Slot+Machine+Revenue+Debated

ELLICOTT CITY, Md. (AP) - People on both sides of Maryland's Slot Machine debate sparred Friday over how much money the state stands to gain if voters decide to legalize slots in a November referendum.

Scott Arceneaux, a senior adviser to Marylanders United to Stop Slots, said it's impossible to know how much money an expansion of gambling will raise for state coffers, because gambling revenue would be strongly affected by overall economic trends. He also said he doesn't believe it's a good idea for the state to become dependent an uncertain revenue stream.

"We can throw out a lot of projections - a lot of figures - but the bottom line is we don't know," Arceneaux said during a panel discussion organized by The Associated Press for a Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association conference.

Frederick Puddester, who was appointed by Gov. Martin O'Malley to head a pro-slots group, cited estimates by nonpartisan state budget analysts that slots would raise more than $660 million a year once slots parlors become operational.

Puddester, who was the state's budget secretary in former Gov. Parris Glendening's administration, said slots could be the best way to address a lingering structural deficit. Lawmakers approved in $1.4 billion in tax increases during a special session last fall, but projected budget deficits will remain unless voters say yes to the slots referendum, Puddester said.

"We have $700 million to make up," he said. "We have this referendum, which will generate that kind of money, or we can increase taxes on people, on citizens, and the businesses or we can cut critical programs."

Arceneaux dismissed that claim, describing it as "political scare tactics 101."

"They're not going to be a substitute for taxes, and they're not going to keep taxes down," Arceneaux said. "In fact, the referendum was part of the largest tax increase in Maryland history."

Puddester, who heads a group called For Maryland, For Our Future, called Maryland's slots plan "the most tax friendly proposal that is out there for Slot Machines."

"A little more than 55 percent of the revenue from the Slot Machines will come to state and local governments," Puddester said. "Places like Delaware and West Virginia, that number is closer to a third."

Some critics of the slots proposal question whether the state's share of the revenue will leave enough for Maryland slots parlor operators to compete with neighboring states, where profits are higher.

But Puddester said whoever ends up with any of the state's five Slot Machine licenses won't end up backing out for a lack of revenue.

"There are hundreds of millions of reasons why they won't do that, and that's the money they are going to make," Puddester said.

Arceneaux, however, cited a Harrah's casino in New Orleans that declared bankruptcy and ended up with a restructured deal that was more friendly to the casino.

"There's a lot of question marks surrounding this," Arceneaux said.

The comparison drew a quick response from Puddester, who said one example doesn't make a trend. He shot back: "If it happens all the time, why do we have 37 states that have slot parlors?"

Lawmakers voted in November to seek a constitutional amendment to legalize Slot Machine gambling. If voters approve, up to 15,000 machines would be allowed at five slots parlors, including one location each in Anne Arundel, Cecil and Worcester counties, one in Baltimore city and one on state property at the Rocky Gap Lodge and Golf Resort near Cumberland.

J. Michael Hopkins, executive director of the Maryland Racing Commission, also sat on the panel. He said he believed Laurel Park would be the first place to install Slot Machines, provided track owner Magna Entertainment Corp. gets a license for the facility. Laurel could have slots within 18 months after approval of the referendum, Hopkins said.

Ryan O'Donnell, executive director for Common Cause Maryland, was also a panelist. Although Common Cause is neutral in the slots debate, the watchdog group is monitoring how much money ends up getting spent on the slots battle. O'Donnell called upon both sides to avoid collecting money from gambling interests.

Arceneaux said his group would not take money from gambling interests in neighboring states that want to see the referendum fail.

Puddester, for his part, wouldn't give a yes or no answer when asked if his group would decline money from gambling interests.

"We're going to build a large coalition of stakeholders and wage an aggressive campaign," he replied.