LIVING IN Los Angeles for close to eighteen years, one of my favorite flights for fun was to Las Vegas. Never much of a gambler, I loved the shows, but especially enjoyed the spas in whatever hotel I stayed. It’s just one reason if I lived in Maryland I’d vote yes on the gambling referendum.
I understand the complaint that the contract was “handed over to National Harbor with no intention of fair competition,” but anyone who has traveled there can see the obvious perfection of the site.
Maryland voters are split right now, but they shouldn’t be. Moralism is one thing, but at the expense of tax revenue and a tourism draw? It’s insane.
Casino giants are going all out and why shouldn’t they? Michael Dresser of Baltimore Sun has been covering this story extensively:
Estimates have varied as to how much revenue would be generated by a luxury casino at National Harbor. But there has been virtually unanimous agreement that the site would be a success in financial terms. Karmel said he could see it adding as much as $700 million in annual revenue for MGM.
MGM spokesman Gordon Absher emphasized the advantages a National Harbor casino would bring Maryland in jobs and education funding, the selling points in its ad campaign, but didn’t deny that the company stands to make a lot of money at the site. Absher said National Harbor may offer the best blend of geographic, infrastructure and branding advantages MGM has ever seen.
“National Harbor speaks for itself,” he said.
Both MGM and Caesars stand to gain from adding an attractive destination to further take advantage of their robust “players’ club” networks.
If we lived in Maryland, which we may some day, my husband and I would both vote yes. Mark lived in Las Vegas, Nevada close to all of his life and loved it. The two of us had many a wonderful night in Sin City, even if we don’t gamble.
National Harbor is a prime place for a casino. We’d cross the bridge a lot more often if a casino was there and I bet we’re not the only ones.