City Will Use Almost All Revenue from Slots Parlor to Pay for Property Tax Cut

Share the News

Excuse me?! I don’t know if you all remember the slots referendum that Maryland voters approved in 2008, but — just like this year’s gambling referendum — it promised that it was all for the “primary purpose” of funding education. Well, apparently the mayor’s not on board. Instead, she’s using the $11 million that Harrah’s will pay the city in its first year of operation to fund a “small property tax cut.” This was approved back in April by the City Council, but it contradicts what voters approved in 2008.

It’s true that Baltimore’s property taxes dwarf those in surrounding areas, but our public schools have a lot of catching up to do. And whatever your opinion on the economic effect of lowering taxes, it’s not the purpose for which these slots parlors were intended. Anyway, don’t we have a revenue problem?

Well here we are again. The mayor is urging us to vote yes on Question 7, turning our slots parlors into full-blown casinos — a necessary move because “our neighboring states have adopted changes making Maryland’s casinos uncompetitive.” In four years’ time will we be voting whether to add dog fighting, you know, to stay competitive?

Of course, once again we are told that the revenue will be used to fund education. And yes, money will be added to the state Education Trust Fund, but eventually money that originally went toward education can be allocated elsewhere. And yes, casinos bring jobs. But they also bring “increased substance abuse, mental illness and suicide, violent crime, auto theft and larceny, and bankruptcy.”


Share the News


  1. What will she do in the second, or the third year? I’m okay with a one-time diversion from the plan, especially if it happens before new funds become something we’re accustomed to, if it keeps my property taxes low.

  2. This falls under the category of “not at all surprising.” I voted against slots the first time around and will vote against it again. Slots/casinos/gaming will never be an answer to an already existing problem (high prop tax, poorly funded education, lack of jobs, etc.).

Comments are closed.