for re-election.

We believe voters would do well to choose Crook, Fish, and Groth, all of whom we endorsed for the February primary, and all of whom should easily win the General Election based on their results in the primary.

We appreciate Crook for her contrarian viewpoint, and we mean that as a compliment. She is not afraid to speak her mind on issues, even if that means she will stand alone at times. Elected bodies suffer when all members agree too readily and too often.

We like Groth's support for ideas to attract and retain quality teachers, such as some kind of mortgage assistance, a partnership with the business community for discounts, and of course better salaries.

Both Crook and Groth also believe the school system's budget process should be more transparent, a notion we fully support and which will become more important as money continues to tighten.

We supported Fish in 2006, and without question find ourselves doing so again. She speaks well on the issues, and as a former English teacher can bring a teacher's perspective to the board.

She supports quality education for all, recruiting and retaining highly qualified staff, and providing safe and adequate schools. As a former teacher, she will be able to provide a unique perspective on her top priorities.

She also stresses that school officials must work with members of our delegation to the General Assembly, and other educators and representatives at the state level, to bring back more money to Frederick County.

Authorizing Video Lottery Terminals (Slot Machines) to Fund Education

Authorizes the State to issue up to five video lottery licenses for the primary purpose of raising revenue for education of children in public schools, prekindergarten through grade 12, public school construction and improvements, and construction of capital projects at community colleges and higher education institutions. No more than a total number of 15,000 video lottery terminals may be authorized in the State, and only one license may be issued for each specified location in Anne Arundel, Cecil, Worcester, and Allegany Counties, and Baltimore City. Any additional forms or expansion of commercial gaming in Maryland is prohibited, unless approved by a voter referendum.

(Enacts new Article XIX of the Maryland Constitution)

ïFor the Constitutional Amendment

ïAgainst the Constitutional Amendment