message board home
Next
1/22/2008 2:07:39 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 5: OPA Board Subject: Board Punts on Slots Msg# 527462
|
||||||
|
Many thanks to you, Les, and Reid for tackling the controversial and complicated matter of slots. It appears that the three of you did due diligence in exploring all aspects and engaging the right parties to make an informed decision about how best to proceed. While X% of the community grants will not be specifically carved out for Ocean Pines, your efforts accomplished several things, including: demonstrating a commitment to the community to investigate such matters and reminding legislators not to overlook Ocean Pines in this or other matters. The fact that the amount of potential money is in the hundreds of thousands, not millions, should not be overlooked either. While it is significant money, all county residents need to look at these types of figures to understand that the potential "revenue" coming back to the county may not be sufficient or worth the effort to offset the tangible and intangible impact of slots. I've been knocking on the doors of the State and local legislators in hopes of a stakeholders forum so we can learn first hand some of the facts you've uncovered and more, and as individual residents, can make an informed decision at referendum time. For example, some of the slot revenue projections I've come across tied to the legislation indicate a $3M investment by the State the first year of slots and revenue increasing over the next several years, up to $422M in 2012--remember, the overriding push for slots is to address a $500M education deficit. On the other hand, the $.01 increase in MD sales tax is projected to generate $315M in FY08 and $687M in FY 2009. While I'm not suggesting increased sales tax per se, at least the whole state is shepherding the burden of the budget situation instead of 5 target areas whose combined State education contributions, don't represent the State's majority. Now this particular scenario may not resonate with the bigger counties whose votes will dictate the final outcome--other information, such as the validity of the revenue projections for slots, decreased revenue projections for the lottery, long-term potential to expand to gaming tables, etc. may. In terms of next steps for Ocean Pines as a community, your concluding statement get good representation on the 15-member Local development Council (we need to get our fair share of the 11 slots that are open for people in the immediate proximity to the slots facility), and represent OPA's case before our County Commissioners, is right on target. Hopefully, through the efforts of yourself, Les, and Reid, not to mention others, invitations will be forthcoming. Thanks again. Cheryll Bissell
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Purcell, Rakow, and Sterrett have done this community a great injustice by deciding to not even try for a percentage of slots income. That's your opinion, Joe, and you are entitled to it. First of all, the 20% and 10% of whatever may be coming to the County and automatically passed on to Ocean City and Berlin inserted into the Bill was WRONG. There is no justification whatsoever for that, and it was done as a politically motivated move to obtain votes in the next State elections. Secondly, after studying and talking to all sorts of people, I do not believe OPA would have been added to the bill at this late date. Possible? Anything is possible, but highly unlikely. In my judgement, we would receive lip service from those politicians and nothing more. They are not going to fight with their fellow delegates on this issue. So, we would have fought some battles, attempted to present some phoney rationale for local impacts, and then what? Made you happy that we at least tried? Thirdly, we do need to work with our elected officials at the County too obtain proper grants from real impacts. Had we "won" and gotten a % based on "BS" because we put political pressure in Mathias or Conway, would there be justification for the county to cut the funding we receive now for our police when the slots impact money would be provided for that? We could have lost in the long run. So, for me, I did not take some "easy way out"; I read the Bills, talked to the senator, both delegates, and our two commissioners and decided for myself what I think is the proper thing to do. Your proposal to make two wrongs a right is what is "patently absurd." Should you and others who only see one side of this issue want to pursue this, be my guest. All citizens have the right to lobby their elected officials if they believe they have a sound argument. BTW, after you read the Bill, what justification or "sound argument" are you going to base your request for OPA to be added to the Bill? Is it because two politicians modified the bill for political motives, we should have our share too? Lame. You know that there is no legal, proper way to have us added. There is a process of submission of a multi-year plan that provides the local impacts on which such grants are to be based. What you should do is "attack" the improper inclusion of the OC and Berlin percents. That would be a proper thing to do. The way to do it is to follow the provisions of the law, get good representation on the 15-member Local development Council (we need to get our fair share of the 11 slots that are open for people in the immediate proximity to the slots facility), and represent OPA's case before our County Commissioners. Bill
|
