The debate over whether to build a casino on the Potomac River in Maryland underscores the hypocrisy of the gambling debate. Just consider some of the arguments put forth in this story:
First there is County Executive Rushern Baker. He doesn’t like casinos but thinks a casino overlooking the river near an upscale suburban development in Prince George’s County is the best location on the East Coast. ”On the East Coast, this would be the best site,” Baker said. In other words, he was against casinos before he was for them. What logic.
Then there is Jon Peterson, the developer of the neighboring upscale commercial project known as National Harbor. Peterson thinks a casino overlooking the Potomac would attract gamblers from around the world. Yeah, right. No doubt families in Germany, China and Brazil are packing their bags now for a trip to Prince George’s County to see a casino near the suburban version of Baltimore’s Inner Harbor. Puh-leeze. That may be true if the world stopped at Virginia.
Then there is the loyal opposition. That is coming from a developer of the soon-to-open Maryland Live! Casino in nearby Arundel Mills. He argues that another casino would saturate the market. Joe Weinberg, president of Cordish Cos.’s gaming and resort division says it would be “insane” to add another casino in Maryland. Weinberg’s opposition is not based on any economic or social data regarding the costs of data. In other words, he just wants to preserve his local gambling monopoly.
Sadly, all of these lame arguments are emblematic for what often passes as substantive debate regarding the impact of opening casinos. A real debate would include the fact that casinos strip wealth from communities and have little economic spin off. The casinos create social and economic costs that outweigh the benefits. But that’s not a discussion lawmakers and business leaders (or often, even the media) want to have.