At Issue

VICTORY!!!  Question A Passes by huge margin!

Thank you and congratulations to all of you who donated your time and energy to our efforts. Question A passed 56% to 44% county-wide and was a clear winner in our area.

Baltimore Sun Reporter Jay Hancock Recognizes Russett’s Work In Fighting Against Slots 

Maybe voters got tired of hearing about slots – Jay Hancock, Baltimore Sun Blog 

 The referendum against slots at the mall always was a long shot. The margin of victory for the David Cordish-backed project, however, is surprising, considering how much dough the Jockey Club spent on advertising. It has been buying TV ads — tons of them — since August.

I suspect the nonstop ads — eventually from both sides — blurred together and prompted voters to draw a larger desire from the slots debate: Make it stop. Make it stop now, please. The best way to do that was to vote for Cordish. Had he lost, we would have been reading and hearing about slots-site debates for years. The Jockey Club would have tried to get a license for Laurel Park. Cordish may have tried for another site. More money would have been blown on lawyers. More neighborhood groups — the ones in Laurel, this time, especially Russett — would have gone militant against slots in their neighborhood. Even if you didn’t care about slots at the mall, the way to put an end to the noise was to vote for Cordish.

The Jockey Club and other mall-slots opponents made the decision to tout Laurel Park as the alternative site — saying over and over again in their ads that it was the appropriate place for slots, not the “family” mall. I wonder if that was the right tactic. In doing so they focused attention on the Jockey Club’s botched attempt to put slots at the track in the first place. Every time they promoted the track as the right place, the subtext was: “Well, you already had a chance to get slots, and you blew it.”

It is starting to be widely reported that there is a new constitutional issue surrounding a casino going in at Laurel Park.  

The Maryland Constitution clearly states that the casino in Anne Arundel County must be within two miles of Maryland 295. At a quick glance, many would assume that it would include Laurel Park due to its vicinity to the highway.

However, technically, that is not the case! MD 295 effectively stops being a state road at MD 175 south. After that point, it become a federal highway that is managed by the National Park Service, a federal entity.

Check it out: http://www.nps.gov/bawa/

How is it possible then for Laurel Park to be considered a viable alternative to Arundel Mills when the constitution won’t allow for it?

Something to think about and remember as you vote to support Question A here in Anne Arundel County.

http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/political/laurel-residents-involved-in-slots-debate

We Are Getting Noticed!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/blogs/capital-land/laurel-residents-dont-want-slots-either-104420643.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2010/10/04/daily32.html

While you’re at it, check out this new website http://www.votequestiona.com/

 Laurel-Area HOMEOWNERS SAY QUESTION A IS BEST FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD

Citing Horse Industry Funding, Russett Community Association Board Of Directors votes unanimously to say that Question A will help our community.

The Russett Community Association Board of Directors is asking homeowners in the neighborhoods surrounding Laurel Park racetrack to vote FOR Question A on November 2.

The Board cited funding of the near-by racetrack, Laurel Park, as a reason for residents to support the slots referendum. A letter to all area residents stated, “Since all horse racing tracks will benefit from 7 percent of gross slots revenue in order to double their purses and 2.5 percent for infrastructure funding no matter where slots are located… the Russett Board of Directors expresses its support “FOR Question A” and encourages Russett Residents to vote FOR Question A.”  

I suspect the nonstop ads — eventually from both sides — blurred together and prompted voters to draw a larger desire from the slots debate: Make it stop. Make it stop now, please. The best way to do that was to vote for Cordish. Had he lost, we would have been reading and hearing about slots-site debates for years. The Jockey Club would have tried to get a license for Laurel Park. Cordish may have tried for another site. More money would have been blown on lawyers. More neighborhood groups — the ones in Laurel, this time, especially Russett — would have gone militant against slots in their neighborhood. Even if you didn’t care about slots at the mall, the way to put an end to the noise was to vote for Cordish.

The Jockey Club and other mall-slots opponents made the decision to tout Laurel Park as the alternative site — saying over and over again in their ads that it was the appropriate place for slots, not the “family” mall. I wonder if that was the right tactic. In doing so they focused attention on the Jockey Club’s botched attempt to put slots at the track in the first place. Every time they promoted the track as the right place, the subtext was: “Well, you already had a chance to get slots, and you blew it.”

Constitutional Issue On the Horizon – BW Parkway is NOT MD 295!