If and when David Cordish’s slots casino at Arundel Mills opens, how will nearby Laurel Park’s business be affected? That seems to be the million dollar question — and we may find out part of the answer next month when Maryland’s thoroughbred tracks are auctioned off.

The Maryland Horse Council sent out an e-mail this week after Anne Arundel County Executive John Leopold approved zoning legislation that allows Cordish to move forward at Arundel Mills. In it, the MHC says that the state racing commission’s chair John Franzone estimated that the value of Laurel “would plummet from about $250 to $50 million if Arundel Mills gets the slots license.”

If that’s true, is Laurel Park’s value just as land and not as a race track? But (I can’t resist) hold your horses — the horsemen still say they can block Cordish’s casino project.

Here’s what they say are their options: 1) to take advantage of a county law that allows them to put the issue on the November ballot if they can collect 19,000 signatures in 45 days, 2) campaign in the upcoming legislative session to “hit the re-set button” on slots implementation.

“Nobody intended for the [Video Lottery Terminal] Location Commission to deliver the death knell for Maryland racing,” the e-mail says. “Legislators and the governor can choose to start over if their constituents demand it.”

After the governor implored the county council for months to vote on the zoning issue and the county executive quickly signed the bill, how fast do you think people are ready to do it all over again? If Laurel’s owner, Magna Entertainment, hadn’t messed up in the first place and just filed the $28.5 million application fee for a slots license, the racing industry might not be in this situation in the first place.

But then again, I don’t think anybody wants to see racing decline even more than it has in Maryland, and I agree with the horsemen that many assumed the slots site in Anne Arundel County would be at Laurel Park. But at what point do we have to move on?

Powered by Bookmarkify™

In today’s story about the people lining up to bid on Maryland’s race tracks next year, former track owner Joseph De Francis said he did not believe Cordish’s proposed slots parlor at Arundel Mills could be up and running within the next year.

As former president of the Maryland Jockey Club, which operates Laurel and Pimlico race tracks, De Francis said he spent years getting the additional permits needed to run a slots facility. He told The Daily Record that all Laurel needs now is a slots license to start building the gambling machines. Cordish’s site, he said, would still require more permits — some which took Laurel years to get.

Below is the list, along with when each was obtained. Take a look, especially if you know something about construction permits and the Arundel Mills area. Do you agree with De Francis that a slots parlor at the site could get bogged down in additional permits? If he’s wrong, tell us why.

Approved Master Sketch Plan: Anne Arundel County – 11/21/2008
Approved Wetlands and Floodplain Impact Permit: Maryland Department of the Environment – 1/9/2009
Approved Wetlands Impact Permit: US Army Corps of Engineers – 10/31/2008
Approved Road Network and New Main Entrance:State Highway Administration – 10/31/2008
Memorandum of Agreement for Improvements: Maryland Historical Trust – 7/7/2004
Confirmation of Historic Properties: Maryland Historical Trust – 4/9/2004
Confirmation of Jurisdictional Determination: Maryland Department of the Environment – 10/20/2003
Verification of Jurisdictional Determination and Delineation: US Army Corps of Engineers – 9/16/2003
Confirmation of No Threatened or Endangered Species: Department of Natural Resources- 8/19/2003
Confirmation of No Threatened or Endangered Species: US Department of the Interior – 8/12/2003
Verification of Road Dedication for Widening: renewed 1/6/2004
Grading Permit Approval and Wetlands Grading/Fill: Anne Arundel County – 9/25/2007
Reforestation Agreement and Bond – $278,784.56 – renewed 12/8/2008
Specimen Tree Agreement and Bond – $56,108.00 – renewed 12/8/2008
Grading Completion Agreement and Bond – $186,326.43 – amended 8/7/2008
Approved On-Site Water Usage and Appropriation: Maryland Department of the Environment – 1/1/2005
Approved Wetlands Impact Permit: Maryland Department of the Environment – 10/6/2004
Approved Wetlands Impact Permit: US Army Corps of Engineers – 9/22/2004
Grading Permit Approval and Floodplain Disturbance: Anne Arundel County – 6/21/2004
Approved Floodplain Impacts: Maryland Department of the Environment – 7/1/2004
Afforestation Agreement and Bond – $71,002.80

Powered by Bookmarkify™

With the Anne Arundel County Council scheduled to vote Monday on whether to allow zoning for slots at the Arundel Mills Mall, the Maryland Horse Council has issued an alert calling upon the industry to make its presence known that night.

The e-mail sent out by the council is pretty over-the-top — it implores people to “help save Laurel Park,” warning that the future of thoroughbred racing is in danger if the council votes to approve the zoning for Arundel Mills:

The Anne Arundel County Council will vote Monday on whether to allow the slots that we all expected to be put at Laurel Park Racecourse to instead go to a new non-racing facility next to Arundel Mills Mall. The Maryland Jockey Club predicts that if slots go to Arundel Mills, Laurel Park’s value will immediately plummet, the impending bankruptcy auction will be a disaster, and the land there will be used for a housing development. If zoning is denied for Arundel Mills slots on Monday, the Jockey Club will submit a proposal for slots at Laurel, it’s value will increase, and the track will be given a new future with new ownership.

Wow, talk about glossing over the details — first of all, it’s not even certain the county council will vote because they are hearing arguments before the vote. They have to vote before Midnight so if the hearings go over, the vote gets rescheduled.

Second, if the zoning gets voted down, while the MJC may WANT to submit a new application, there’s no guarantee that could be done. AND if the MJC (which is owned by Magna Entertainment Corp.) did apply for a license, Magna would most certainly take its Maryland tracks off the auction block and we wouldn’t have a new owner after all.

Does anyone else find this a bit too much?

Powered by Bookmarkify™

A court filing by Joseph De Francis Tuesday painted an interesting analogy for his argument as to why he objects to Magna Entertainment’s attempt to negate a 2002 deal he made with the company when they bought Maryland’s thoroughbred race tracks from his family.

Pimlico Race Course in Baltimore

The deal is a profit-sharing agreement Magna agreed to when it bought controlling interest in Laurel and Pimlico in 2002. The agreement entitles De Francis and others to 65 percent of any pre-tax, future profits the company receives from slot machines if the games are ever approved for the tracks. The profit-sharing lasts for 20 years, with the sellers’ share dropping to 40 percent for the last 10.

The deal applies to any future owner of the track as well and Magna claims it is hindering the auction process for the track now because it has a chilling affect on bids for those properties. De Francis told The Daily Record the agreement was reached because a value could not be placed at the time on what kind of future slots profits his family was giving up by selling the tracks.

In an objection filed Tuesday, De Francis makes his point by comparing selling the intangible (future slots profits) to selling land (a tangible.)

What if, instead, Magna had bought land around Pimlico for a parking lot with the understanding it would obtain zoning licenses from the state before a parking lot was built?

“Under such a scenario [Magna] could not reclaim the tract of land they conveyed several years earlier (irrespective of whether the requisite zoning licenses were obtained),” the filing says. “This hypothetical scenario is conceptually identical to the current scenario — the only difference is that [this case constitutes] an intangible, rather than tangible, undeveloped property right.”

What do you think of this argument? Do you agree that Magna is in the wrong? Or does the reasoning just not fly?

Powered by Bookmarkify™