So when does MGM construction start? (casino, DMV, to live)

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

Lawsuits aside, the next step is the bidding process. Just because it passed and it was aimed at National Harbor does not mean that is where a casino will go.

No there isn't a guarantee. But NH has been a favorite across the board within the 4 mile swath that is eligible for consideration.

Originally Posted by K-Luv

What language?

The language I was referring to was the language in the bill that constitute what a majority vote is. That is the basis for the lawsuit.

[Mr Beco]

Maryland voters passed the gambling expansion measure, which also authorizes table games in state-sanctioned casinos, by a margin of 52 percent. But the bill’s adoption, which is the subject of one pending lawsuit, only sets the stage for Peterson to apply for a gaming license in the county. Peterson, which has selected MGM Resorts International as its casino operator, will still need to submit a bid and compete against other hopeful casino operators. Penn National Gaming has also said it intends to seek a gaming license to build a casino at Rosecroft Raceway. State law prohibits more than one casino from opening in the county.

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

Here is an article that discusses a possible timeline for the RFP if the vote does not get overturned or the lawsuit doesn't take months to complete. In all honesty, I think that they will be in court within the next couple of weeks and it will be dismissed based on the reasonable man theory. I also question whether Penn National will be able to successfully bid (aside from the preference for NH) since I don't recall them actually changing the ownership clause in SB1. There may also be some backlash, publicly and politically, as a result of their opposition to the bill. If they do submit (which is likely), I could see a lawsuit issued, like what happened in Baltimore and AAC, contesting the award.

Round II between MGM, Penn National could kick off in January - Washington Business Journal

Is this what you are referring to as the reasonable man theory?

Maryland approves expanded gambling, Prince George's casino

The issue has not been resolved, unfortunately because we have serious reservations about the constitutionality of the process: We continue to believe that the Constitution requires a majority of qualified voters approve any expansion of gaming," Kevin McLaughlin, Vote No On 7 spokesman, said in a statement. "Today's vote fell far short of a majority of qualified voters. A lawsuit has been filed to this end, on behalf of the citizens of Maryland, and we intend to explore all of our legal avenues as well.

I'm not sure how they inspected 2 million votes to figure out there were some "unqualified" voters. What does that mean anyway. With 98% of the precincts counted, there's a 87,115 vote difference. Does he mean there are over 87,115 unqualified voters who voted for question 7? That sounds pretty unreasonable.

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

Is this what you are referring to as the reasonable man theory?

Maryland approves expanded gambling, Prince George's casino



I'm not sure how they inspected 2 million votes to figure out there were some "unqualified" voters. What does that mean anyway. With 98% of the precincts counted, there's a 87,115 vote difference. Does he mean there are over 87,115 unqualified voters who voted for question 7? That sounds pretty unreasonable.

In a round about way that is what they were saying. Essentially, they felt that the language of the bill required that everyone over 18 and not a convict should be considered a part of the total voting pool when determining the majority. Whatever that number is should have been the number that needed to be achieved to receive a majority. They felt the number of voters that did vote for it was far less that the "majority" needed to pass the referendum. The state (and most people) feels that the majority represents those that have come out to vote and actually voted on the question. I understand that they are trying to use this as a stall tactic or to overturn the results but I don't see how this effort would be successful considering that most people did not define "majority" in this manner.

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

In a round about way that is what they were saying. Essentially, they felt that the language of the bill required that everyone over 18 and not a convict should be considered a part of the total voting pool when determining the majority. Whatever that number is should have been the number that needed to be achieved to receive a majority. They felt the number of voters that did vote for it was far less that the "majority" needed to pass the referendum. The state (and most people) feels that the majority represents those that have come out to vote and actually voted on the question. I understand that they are trying to use this as a stall tactic or to overturn the results but I don't see how this effort would be successful considering that most people did not define "majority" in this manner.

Try getting lay persons to understand THAT argument. lol They should just give up now.

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

Try getting lay persons to understand THAT argument. lol They should just give up now.

Agreed

[UrbanScholar]

NBC News reported on the lawsuit filed against question 7. I was not surprised that one of the usual suspects was front and center. I can understand their frustration but when you buy property next to a commercial area there is always the possibility that something will eventually be built there. If you don't want to live next to a commercial development and all that it may comprise then don't live there or move when development exceeds your comfort level. It should also be noted that this was the group that also filed suits to stop the National Harbor, Tanger Outlets, Gaylord, etc. Since dissolution of the new law would affect the entire gambling program, they may be able to slow the start of the development but I serious doubt they will be successful in stopping it all together.

Community Sues to Stop National Harbor Casino | NBC4 Washington

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

NBC News reported on the lawsuit filed against question 7. I was not surprised that one of the usual suspects was front and center. I can understand their frustration but when you buy property next to a commercial area there is always the possibility that something will eventually be built there. If you don't want to live next to a commercial development and all that it may comprise then don't live there or move when development exceeds your comfort level. It should also be noted that this was the group that also filed suits to stop the National Harbor, Tanger Outlets, Gaylord, etc. Since dissolution of the new law would affect the entire gambling program, they may be able to slow the start of the development but I serious doubt they will be successful in stopping it all together.

Community Sues to Stop National Harbor Casino | NBC4 Washington

It's the same thing up north with the residences around University of Maryland and the Maryland Book Exchange project. "We don't want loud students in our neighborhood." Duh! You live one block away from a major regional university. Get a clue.

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

It's the same thing up north with the residences around University of Maryland and the Maryland Book Exchange project. "We don't want loud students in our neighborhood." Duh! You live one block away from a major regional university. Get a clue.

That's even worse.....

[Fast GTO]

PG county could use the jobs. Don't have the money to gamble, then stay out. Stop legislating your Christian morality.