December 13, 2001
 
 
 THE LATEST proposal for a state constitutional amendment allowing video slot machines at Maryland racetracks is a somewhat unsettling proposition.
 
 Not because - as some would have it - the proposal would open the door to enlarging gambling in the city, but because it would do so in the wrong way and in the wrong place.
 
 If gambling in Baltimore is going to be significantly expanded beyond the lottery, keno and horse racing, it ought to be done right - with a full-fledged casino along the waterfront or downtown - rather than with hundreds of video slot terminals at Pimlico Race Course in northwest.
 
 Plunking slots - one of the most addictive forms of gambling, with one of the lowest paybacks to gamblers - in the midst of one of the city's poorer neighborhoods seems a prescription for magnifying gambling's social costs. Putting a casino along the waterfront, a tourist mecca since the opening of Harborplace two decades ago, holds the prospect of maximizing gambling's economic development potential.
 
 Not surprisingly, the principal backer of the amendment, Del. Howard P. Rawlings, disagrees.
 
 Rawlings, a Baltimore Democrat and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, says he will introduce a bill for an amendment allowing slots at the tracks in the coming session of the General Assembly. That would mark his third attempt to get such a bill through in the last five years.
 
 Unlike last year's attempt - which would have allowed slots at two tracks and two unspecified "tourist destinations" - Rawlings says his new bill will allow slots only at four tracks. And besides a statewide referendum, he says it would require voter approval in the jurisdictions where the slots would be located.
 
 Rawlings says he's a reluctant supporter of expanding gambling to include slots, backing them only as a way to get increased funding for education. (An aside: The notion that a state that is one of the five wealthiest in the country has to rely on gambling revenues to adequately fund public schools seems to be is a failure of leadership at all levels, but that's another matter.)
 
 "Casinos would be too much of an expansion of gambling" and "would play into strong opposition" from gaming foes, Rawlings says.
 
 In Rawlings' view, a casino downtown or on the waterfront goes against the grain of "family destination" tourism established over the years.
 
 Alluding to the lament of local tracks that they are at a competitive disadvantage with tracks in nearby states that have slots, Rawlings adds: "Part of the interest in slots is to provide additional support to the racing industry. A full-fledged casino doesn't embrace that element."
 
 That latter thinking, in particular, goes against the recommendations of the federal National Gambling Impact Study Commission, a broad-based panel appointed by Congress to conduct a comprehensive study of gaming in the United States.
 
 "The Commission recommends that states should refuse to allow the introduction of casino-style gambling into pari-mutuel facilities for the primary purpose of saving a pari-mutuel facility that the market has determined no longer serves the community or for the purpose of competing with other forms of gambling," the panel said in its final report a year and a half ago. Instead, the commission called for thorough impact studies.
 
 The notion that a casino is antithetical to family-oriented entertainment also goes against current thinking. Las Vegas has reinvigorated itself as a resort by adding other attractions to gambling. Baltimore could do the same thing in reverse by adding a classy casino to its myriad of other attractions, not unlike what Montreal did when it opened a casino in 1993 in a pavilion once used for the World's Fair.
 
 It's also difficult to buy the idea that a casino is any less family-friendly than a bar or a nightclub. With ESPN Zone and the Hard Rock Cafe next to the National Aquarium and Power Plant Live!, with its collection of nightspots, beside Port Discovery, it's clear Baltimore's waterfront is a place for all ages.
 
 As all but the most novice gambler knows, slots have among the lowest payback of any form of legalized gambling. Most return between 90 percent and 95 percent to gamblers, significantly below table games such as blackjack.
 
 That's why slots account for two-thirds of the gross revenue of casinos in Vegas and Atlantic City, but only about 40 percent of the money wagered. Interestingly, the fiscal note attached to Rawlings' 2001 bill assumed slots would pay 90 percent in prizes - a number at the low end of the range. (A second aside: It's questionable whether the slots will generate the hundreds of millions of dollars for the state the analysts say they will, but that too is another matter).
 
 If one goal is to generate money for education, a casino is as capable of doing that as are slots at a track. It's true that a casino along the waterfront or downtown wouldn't be a boon to the owners of Pimlico. But it would be a far greater boost to the people who work there, and the city as a whole, than slots at the track.
 
 
 Copyright © 2001, The Baltimore Sun