Activists on both sides of the ongoing slots debate in Anne Arundel County will have to wait a little while longer to see how it plays out after the County Council withdrew five slots-related bills July 6 at the request of County Executive John Leopold.

Almost a month after postponing a vote on the series of bills that would authorize the use of slot machines in certain industrial zones in the county and provide community protections, council chairwoman Cathleen Vitale told the packed room that it would have to keep waiting.

"At this time, there will be no vote," Vitale said. "These bills have been withdrawn at the request of the county executive."

The announcement created an audible groan among some and genuine anger among others who had waited as the meeting began 45 minutes late.

Reached for comment July 7, Leopold said he withdrew the bills because he believed it was important to ensure that they would pass and was willing to postpone their fate to improve the odds of a positive outcome.

"There are 30 million good reasons to be patient with this legislation," he said. "This county needs the $30 million in revenue that slots will bring, but we need to be able to count four votes in favor of the bills for them to pass."

Leopold added that there are two major state-related variables that would likely have a significant impact on whether the county council would pass the bills.

First, was the pending ruling by the state Court of Appeals on a lawsuit by the Laurel Racing Association aimed at getting its bid for slots at Laurel Park reinstated after it was thrown out by a state commission in February.

There is no date for when the court will release that ruling.

Second is the state Video Lottery Terminal Facility Location Commission's Sept. 9 hearing to consider whether the Arundel Mills location would meet state guidelines of acceptability as a location for slots.

"I think the outcomes of those two events will weigh heavily on how the council votes on this bill," he said.

Leopold did vow to reintroduce the bills within 30 days of yesterday's withdrawal, but could not definitively say whether the reintroduction would come at the council's July 20 or Aug. 3 meeting.

Once the bill is reintroduced, it has 90 days to pass before it expires and must be re-submitted. Therefore, if the bill is submitted July 20, it would expire on Oct. 18, while an Aug. 3 introduction would expire Nov. 1.

Several people expressed frustration at Monday's council meeting over the withdrawal of the bills.

Joseline Castaños, vice president of Stop Slots at Arundel Mills, said she had mixed feelings about the move.

"It frustrates me a little to see it postponed again, but as long as this keeps going, that means the bill hasn't been passed and that's good," she said. "It's just becoming one long, hard battle."

Retired Col. Harry Sinclair was more vocal in his disapproval of the move. After publicly reprimanding the council for starting the meeting 45 minutes late, he added, "They can't seem to belly up and face the issue they have at their hands. It shows total unprofessionalism as to how a board should conduct itself."

Castaños said she hoped the bills would include more community protection once reintroduced.

"We're doing everything possible to protect these neighborhoods," Leopold said. "But I think you'll probably see the bills be basically the same when they're reintroduced."

user comments (0)