Lawyer: Laurel Park is close enough to 295 for slots
A post yesterday highlighted the claims of Laurel residents who say that Laurel Park racetrack is not a legal slots site because it's not within two miles of Maryland Route 295, as required in the slots enabling legislation.
Laurel Park is held out as the great Anne Arundel County slots hope by people who want to defeat David Cordish's proposal to put a big slots palace at Arundel Mills mall. But the road known as 295 that goes through Laurel is really the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and is owned and maintained by the National Park Service, not Maryland, say people who live in Laurel and don't want slots there. So it's really not Maryland 295 at that point and Laurel Park is not a legal option for slots, they say.
Wrong, says Alan Rifkin, a lawyer who represents the Maryland Jockey Club, which owns Laurel Park. "The claim that Laurel Park is not within the authorized Anne Arundel County VLT zone is sheer nonsense as a matter of constitutional law and statutory interpretation," he says via email.
As he notes, the slots enabling legislation mentions Laurel Park many times, and not just as a potential recipient of slots proceeds for purses. It specifically mentions Laurel Park as a potential slots site. To wit:
(4) IF A VIDEO LOTTERY OPERATION LICENSE IS ISSUED TO A RACETRACK LOCATION AT LAUREL PARK, THE VIDEO LOTTERY OPERATION LICENSEE SHALL:
Then it lists a bunch of conditions. This language would seem to make it tough for anybody to argue that Laurel Park is an illegal slots site, even with the argument that the track might not be technically within two miles of "MD RT 295," as specified by the statute.
Here is Rifkin's full message:
The claim that Laurel Park is not within the authorized Anne Arundel County VLT zone is sheer nonsense as a matter of constitutional law and statutory interpretation.The authorizing statute from which the Constitutional Amendment was drawn specifically references Laurel Park by name multiple times, imposing various conditions upon Laurel Park if it is awarded the VLT license, including preservation of the Preakness and the Maryland Million – references
and conditions that would not be constitutional if Laurel Park was not an authorized VLT site.Aside from the express references to Laurel Park in the law, the Constitutional Amendment must be given its reasonable interpretation and, thus, be read in conjunction with the plain meaning of the authorizing statute. There can be no serious argument that MD 295 means anything other than the Baltimore/Washington Parkway. The legislative history of the Constitutional Amendment and the authorizing statute make that abundantly clear with countless specific references to Laurel Park.
Just as significantly, in the case of Laurel Racing Association v. Video Lottery Facility Location Commission, the State stipulated and the Court of Appeals reiterated that Laurel Park’s application, other than as to its constitutional challenge to the payment of the initial license fee, “complied with” all other requirements – thus, including being within the authorized Anne Arundel County VLT zone.
While the strained logic of suggesting that Laurel Park is not within the authorized Anne Arundel County VLT zone may make good press, it is wholly inaccurate as a matter of law.
Comments
Its a good thing you got the opinion of a disinterested lawyer.
Posted by: Cheap Jim | October 27, 2010 8:38 AM
People voted for slots to help the Maryland Racetrack industry not to line the pockets of Mister Cordish and his political cronies on the Arundel County Council. How does Cordish just waltz in and get approval for a casino while Md racing has been trying for over 15 years. Corrupt Maryland politics as usual. I am not saying Cordish did anything illeagal what I am saying is that the state of Maryland is a banana republic.
Posted by: Clark Shaffer | October 27, 2010 9:26 AM
As Cheap Jim alluded to the lawyer in question is not a disinterested party. In my (layman's) reading of the enabling legislation it appears (despite other mentions of Laurel Park) pretty cut and dry as to where the legislature wanted slots to be located. Now it is entirely possible that they did not consider the technicality that the road near Laurel Park is not in fact MD 295 but rather The Baltimore-Washington Parkway but that doesn't mean that the law allows it.
Posted by: Paul | October 27, 2010 9:55 AM
If anyone took the time to read the full story of the Cordish Casino, in Illinois, you would find that the primary reason for the facility not living up to expectations (It is, in fact, a very profitable venture..just not as profitable as the state had hoped) was that is was located near a RACETRACK!
People...horse racing is a DEAD sport, in Maryland, someone just forgot to throw the dirt on the coffin!
Let it go...no one goes to the track anymore the places are empty every day except for the Preakness.
The organizations that own and run the tracks are all bankrupt and could not and cannot come up with the money for a slots license so quit trying to put slots near the track. Bulldoze it and make it the big box shopping mall and housing development the land is destined to be!
Posted by: Mike | October 27, 2010 10:21 AM
As to the application, the State only got as far as the missing check before disqualifying Laurel Park. The comment that Laurel Park complied with all other Qualifiers meant Laurel Park turned the application in on time.
Posted by: Phil | October 27, 2010 11:00 AM
I realize I'm a little late to the party, but at least the Sun got a comment from someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight.
:rolls eyes:
What exactly is a lawyer for Laurel Park going to say? That slot opponents are right and Laurel Park will now just give up?
Posted by: Casey | October 27, 2010 2:18 PM
Casey's right: the Laurel Park lawyer isn't going to say anything else. (And of course he's going to respond with verbiage like 'sheer nonsense'.)
The ultimate slots location doesn't effect me because I live in Baltimore County. But given how lawyers are often looking for technicalities to have cases decided in their favor, it's always enjoyable to watch one squirm a little when a technicality arises that might cost them!
Posted by: Flagtown '71 | October 27, 2010 3:26 PM
I'm disappointed that you couldn't find an objective opinion. Clearly, the lawyer is going to read the law in his company's favor. Question A is really AA County's last chance for the jobs and revenue that the slots will provide- Laurel is just being used to confuse the issue and the voters.
Posted by: Sarah Vhen | October 27, 2010 4:37 PM
Just because Laurel Park is mentioned a few times doesn't mean it meets all criteria, and the Constitution is specific about all criteria being met - hence Laurel was disqualified for not putting up the money, i.e. one of the requirements.
So you can chalk this up to the Amendment being written poorly, but it just goes to show that Laurel hasn't a chance and is just obfuscating even more.
Posted by: Jeff Peters | October 28, 2010 1:57 PM
Even though this issue is now dead, it might be useful to point out the B-W Parkway is MD RT-295. If you look at page 146 of the Maryland Highway Location Reference: Anne Arundel County (here), you'll see that MD-295 starts at the DC/PG County Line and continues north into Baltimore even though the MD-295 designation is hidden in the portion maintained by the NPS.
Posted by: Mike | November 3, 2010 11:18 AM