Bump for slots operators a bad bet, some pols say

Overall, the licensees will receive nearly $800 million in that time.

Is it keeping pace with the competition or unjust enrichment?

‘‘I think that 30 percent is extremely generous, and another dime is too much,” said Sen. Jennie M. Forehand (D-Dist. 17) of Rockville.

But even a longtime slots foe said if the state decides to legalize gambling, it should be done right.

‘‘If the state is going to bank on the revenues, you have to make sure there’s enough profit for the operators to run slots venues,” said Senate Finance Chairman Thomas McLain Middleton (D-Dist. 28) of Waldorf. ‘‘What’s the sense of even allowing them if they’re doomed to fail from the start?”

The extra allocation is not just a handout, supporters say, because licensees are required to invest $15 million in their facility for every 500 terminals it operates. That means pouring at least $120 million into the Anne Arundel County venue — likely the Laurel Park racetrack — which is proposed to have 4,250 slots terminals, more than any other venue, under the Senate’s plan.

‘‘You can’t take so much from them that the owners of the facilities won’t be able to do business,” said Sen. Rona E. Kramer (D-Dist. 14) of Olney.

When New York legalized slots in 2003, bidders were slow to seek licenses because its operator share — or hold rate — was less than 30 percent, Kramer said. The sweetener is intended to encourage more bidders.

And because the bill requires licensees to invest so much in their facilities, provide higher-paying union jobs and pay an up-front $10 million licensing fee, it’s all part of the tradeoff. ‘‘These are gives and takes in a difficult process,” Kramer said.

Others say the sweetener is a sign that the state will be pressed to give up more down the road.

‘‘Before it even opens, government makes its first concession,” exclaimed Thomas A. Grey, spokesman for the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion.

Anti-slots lobbyist W. Minor Carter also questioned the move. ‘‘Is this just enough money to fail so they come back and say, ‘We need more’?”

Maryland slots venues need to compete with those in neighboring states, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Dist. 27) of Chesapeake Beach said in explaining the increased share.

Even though Delaware and West Virginia each give nearly 50 percent of gross revenues to its gaming operators, a national gambling expert says Maryland would still be able to profit.

‘‘There are very few states that pay out the operator at that low a percentage, but in my estimate, it’s probably right on the edge [and] I think it would work,” said Clyde W. Barrow, director of the Center for Policy Analysis at University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth.

One Republican suggested voters will see the additional money as an unfair payday for the wealthy slots operators, haunting Democrats in the next election.

‘‘That’s pouring out a gallon of poison instead of a half-gallon,” said Del. Richard B. Weldon (R-Dist. 3B) of Brunswick. ‘‘Every policy position that gets rushed through ... strengthens the message that we carry back right now and in two years.”

The 33 percent share appears likely to stick across the hall.

‘‘If the numbers work, I don’t think that’s a bad suggestion,” said House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Dist. 30) of Annapolis, acknowledging the need for Maryland venues to compete.

Others say that rate won’t allow Maryland to keep pace.

‘‘We’re going to lose the gambling arms race because we’re never going to catch up to these other states in the race to the bottom,” Comptroller Peter V.R. Franchot (D), who opposes slots, said in an interview.

The Senate measure makes a bad bill even worse because it doesn’t bring any immediate revenue into the state, said House Minority Leader Anthony J. O’Donnell (R-Dist. 29C) of Lusby.

‘‘To give these licenses away and to propose to give them more of the keep is not a good deal for the citizens of Maryland,” he said.