In the two months since we wrote an editorial supporting a ballot referendum to legalize slots in Maryland, a lot of new information has come out. While the state’s Department of Legislative Services originally predicted slots would one day bring the state $600 million a year in revenue, an Oct. 24 study by the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, posited that legalizing slots would actually cost the state money because of the social costs the machines would incur. And with the economy teetering, some legislators now say they’ll have to raise the percentage of slots’ revenue pegged for attracting developers, potentially leaving less money in the mix for education.
These concerns come on top of those we’ve had all along. There’s no guarantee slots would increase the amount of funding for higher education, and there’s no doubt gambling and horse-racing interests would benefit heavily from a “Yes” vote on question No. 2 on the ballot. After more than five years of debate, it’s clear state legislators have not created the perfect model for slots. And yet, as the state’s structural deficit hasn’t budged in these five years, the need for a long-term solution to the state’s financial troubles has become all the more evident. While the slots proposal on today’s ballot isn’t perfect, it’s still worth your vote.
Revenue from slots would not necessarily mean a boost in overall funding for higher education – the state could reduce other sources of funding to offset the potential gains from slots. Nonetheless, the proposal has significant implications for universities; the proposal sets aside money for construction projects at K-12 schools, community colleges and universities, addressing a major need. Many of the university’s most frequented academic buildings have dysfunctional heating and cooling systems and structural flaws. In all, the university has a backlog of $625 million in capitol improvements that slots revenue could help address. The university could also address another major campus need by putting the money toward the construction of new housing. And considering recent history, when state legislators last year drained the state’s Higher Education Investment Fund, the idea of dedicated funding would certainly lend the university a sense of stability during the General Assembly budget hearings.
Of course, the recent UMBC study has raised the question of whether the state will see a profit from slots at all, considering slots machines will likely incur increases in debt and addiction that could tug at the purse strings of state services. But it’s important to note that crime didn’t rise after West Virginia and Delaware installed slot machines. Slots may not bring in the $1.4 billion a year in revenue some are projecting, but to suggest the state would lose money from the deal is probably an exaggeration.
We aren’t thrilled by the prospect of a state run on gambling revenue, and don’t think that we should bank on filling our coffers by leaning on gamblers. At the end of the day, however, adults have far more choice in gambling than students do attending under-funded schools. Voting for the resolution means providing the state with one more tool to tackle an entrenched structural deficit.
