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 find it interesting that most of the commercials I hear that ask to vote "No" on Question 7 are more about the lack of trust in the leadership of the state and how they manage the budget than with gambling. I find that odd. There's no argument against the jobs the casinos will create or even the revenues they will generate, but where those revenues will go. So, to me, that would apply to ANY business that stands to bring millions to the state. It just so happens that the legislature left the gambling piece up to voters. If it was any other business, this would be a non-issue. But, if lack of trust IS the case, how about moving this argument beyond gambling to the overall budget structure and spending in the state? I think it is a bit disingenuous to all of a sudden find issues with state politicians when gambling and the casinos are not the real issue so it seems from the adds.
I find it interesting that most of the commercials I hear that ask to vote "No" on Question 7 are more about the lack of trust in the leadership of the state and how they manage the budget than with gambling. I find that odd. There's no argument against the jobs the casinos will create or even the revenues they will generate, but where those revenues will go. So, to me, that would apply to ANY business that stands to bring millions to the state. It just so happens that the legislature left the gambling piece up to voters. If it was any other business, this would be a non-issue. But, if lack of trust IS the case, how about moving this argument beyond gambling to the overall budget structure and spending in the state? I think it is a bit disingenuous to all of a sudden find issues with state politicians when gambling and the casinos are not the real issue so it seems from the adds.
You make a valid point but to keep it fair some of the earlier ads questioned the validity of the number of jobs that would be created. The message shifted about a month ago to attack state leadership. I do agree that if it were another issue it would be a non-issue. I had a discussion with a colleague of mine today. They asked me about my opinion on the three hot issues on the ballot. We exchanged perspectives but what I found that was interesting (and this has actually been the case for those for and against) is that they did not know that they were planning other amenities besides the casino on the site. As well as a host of other facts about the referendum etc. Of course I provided details and they asked why wasn't that information in the ads. My thought was why are you thinking of making an uninformed vote. Of course we departed with the same positions as we had in the beginning but its discouraging how many voting on this issue and others have not properly researched the issue to ensure an informed decision. Just the American way I guess (smh).
I find it interesting that most of the commercials I hear that ask to vote "No" on Question 7 are more about the lack of trust in the leadership of the state and how they manage the budget than with gambling. I find that odd. There's no argument against the jobs the casinos will create or even the revenues they will generate, but where those revenues will go. So, to me, that would apply to ANY business that stands to bring millions to the state. It just so happens that the legislature left the gambling piece up to voters. If it was any other business, this would be a non-issue. But, if lack of trust IS the case, how about moving this argument beyond gambling to the overall budget structure and spending in the state? I think it is a bit disingenuous to all of a sudden find issues with state politicians when gambling and the casinos are not the real issue so it seems from the adds.
Again you are comparing gambling to things that are completely different. To take it a step further, don't we already have 3 existing casinos in the state? How are they helping the said issues of education (and no don't start telling me that we have the #1 schools, we also are #1 in wealth, is that a coincidence?) and employment? It appears that they are not having really any level of impact on our economy. The issues with jobs is this concept does not in any way shape or form changing the overriding issues with our current job situation. The reason why we are not attracting jobs is because of policy. You know why we aren't talking about other types of jobs coming here, BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO BRING THEIR COMPANIES HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What other jobs have been on the table to even give your point of the type of industry, to have any merit? Where are the computer companies, government contractors, etc.? There are none that exist! Talking about casinos bringing jobs is like putting a band aid over a bullet wound, you're not really fixing the problem, you are just changing the appearance of the issue.
Another point about the casino industry is it is largely dependent on the economic situation of that particular area. We could have a company like Oracle for example that will thrive, and it's success will not alone be based on the local economy, they would still make money and they would still bring in tax revenue. Can you say that about a casino? With the possibility of sequestration happening across our region next year, do you honestly think that the casino industry will thrive? Sure there will be people that will still go regardless, but we are talking about how stable of an industry is gambling, on trying to save a falling economy?
You make a valid point but to keep it fair some of the earlier ads questioned the validity of the number of jobs that would be created. The message shifted about a month ago to attack state leadership. I do agree that if it were another issue it would be a non-issue. I had a discussion with a colleague of mine today. They asked me about my opinion on the three hot issues on the ballot. We exchanged perspectives but what I found that was interesting (and this has actually been the case for those for and against) is that they did not know that they were planning other amenities besides the casino on the site. As well as a host of other facts about the referendum etc. Of course I provided details and they asked why wasn't that information in the ads. My thought was why are you thinking of making an uninformed vote. Of course we departed with the same positions as we had in the beginning but its discouraging how many voting on this issue and others have not properly researched the issue to ensure an informed decision. Just the American way I guess (smh).
I just posted this last night because after the debate I heard three different ads in succession and all spoke on the uncertainty of where the money would end up. We even received fliers in the mail saying the same thing. To me, if I'm just getting informed about Question 7, I'd think it was a referendum on budget management, not gambling. I do agree that voters should do their research on such things that will have an impact on the community.
I just posted this last night because after the debate I heard three different ads in succession and all spoke on the uncertainty of where the money would end up. We even received fliers in the mail saying the same thing. To me, if I'm just getting informed about Question 7, I'd think it was a referendum on budget management, not gambling. I do agree that voters should do their research on such things that will have an impact on the community.
I understand and yeah they have definitely been playing on people's emotions and thoughts on politicians with the current stream of ads. I even heard it on Pandora while at the gym (with the free service I couldn't even skip the ad ).
Again you are comparing gambling to things that are completely different.
I'm not. What I'm doing is I'm stripping down to what I perceive is the only argument the opposing casinos have in their ads (LATELY). Because they are the ones funding the opposing ads. Most of the ads I have seen lately mention the uncertainty of where the revenues will go. "We've been promised money for education before." etc. etc. On this issue alone, I suggest that this uncertainty shouldn't just rear its head on gambling revenues. Where does the money go from ANY business revenue? The ads directly speak to broken promises from state officials, not casinos. All the casinos will do is generate the revenue. It's up to the state to make sure it goes where it is intended. Again, this is concerning revenue only. If Hanes wanted to build a clothing factory in Waldorf, would there be much discussion on where that revenue would go if there was a promise that some would go to education? Would we see ads opposing the factory because of uncertainty with revenues and the education fund? It is the sole responsibility of government to make sure the money goes where they say it goes as written in the bill, not businesses. To me, that speaks about the distrust of government and not so much the fact that they are opposing a 6th casino. If you notice in those ads, the words "casino" and "MGM" are not mentioned. Not even jobs.
Quote:
To take it a step further, don't we already have 3 existing casinos in the state? How are they helping the said issues of education (and no don't start telling me that we have the #1 schools, we also are #1 in wealth, is that a coincidence?) and employment?
I think we all know that casinos by themselves don't improve schools. And we can argue that money does or doesn't either. In some cases, I think money can help to build new schools that would relieve class sizes and employ more teachers that were laid off. In addition, afterschool programs can be enhanced and increased so that kids have something constructive to do rather than hang out on the street causing trouble.
Quote:
It appears that they are not having really any level of impact on our economy.
Jobs are tangible. Whether you think they are significant or not. My wife was unemployed for 6 months. My friend for 18 months. We can argue whether casino jobs are "real" or "quality" jobs. But when you go from no food on the table to being able to provide for yourself and your family, that's an impact to someone. Are casinos in this state the savior of the economy? No. Not when Maryland has IT, biotech, space, and defense industries. But as legal enterprises, they do contribute to the overall economy just as Six Flags and any other entertainment business, mall, hotel, or resort does. Maryland has a diverse economy that lessens the impact of any one sector except the federal government.
Quote:
The issues with jobs is this concept does not in any way shape or form changing the overriding issues with our current job situation. The reason why we are not attracting jobs is because of policy. You know why we aren't talking about other types of jobs coming here, BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO BRING THEIR COMPANIES HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right now, today, you have a multinational company investing millions just to convince people it wants to give Maryland a shot. And what do we do? We question not only the integrity of the business, but we question the integrity of our own state government to properly handle to revenue the business generates. No wonder no company wants to locate here. That and the issue of our questionable school system and our lack of development focus as well as other myriad problems in this county.
Quote:
Talking about casinos bringing jobs is like putting a band aid over a bullet wound, you're not really fixing the problem, you are just changing the appearance of the issue.
My argument is, would you rather bleed out? Or have a band aid to stem the bleeding until you can receive more help?
Quote:
Another point about the casino industry is it is largely dependent on the economic situation of that particular area. We could have a company like Oracle for example that will thrive, and it's success will not alone be based on the local economy, they would still make money and they would still bring in tax revenue. Can you say that about a casino?
Assuming you mean that the Oracle Headquarters is located in PG, not just a remote office. We can then assume the scenario that the MGM headquarters would be here.
YES! Because MGM is NOT a local company it is a multinational company. If revenues fall in certain areas, which they do, multinational companies have the cash flow to fill in the gaps. It happens all over the business world. My wife works for a bank. If one branch misses its numbers, the business doesn't fold. It is propped up by the parent corporation. Unless the world economy tanks and casino profits are down all over the world, I don't think MGM will be too concerned about the economic situation in DC. Because even during the greatest recession in almost 100 years, DC fared pretty well compared to the rest of the country. MGM sees that and is investing millions of dollars to be next to that income stream. If we were talking about Mississippi or Cleveland, then I don't think you'd see the money invested in convincing voters the way we have seen here. D.C. is a lucrative market for entertainment venues because of our disposable income that comes mainly from government which is not going anywhere anytime soon.
Quote:
With the possibility of sequestration happening across our region next year, do you honestly think that the casino industry will thrive?
That is a very complex issue which will affect other industries as well, not just gambling. I'm sure MGM knows this. But for some reason, they feel they can weather that storm if it comes unless they enjoy wasting record sums of money on campaign ads for one county. And let's not forget, even if the referendum passes, the casino won't open until 2016 at the earliest. A lot can change in four years for better of for worse.
Quote:
Sure there will be people that will still go regardless, but we are talking about how stable of an industry is gambling, on trying to save a falling economy?
I'm not so sure Maryland even has to rely on gambling. There are a lot of statements that claim Maryland is using gambling to save it from the economy. I think that is misleading. Maryland does pretty well compared to other states who rely solely on gambling and tourism. We all know that Maryland has one of the better economies in the nation. So, I'm not so sure Maryland is pinning all its hopes on casinos as some would have us believe.
I'm not. What I'm doing is I'm stripping down to what I perceive is the only argument the opposing casinos have in their ads (LATELY). Because they are the ones funding the opposing ads. Most of the ads I have seen lately mention the uncertainty of where the revenues will go. "We've been promised money for education before." etc. etc. On this issue alone, I suggest that this uncertainty shouldn't just rear its head on gambling revenues. Where does the money go from ANY business revenue? The ads directly speak to broken promises from state officials, not casinos. All the casinos will do is generate the revenue. It's up to the state to make sure it goes where it is intended. Again, this is concerning revenue only. If Hanes wanted to build a clothing factory in Waldorf, would there be much discussion on where that revenue would go if there was a promise that some would go to education? Would we see ads opposing the factory because of uncertainty with revenues and the education fund? It is the sole responsibility of government to make sure the money goes where they say it goes as written in the bill, not businesses. To me, that speaks about the distrust of government and not so much the fact that they are opposing a 6th casino. If you notice in those ads, the words "casino" and "MGM" are not mentioned. Not even jobs.
I hear you and I think that is a valid point, but I think the issue is, that education is being used as bait to lure people to support this bill. The reality is, if a Hanes company were to come here, there would be no need to make any promises about the money. When they say that the casinos will bring money for schools, that automatically brings up red flags, especially given the failed history of things like the lottery to do the same thing. Let me give you an example. When they built the National Harbor, were there promises of improved education funding? Those promises are in question because of the source of those promises and it automatically connects the reputations of our legislatures with this bill. If promises of education weren't on the table, I think you wouldn't see the same level of scrutiny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
I think we all know that casinos by themselves don't improve schools. And we can argue that money does or doesn't either. In some cases, I think money can help to build new schools that would relieve class sizes and employ more teachers that were laid off. In addition, afterschool programs can be enhanced and increased so that kids have something constructive to do rather than hang out on the street causing trouble.
Agreed. All of those things sound great, but there is a great deal of uncertainty with knowing if there will be "extra" money for education. Call me crazy, but it just rubs me the wrong way when our governor inexplicably raised taxes on many of our residents (which caused a surplus by the way), but then can turn around and give a tax break to casino owners. That's like going out to dinner with some a friend, and that friend doesn't pay all of their portion of the bill, so you have to pick it up. We can find money to give tax breaks to casino owners and to fund illegal immigrants to get in state tuition, but you still need to raise taxes on us, and I am supposed to be okay with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
Jobs are tangible. Whether you think they are significant or not. My wife was unemployed for 6 months. My friend for 18 months. We can argue whether casino jobs are "real" or "quality" jobs. But when you go from no food on the table to being able to provide for yourself and your family, that's an impact to someone. Are casinos in this state the savior of the economy? No. Not when Maryland has IT, biotech, space, and defense industries. But as legal enterprises, they do contribute to the overall economy just as Six Flags and any other entertainment business, mall, hotel, or resort does. Maryland has a diverse economy that lessens the impact of any one sector except the federal government.
But Maryland is also struggling to keep jobs, which is one of the reasons why you have unemployed in the first place. Of course these are jobs that will help, but can you honestly say since Maryland Live! has opened that the job market has significantly improved in MD? That's all I'm saying. You can talk about bringing jobs, but is this really the solution that this state needs? The casino industry is largely dependent upon people having jobs in that local area, so if you aren't generating jobs other than casino jobs, how does this help your situation? Sure the casino can hire people to work there, but if that is your source of jobs, then who's patronizing?
And again one huge nugget that I cannot emphasize enough, WHO SAID MGM IS HIRING PG/MD RESIDENTS???? What promises are they making to hire people who live close by? Isn't it feasible that a good portion of their employees could come from VA and DC? So how does that look to MD's economy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
Right now, today, you have a multinational company investing millions just to convince people it wants to give Maryland a shot. And what do we do? We question not only the integrity of the business, but we question the integrity of our own state government to properly handle to revenue the business generates. No wonder no company wants to locate here. That and the issue of our questionable school system and our lack of development focus as well as other myriad problems in this county.
It's because there is a concept that very few people in this county and state has grasp: ACCOUNTABILITY! Who cares how big this company is? If there are question marks, there are question marks.
And my point was to talk about businesses that aren't reliant on local economies to thrive. If we are the "wealthiest" state in the nation, then why would that be so difficult to expect? There is obvious major issues here. Virginia's unemployment rate, for example, is over a point lower than ours. Even Delaware has a lower unemployment rate. I know those statistics aren't all telling, but the significance in the difference speaks volumes about where this state is headed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
My argument is, would you rather bleed out? Or have a band aid to stem the bleeding until you can receive more help?
If you get sick, would you rather the doctor treat the illness or the symptom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
Assuming you mean that the Oracle Headquarters is located in PG, not just a remote office. We can then assume the scenario that the MGM headquarters would be here.
YES! Because MGM is NOT a local company it is a multinational company. If revenues fall in certain areas, which they do, multinational companies have the cash flow to fill in the gaps. It happens all over the business world. My wife works for a bank. If one branch misses its numbers, the business doesn't fold. It is propped up by the parent corporation. Unless the world economy tanks and casino profits are down all over the world, I don't think MGM will be too concerned about the economic situation in DC. Because even during the greatest recession in almost 100 years, DC fared pretty well compared to the rest of the country. MGM sees that and is investing millions of dollars to be next to that income stream. If we were talking about Mississippi or Cleveland, then I don't think you'd see the money invested in convincing voters the way we have seen here. D.C. is a lucrative market for entertainment venues because of our disposable income that comes mainly from government which is not going anywhere anytime soon.
Not exactly. See much of the revenue that is being talked about deals with more than just the casinos. We have been talking about the amount of money that would be spent at the other close businesses like hotels, restaurants, stores, etc. MGM having a lot of money does not change the fact that people wouldn't be coming to the casino and spending their money at local establishments. Their presence will help their business survive here in such a case, but that is not going to help our local economy. Big difference between what you are stating and what could happen to our local economy if people don't actually come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
That is a very complex issue which will affect other industries as well, not just gambling. I'm sure MGM knows this. But for some reason, they feel they can weather that storm if it comes unless they enjoy wasting record sums of money on campaign ads for one county. And let's not forget, even if the referendum passes, the casino won't open until 2016 at the earliest. A lot can change in four years for better of for worse.
That's true, but we don't know how long the impact will be for spending cuts. We're not just talking about the casino business itself. We're talking about those construction jobs that were promised too. If government doesn't have money, it could slow the building process, infrastructure improvements and that's not even considering how long a possible recession would linger. We are sitting here in 2012, still dealing with the effects of our last recession. Who's to say, that another recession wouldn't still impact things in 2016 if they were even fortunate to get it built by then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky
I'm not so sure Maryland even has to rely on gambling. There are a lot of statements that claim Maryland is using gambling to save it from the economy. I think that is misleading. Maryland does pretty well compared to other states who rely solely on gambling and tourism. We all know that Maryland has one of the better economies in the nation. So, I'm not so sure Maryland is pinning all its hopes on casinos as some would have us believe.
The contrast in jobs performance is dramatic. Here are the figures on how many full-time jobs each jurisdiction added in the 12 months ended in July, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Northern Virginia: 32,200 jobs (a 2.4 percent increase);
District of Columbia: 10,000 (up 1.4 percent);
Suburban Maryland: 1,400 (up less than one-fifth of 1 percent).
I hear you and I think that is a valid point, but I think the issue is, that education is being used as bait to lure people to support this bill. The reality is, if a Hanes company were to come here, there would be no need to make any promises about the money. When they say that the casinos will bring money for schools, that automatically brings up red flags, especially given the failed history of things like the lottery to do the same thing. Let me give you an example. When they built the National Harbor, were there promises of improved education funding? Those promises are in question because of the source of those promises and it automatically connects the reputations of our legislatures with this bill. If promises of education weren't on the table, I think you wouldn't see the same level of scrutiny.
Yes. What else can they use as a carrot on a stick? Besides a relatively small number of jobs? What about the commercial I saw this morning where O'Malley "promised" that the money would go to education? Okaaay... What is the recourse if the money doesn't go to education?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtitans
And again one huge nugget that I cannot emphasize enough, WHO SAID MGM IS HIRING PG/MD RESIDENTS???? What promises are they making to hire people who live close by? Isn't it feasible that a good portion of their employees could come from VA and DC? So how does that look to MD's economy?
Again, I agree. I heard the radio ad raving about those "$50,000 a year jobs with benefits!" Umm... I thought that commercial was pandering big time.
Agreed. All of those things sound great, but there is a great deal of uncertainty with knowing if there will be "extra" money for education. Call me crazy, but it just rubs me the wrong way when our governor inexplicably raised taxes on many of our residents (which caused a surplus by the way), but then can turn around and give a tax break to casino owners. That's like going out to dinner with some a friend, and that friend doesn't pay all of their portion of the bill, so you have to pick it up. We can find money to give tax breaks to casino owners and to fund illegal immigrants to get in state tuition, but you still need to raise taxes on us, and I am supposed to be okay with that?
And that's the issue with how local governments court businesses. The simple fact is, VA and Montgomery counties have more money from a rich corporate presence to "woo" new corporations in addition to an educated workforce. PG only has income mainly from property owners and income. So what else do we have to lure companies here? Corporate tax breaks. Better to have a little extra revenue than none. It sucks, but hey, what else is there? Hopes and dreams? I would call it a necessary evil. And I do believe that there is a tax structure built in to where casinos will pay increasingly more taxes in the following years. I don't think their tax rate is locked in forever. So there should be increased revenues for the state as time goes on.
Quote:
But Maryland is also struggling to keep jobs, which is one of the reasons why you have unemployed in the first place. Of course these are jobs that will help, but can you honestly say since Maryland Live! has opened that the job market has significantly improved in MD? That's all I'm saying. You can talk about bringing jobs, but is this really the solution that this state needs?
Like I said, MGM is here now. Who else is in the pipeline? I could see if we had a choice. Like if certain industries were clamoring to locate here and we had community hearings in almost every district, but that's not happening. We're the ones clamoring for businesses. If you think that MD is not in such a position to where we can hang on for 10-15 more years with increased taxes hoping we score big with some worthy company with white-collar jobs, then I say tell the casinos goodbye. But that's not the case. The only whispers we have now of anything worth mentioning is the FBI. And that's just a relocation project. All the people who work for the FBI will continue to do so. Just in a newer building. No new jobs for MD except for services used by the FBI.
Quote:
The casino industry is largely dependent upon people having jobs in that local area, so if you aren't generating jobs other than casino jobs, how does this help your situation? Sure the casino can hire people to work there, but if that is your source of jobs, then who's patronizing?
MGM is not going to build a "local" casino. It will be a world resort. Which means it will draw patrons from the region, country, and world. This won't be some obscure slots parlor at Rosecroft tucked behind single family homes. You don't spend $800+ million on a facility on the banks of the Potomac facing DC to only attract the locals.
Quote:
And again one huge nugget that I cannot emphasize enough, WHO SAID MGM IS HIRING PG/MD RESIDENTS???? What promises are they making to hire people who live close by? Isn't it feasible that a good portion of their employees could come from VA and DC? So how does that look to MD's economy?
True. But that's what every other business does. We see thousands of PG residents travel west to work in DC and VA now. And if that's the case with the new casino, hopefully those commuters would spend their money in MD just as we do in their counties. I would be surprised if at least 50% of the employees weren't from MD.
Quote:
It's because there is a concept that very few people in this county and state has grasp: ACCOUNTABILITY! Who cares how big this company is? If there are question marks, there are question marks.
So, should we halt any and all development because of question marks concerning government accountability? No wonder Maryland is so far behind. Too many question marks. What I find ironic is these politicians and civil servants were voted in by the very people who are questioning their promises. If we can't trust our own government, why live here? Why vote? So we can distrust the next administration? When will it end? If Missouri is the "Show Me" state, Maryland is the "I Doubt It" state.
Quote:
And my point was to talk about businesses that aren't reliant on local economies to thrive. If we are the "wealthiest" state in the nation, then why would that be so difficult to expect? There is obvious major issues here. Virginia's unemployment rate, for example, is over a point lower than ours. Even Delaware has a lower unemployment rate. I know those statistics aren't all telling, but the significance in the difference speaks volumes about where this state is headed.
Virginia's employment is heavily propped up by the government. Defense and IT are the major industries in NOVA and in the Tidewater area where you have the Navy bases. What else do they have? Agriculture? If sequestration happens, I'm not so sure VA would continue to enjoy such low unemployment rates. Yes, Maryland would be hit too, but not as much as VA. Therefore, I agree that there exists some uncertainty about the future of the Maryland economy and what it holds. But does it make sense to turn away businesses that do decide to locate here? If they want to risk their revenues and build where there is fiscal uncertainty, isn't that their right to do so? If I want to start selling Blackberries knowing that they are getting crushed by Apple and Android devices, I should be able to enter that market knowing the inherent risks that are involved. I may do okay, I may loose my shirt. It's called free enterprise. Everything carries risk. Some companies can bare more risk than others.
Quote:
If you get sick, would you rather the doctor treat the illness or the symptom?
If there is not yet a cure, please, treat the symptoms until a cure is found. No sense in dying miserably when I can die comfortably. But we must decide if the problem with Maryland is the common cold or cancer? Both are treatable and to an extent remissible in terms of cancer, but none have a cure....yet. Why not add a little extra to the coffers until the economy rights itself?
Quote:
Not exactly. See much of the revenue that is being talked about deals with more than just the casinos. We have been talking about the amount of money that would be spent at the other close businesses like hotels, restaurants, stores, etc. MGM having a lot of money does not change the fact that people wouldn't be coming to the casino and spending their money at local establishments. Their presence will help their business survive here in such a case, but that is not going to help our local economy. Big difference between what you are stating and what could happen to our local economy if people don't actually come.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying there would be a big resort a few miles from one of the most visited cities in the country and chances are people will not go? Explain National Harbor now? Is it a ghost town? Are businesses folding? And this is without a casino or outlets. Is National Harbor a complete failure? Do you think MGM would build a resort here if it didn't think it would succeed and not market it worldwide? You think they would just post ads in the local newspapers that say, "Hey, Come checkout your local casino! Just for NOVA, DC, and PG!" Not hardly. And you forget, people travel for casinos. I have a 94 old grandmother-in-law asking us when can she come up to go to Maryland Live! She can't be the only one in VA wanting to go to a casino in MD. I think that's what people keep losing sight of. MGM WILL NOT BUILD A $800 MILLION FACILITY AND MARKET IT TO LOCALS ONLY. MGM has an international presence. It would be dumb not to use it to their advantage to market a MD/DC casino/resort. So, when those international travelers come to DC, and they do every year, they will want to check out what the new MGM casino/resort has to offer. Therefore, I don't think MGM is concerned too much with a possible lack of local patrons just like Las Vegas and Atlantic City thrive off of out-of-town patrons. They all count on people from out of the area to visit.
Quote:
That's true, but we don't know how long the impact will be for spending cuts. We're not just talking about the casino business itself. We're talking about those construction jobs that were promised too. If government doesn't have money, it could slow the building process, infrastructure improvements and that's not even considering how long a possible recession would linger. We are sitting here in 2012, still dealing with the effects of our last recession. Who's to say, that another recession wouldn't still impact things in 2016 if they were even fortunate to get it built by then?
So, is that a sound strategy? Turn away businesses because we don't know what the world may look like 4 years from now? For all we know the world could end tomorrow, and still, the world goes on. We can speculate and consider possibilities and what-ifs until eternity. But the world still must go on. People start businesses and make decisions where uncertainties exist all the time and yet, things work out. Sometimes, they don't. But not for lack of trying.
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.
).
What I find ironic is these politicians and civil servants were voted in by the very people who are questioning their promises. 
If we can't trust our own government, why live here? Why vote? So we can distrust the next administration? When will it end? If Missouri is the "Show Me" state, Maryland is the "I Doubt It" state. 
