PG County Casino Question: Does the Location Really Matter? (Baltimore: lawyer, lawsuit)

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

From the first 45 minutes, it sounds as if MGM has it in the bag.

Yeah, I think the ones not in favor did so so it would at least appear that there was deliberation. As I was listening even their negative statements seemed to favor MGM. BTW so much for their published agenda lol.

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

BTW so much for their published agenda lol.

Yeah. I wondered about that. lol But I guess they figured if they already made their decision and PARX/Penn National had nothing substantial to offer, then what's the point? It's the Friday before Christmas. No need in drawing things out like the US Congress.

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

Yeah. I wondered about that. lol But I guess they figured if they already made their decision and PARX/Penn National had nothing substantial to offer, then what's the point? It's the Friday before Christmas. No need in drawing things out like the US Congress.

LOL true...now I wonder how long will it take for the losers to contest or the community lawsuits to begin. Also wonder if that will impede MGM's ability to the approval processes while they work out any lawsuits etc.

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

LOL true...now I wonder how long will it take for the losers to contest or the community lawsuits to begin. Also wonder if that will impede MGM's ability to the approval processes while they work out any lawsuits etc.

I'm sure their lawyers can dream up something. But essentially, they will be seen as obstructionists. That's the American way. Sue if you don't get your way. If the other casinos had won, there would be stronger opposition from residents. Given where MGM is located, there would be less impact to residential roads. I think residents, while not ecstatic about more traffic, would be more comfortable with the National Harbor location.

It will be interesting to see how the politics play out.

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

I'm sure their lawyers can dream up something. But essentially, they will be seen as obstructionists. That's the American way. Sue if you don't get your way. If the other casinos had won, there would be stronger opposition from residents. Given where MGM is located, there would be less impact to residential roads. I think residents, while not ecstatic about more traffic, would be more comfortable with the National Harbor location.

It will be interesting to see how the politics play out.

It definitely will be interesting how things play out over the next few months. It will be even more interesting to see more of the details (renderings, retail, entertainment options etc.) of the MGM National Harbor. The traffic concerns are going to be the biggest concern but, based on Baker's interview today, 210 has become the county's number one priority for transportation. I see the other phases coming online a lot faster now that the county/state has more of an incentive. There will be traffic in the beginning but I think it will normalize as the newness wears off.

[Mr Beco]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

LOL true...now I wonder how long will it take for the losers to contest or the community lawsuits to begin. Also wonder if that will impede MGM's ability to the approval processes while they work out any lawsuits etc.

You just know they will....

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

It definitely will be interesting how things play out over the next few months. It will be even more interesting to see more of the details (renderings, retail, entertainment options etc.) of the MGM National Harbor. The traffic concerns are going to be the biggest concern but, based on Baker's interview today, 210 has become the county's number one priority for transportation. I see the other phases coming online a lot faster now that the county/state has more of an incentive. There will be traffic in the beginning but I think it will normalize as the newness wears off.

I wonder how much 210 will be affected. Perhaps people use it more to avoid Oxon Hill Road traffic. Either way, working on 210 is going to be expensive. Out of all this though I want to see what Part does with all that land.

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

I wonder how much 210 will be affected. Perhaps people use it more to avoid Oxon Hill Road traffic. Either way, working on 210 is going to be expensive. Out of all this though I want to see what Part does with all that land.

At this point, the impact is unknown but based on all of the traffic studies (two which used the same approach used in other types of projects both in MD and throughout the US) traffic using 210 to access the casino would be nominal (approximately 10%). I know that the current project cost for 210 was 500M the largest cost coming from the construction on Kirby. I agree that people will begin to use it as an alternative on what would be peak nights at the National Harbor. Similar to what people in beach/tourist communities do during peak seasons. I do believe that this project will elevate the 210 priority to the state and county given the financial gains.

[UrbanScholar]

Since we briefly discussed lawsuit/protests that may come of today's announcement, I decided to post the section of the rfp that mentioned it. I think that the operative word in this section is damages. That could include lost taxes from the state for any delays in opening. Don't know if they want to risk that but we will see.

2.29 LITIGATION/PROTEST BOND
Each Applicant must submit with its Proposal a Litigation/Protest Bond in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00). The purpose of the Litigation/Protest Bond is to discourage frivolous lawsuits and protests by permitting the Location Commission to recover, in addition to its attorney's fees, damages that result from delay in awarding or issuing a Video Lottery Operation License. A claim upon the bond may be made by the Location Commission if:
(1) The Applicant brings any legal action or protest against the Location Commission, the State of Maryland, or any individual member thereof, or any employee of the State, over the award of a License resulting from this RFP;
(2) The Location Commission or such other party is the prevailing party at the conclusion of the action or protest; and
(3) The tribunal before which the action was brought, or any other authorized tribunal, determines that the action or any portion thereof was frivolous, was brought in bad faith, or was not based upon reasonable grounds.
The bond shall be in the form of a policy or certificate underwritten by a surety company authorized to do business in the State and shall be subject to approval by the Location Commission, or other acceptable security for bond as described in COMAR 21.06.07. Applicants may submit Litigation/Protest Bond in a form as found in Appendix G.
The bond shall remain in effect for one (1) year from the Deadline for Receipt of Proposals, subject to renewal as deemed necessary by the Location Commission. Applicants, including the successful Applicant/Licensee, may request a release of the bond after the date of License award in return for a release and Covenant Not To Sue in a form acceptable to the Location Commission, signed by the Applicant, notarized and accepted by the Location Commission.

and the part where they loose all of their fee

Frivolous Litigation/Protest:

An Applicant shall forfeit the Initial License Fee in order to permit the Location Commission to recover, in addition to its attorney's fees, damages that result from delay in implementing a License, as stated below:
1. The Applicant brings any legal action or protest against the Location Commission, the State of Maryland, the Lottery and Gaming Control Commission and Agency, or any individual member thereof, or any employee of the State, over the award of a License resulting from this RFP;
2. The Location Commission or such other party is the prevailing party at the conclusion of the action or protest; and
3. The tribunal before which the action was brought, or any other authorized tribunal, determines that the action or any portion thereof was frivolous, was brought in bad faith, or was not based upon reasonable grounds.
2.9.1.4 Disposition – Partial Forfeiture by Applicant
19
Unless otherwise approved by the Location Commission or the Lottery and Gaming Control Commission, as appropriate, if an Applicant is awarded a License but does not place into operation the full complement of VLTs proposed in the Applicant’s Proposal within five (5) years after the License is issued, the Applicant shall be deemed to have abandoned its Proposal with respect to the unused VLTs, and must reapply if the Applicant wishes later to expand the number of VLTs it operates. In such a circumstance, the prorated portion of the Initial License Fee for unused VLTs shall be forfeited by the Applicant.

http://gaming.mdlottery.com/wp-conte...101-2-6-13.pdf

[Fast GTO]

That applies to the Casino's suing. Not to some third party entity suing on behalf of the Casino...lol