Oxon Hill - Great Potential (Fort Washington, Hillcrest Heights: 2015, movie theater, contractors)
Washington, DC suburbs in MarylandCalvert County, Charles County, Montgomery County, and Prince George's County
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Question for you. How is this any different from a fortune 500 company locating here providing the same amount of revenue. Do you think the state will all of a sudden "do the right thing" with that money? people have been complaining about fiscal policy in this state BEFORE casinos got here.
How is a casino somehow different from any other revenue generating entity? By the way, MGM is a fortune 500 company (no. 287). What is the state doing with the revenues from FedEx field and M&T Bank Field? What is the state doing with the revenue from Discovery Communications, Human Genome Sciences, or Marriott? What's the difference between each company in terms of revenues going to the state?
The only difference I see is that the casinos are wayyyyyy overtaxed compared to the rest of the businesses in the state. They are one of the few businesses willing to stay in Maryland despite being taxed so heavily. But we pine after Bechtel and Marriott who want to leave. I welcome MGM with open arms.
I welcome them with open arms as well, I was a proponent when Bob Ehrlich wanted slots, but the Dem's shot it down.
Higher educated professionals working at Marriott or Bechtel vs card dealers, maids or porters. Do you really think there is no difference? Aren’t the higher wage earners, highly educated professionals what we want to attract to our State? Wasn't that the big push for biotech jobs? Passing legislation, building incubators?
Like I said, I’m glad they are here, MGM specifically, but I still think it’s the easy way out.
Also, you better check on M&T Bank Field, Glendenning gave away the ranch to get the Browns.......Not sure the State is reaping the rewards just yet.
Whoa. What's with the name-calling? lol And I get called immature.
I was merely making the argument that if there is current crime in an area, adding a casino won't substantially increase crime where it already exists. There was already crime in Baltimore. There's already crime in Hanover, and we all know there is crime in Oxon Hill. Someone can get jacked coming from Tanger Outlets. Criminals don't need the presence of a casino if they want to rob someone. There are thousands of people who attend Ravens games, Orioles games, and concerts. Plenty of opportunity to rob someone at those venues which existed well before the casino. That was my point.
That fact that there are more people in one area introduces crime to that area. There could be no crime at Arundel Mills if there was no Arundel Mills. There could be no crime at National Harbor if there was no National Harbor. Criminals go where people are, not necessarily because there's a casino around. If anything, a person is likely to have more money on them at a mall or a professional ball game than a casino. People are usually broke when leaving a casino anyway.
Besides calling me names, how about enlightening all of us on some crime stats for Maryland Live! and Horseshoe. Prove me wrong. And I'm not talking about your usual pickpockets and car break-ins. That stuff happens at malls, movie theaters, ball games, etc. I'm talking about crime that would impact the casino by making people feel unsafe in and around the casino.
This makes no sense. The biggest issue with this is you are assuming no crime will "substantially increase". Not a human being on this earth no this as a fact. This is your opinion which may be well and good but it means nothing. It is as valuable as people saying that crime will increase. No one really knows. Statistics can support either side, but to make an absolute statement that crime won't "substantially increase", I'm sorry that's irresponsible.
And if you take away what crime existed in the area before, what we really need to analyze is what kind of crime is happening? Is it an increase in crime overall? Is it an increase in certain types of crime?
The crime that exist is irrelevant, what happens to that crime after the casino comes is all that matters.
This makes no sense. The biggest issue with this is you are assuming no crime will "substantially increase". Not a human being on this earth no this as a fact. This is your opinion which may be well and good but it means nothing. It is as valuable as people saying that crime will increase. No one really knows. Statistics can support either side, but to make an absolute statement that crime won't "substantially increase", I'm sorry that's irresponsible.
Based on the studies provided and actual facts from crime stats around Maryland Live! and the Horseshoe, crime hasn't substantially increased. That's where I draw my conclusion from. That's not irresponsible. It's a reasonable conclusion based off of real world examples. The point is there are real world examples where casinos have not introduced so much crime to an area where a majority of the patrons feel so unsafe as to avoid the casino altogether.
There was so much crime around go-go joints in the 80s and 90s that even I avoided them altogether. But I don't see those issues around the casinos in Maryland. Not yet. Maryland is not Las Vegas and it is not Atlantic City. The studies concluded that each area has a different set of variables that would cause crime to either increase, decrease, or stay the same. The increases I saw int he study and in the real world were not significant enough to drive patrons away.
Quote:
The crime that exist is irrelevant
It's not. If a pickpocket lives in Oxon Hill, the casino would provide additional opportunity for that pickpocket.
Based on the studies provided and actual facts from crime stats around Maryland Live! and the Horseshoe, crime hasn't substantially increased. That's where I draw my conclusion from. That's not irresponsible. It's a reasonable conclusion based off of real world examples. The point is there are real world examples where casinos have not introduced so much crime to an area where a majority of the patrons feel so unsafe as to avoid the casino altogether.
There was so much crime around go-go joints in the 80s and 90s that even I avoided them altogether. But I don't see those issues around the casinos in Maryland. Not yet. Maryland is not Las Vegas and it is not Atlantic City. The studies concluded that each area has a different set of variables that would cause crime to either increase, decrease, or stay the same. The increases I saw int he study and in the real world were not significant enough to drive patrons away.
But Hanover and Baltimore are not the same as Oxon Hill. Three different places, three different environments. I'm not suggesting that there will be crime, I am just suggesting regardless of what study is brought up, no way someone can definitively determine what is about to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
It's not. If a pickpocket lives in Oxon Hill, the casino would provide additional opportunity for that pickpocket.
Whether crime exist or not, if crime increase then people are going to naturally conclude that it stems from the casino. The amount of crime doesn't matter if it increases as a result of the casino.
No. You're incorrect. Don't confuse a challenge to your post as me being immature. If you can't handle a challenge to something you post, why post? I have no problem with facts. Never have. But I don't think it is immature to challenge reasoning that isn't based on facts. And I asked you to provide me with some facts. And this is your response. You can't expect to to post here and then have everyone agree with you and if they don't, then they are immature. At least I can have a discussion without name-calling. people resort to name-calling when they don't have a credible response.
But Hanover and Baltimore are not the same as Oxon Hill. Three different places, three different environments. I'm not suggesting that there will be crime, I am just suggesting regardless of what study is brought up, no way someone can definitively determine what is about to happen.
I wasn't trying to predict what would happen. Again, it is a reasonable conclusion. Does "best guess" sound better? Companies calculate risks every day. They draw conclusions off of historical records and statistics. No one can predict the future. I can tell you this, I bet you MGM has done its due diligence. They wouldn't dump $1.2 billion into a facility if they knew crime would deter customers. They would've just opened up a Maryland Live!-esq cheapo facility instead (yes I made a dig at our neighbors ).
Believe me, if there is an unacceptable spike in crime, MGM, the Peterson Companies, the county, and the state have the resources to mitigate that spike. If Arundel Mills Mall can do mitigate a spike in crime, so can MGM.
My reasonable conclusion is if there is any spike, it won't be enough to be a deterrent to customers. Casinos have come a long way in security and making their customers feel safe. I'm sure their security budget is in the 7 figures and their visual perimeter is a lot larger than most people would expect. "the eye in the sky." Or in this case, thousands of tiny cameras inside and outside the facility.
Quote:
Whether crime exist or not, if crime increase then people are going to naturally conclude that it stems from the casino. The amount of crime doesn't matter if it increases as a result of the casino.
If people want to think that someone robbing a bank is attributed to the casino, then that's what they will think. And they will have to accept what the public thinks about their conclusion. Though I predict it won't be a popular one. But I get your point.
It reminds me of those people who think that crime increases if you bring in mass transit. That theory has already been debunked. But people still think that way.
Whether crime exist or not, if crime increase then people are going to naturally conclude that it stems from the casino. The amount of crime doesn't matter if it increases as a result of the casino.
I wasn't trying to predict what would happen. Again, it is a reasonable conclusion. Does "best guess" sound better? Companies calculate risks every day. They draw conclusions off of historical records and statistics. No one can predict the future. I can tell you this, I bet you MGM has done its due diligence. They wouldn't dump $1.2 billion into a facility if they knew crime would deter customers. They would've just opened up a Maryland Live!-esq cheapo facility instead (yes I made a dig at our neighbors ).
Believe me, if there is an unacceptable spike in crime, MGM, the Peterson Companies, the county, and the state have the resources to mitigate that spike. If Arundel Mills Mall can do mitigate a spike in crime, so can MGM.
My reasonable conclusion is if there is any spike, it won't be enough to be a deterrent to customers. Casinos have come a long way in security and making their customers feel safe. I'm sure their security budget is in the 7 figures and their visual perimeter is a lot larger than most people would expect. "the eye in the sky." Or in this case, thousands of tiny cameras inside and outside the facility.
I'm taking your words that you stated at face value. You didn't make it seem as though you were giving a guess, you made a very clear statement, so that is why I questioned what you said.
I have been to some of the meetings where they talked about how they are going to handle security there. I am sure a lot of resources will go into it from all the stakeholders, but again we will see what will happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
If people want to think that someone robbing a bank is attributed to the casino, then that's what they will think. And they will have to accept what the public thinks about their conclusion. Though I predict it won't be a popular one. But I get your point.
It reminds me of those people who think that crime increases if you bring in mass transit. That theory has already been debunked. But people still think that way.
That's not what I am saying at all. Obviously robbing a bank would not constitute a casino contributing to it, but if more people are getting robbed at gun point, if people are being carjacked, or if prostitution happens or increases in that area, then that's the conclusion that will be drawn.
I'm taking your words that you stated at face value. You didn't make it seem as though you were giving a guess, you made a very clear statement, so that is why I questioned what you said.
I assumed you would understand that any statement about a future outcome would be guessing, speculation, etc. My bad.
Quote:
I have been to some of the meetings where they talked about how they are going to handle security there.
I assumed you would understand that any statement about a future outcome would be guessing, speculation, etc. My bad.
People make promises and/or guarantees about future outcomes so it's not really that clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
When was the last meeting you attended?
To be honest it has been about two years, but it was in response to how they would use the new police station in Fort Washington to deal with National Harbor, as opposed to the Oxon Hill station which is burdened with places like Oxon Hill, Hillcrest Heights, Eastover, Forest Heights, etc. and how they will even use a helicopter to fly over that National Harbor to maintain safety in that area.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I welcome MGM with open arms.
You can't expect to to post here and then have everyone agree with you and if they don't, then they are immature. At least I can have a discussion without name-calling. people resort to name-calling when they don't have a credible response. 
