Maryland's ballot questions in November

Here are the four ballot questions on November's General Election ballot that apply statewide (questions #1-3 are constitutional amendments that only effect certain jurisdictions). The text in the heading is a short summary, while the next that follows it is the actual ballot question text:

#4 - Give in-state college tuition benefits to illegal aliens:

Establishes that individuals, including undocumented immigrants, are eligible to pay in-state tuition rates at community colleges in Maryland, provided the student meets certain conditions relating to attendance and graduation from a Maryland high school, filing of income taxes, intent to apply for permanent residency, and registration with the selective service system (if required); makes such students eligible to pay in-state tuition rates at a four-year public college or university if the student has first completed 60 credit hours or graduated from a community college in Maryland; provides that students qualifying for in-state tuition rates by this method will not be counted as in-state students for purposes of counting undergraduate enrollment; and extends the time in which honorably discharged veterans may qualify for in-state tuition rates.

#5 - Keep Maryland's gerrymandered congressional districting plan:

Establishes the boundaries for the State’s eight United States Congressional Districts based on recent census figures, as required by the United States Constitution.

#6 - Redefine marriage in Maryland to include same-sex couples:

Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.

#7 – Expand gambling in Maryland:

Do you favor the expansion of commercial gaming in the State of Maryland for the primary purpose of raising revenue for education to authorize video lottery operation licensees to operate “table games” as defined by law; to increase from 15,000 to 16,500 the maximum number of video lottery terminals that may be operated in the State; and to increase from 5 to 6 the maximum number of video lottery operation licenses that may be awarded in the State and allow a video lottery facility to operate in Prince George’s County?

A mostly-final review of Anne Arundel County Question A

I made my projections about Question A here:

...based upon my projected turnout numbers in Anne Arundel County, I think Question A will pass with 51.0-52.3% for, and 47.7-49.0% against.  While this is not strictly a partisan issue, we've seen that Democrats tend to be for it (56 for, 37 against), Republicans and unaffiliated voters tend to be against it (44-51), and U (39-54).  Since it is a relatively close vote, stronger than expected turnout by either party could tilt the vote either way.  Even then, this is the prediction I am least confident about.  Small changes in support among members of either party could swing the results either way.

The results were better than I expected:

My least confident pick was never in doubt.  There are still a few votes left to be counted, but Question A leads with 55.7% to 44.3%.  As I noted above, I think this is another race in which turnout may have had more an impact.  Also remember that these projections were based upon two polls in which we didn't have the crosstabs and made some major assumptions based on shaky data.  Still, to be within 3-4 points both ways (and of course, on the correct side of the projection), is a good feeling.

Official numbers show Question A passing by 55.52% to 44.48%.

In this post, I tried to project how Question A was doing among early voters; I came to the conclusion that it was split 49.3% for and 44.5% against (if you split the undecideds evenly, you'd come to 52.4% for and 47.6% against).  The latest numbers show that in fact 54.64% of early voters favored Question A.  So it turned out I was just a couple of points off, but looking back I could have been closer.  In my overall projections, pushed 6 of 10 late deciders into the "no" column for (I suspect) no good reason other than to try to find a "safer" outcome rather than a closer outcome.  If I had split the undecideds in proportion to the actual vote (hindsight is 20/20, of course), my early voter projection would have been less than 1% off.

Finally, I explained in this post how Arundel Mills voters cast their ballots in the 2008 statewide slots referendum:

Let's take a look at the final certified votes for Anne Arundel County voting precinct 1-22-32 in 2008 on the statewide ballot question:

1-22-32: 1393-904 (60.64%-39.36%)

Now let's also include the results of the three precincts directly east of this one:

1-06-32: 806-453 (64.02%-35.98%)

1-05-32: 570-403 (58.58%-41.42%)

1-20-32: 984-641 (60.55%-39.45%)

For the sake of this post, we'll call these four precincts "Arundel Mills voters."  Now let's take a look at the aggregate totals:

Arundel Mills voters: 3753-2401 (61.0%-39.0%)

Anne Arundel County: 149,604-103,814 (59.0%-41.0%)

Maryland 1,482,295-1,043,129 (58.7%-41.3%)

In other words, Arundel Mills voters voted for slots in a greater proportion as Anne Arundel County as a whole, and even more so than compared to voters statewide.

I closed by saying that "...it will be interesting to see what the true level of support and opposition is in these precincts," so let's do just that (these numbers are unofficial, but close to final):

1-22-32 Jessup Elementary School 1774 of 3892 (45.58% turnout), 497 for (28.53%)
1-06-32 Anne Arundel Fire Station #21 947 of 1756 (53.93% turnout) 287 for (31.09%)
1-05-32 Hebron-Harman Elementary School 688 of 1404 (49.00% turnout) 180 for (26.55%)
1-20-32 Hebron-Harman Elementary School 1069 of 2123 (50.35% turnout) 344 for (33.05%)

All together, "Arundel Mills voters" (all voters in these four precincts) voted against slots by a 29-71 margin.  Yet, turnout was only 44.48% in these precincts compared to 61.45% county-wide.  This county-wide turnout trend would have netted more than 800 votes against slots in these four precincts alone.

Final conclusions: The end result was correct.  Projections were off by a few percent, but looking back and eliminating unfounded assumptions (like 6 of 10 undecided voters saying "no") would have gotten us even closer.  Still, as I said early on, these projections were based upon two polls in which we didn't have the crosstabs and made some major assumptions based on shaky data.  So in the end I am very satisfied with the projections vs. actual results.  I'll be sure to take some learning points away from this experience and apply it to the next project.

How is Question A doing among early voters?

Update: Based on the fifth day of early voting, the newest projections are 49.3% for and 44.5% Against.

Two recent polls have shown a very tight race in regards to Question A, the referendum to approve the Anne Arundel County zoning bill authorizing slots adjacent to Arundel Mills Mall.  The first poll was 47-45 for, while the second was 48-45 for.  If we ignore the margins of error and presume the actual numbers are correct (a dangerous proposition, to be sure), and then use the breakdown of partisan voting in the second poll to allocate votes, can we find if Question A is winning or losing so far in early voting?  There are a lot of assumptions there, and a lot of accumulated errors that we're ignoring, but it can at least help us make an educated guess.  The State Board of Elections gives us early voting turnout numbers by county; and the Gonzales poll showed a party breakdown of D (56 for, 37 against), R (44-51), and U (39-54).

Through the first four days of early voting, 9,148 Democrats have voted, 7,015 Republicans, and 2,246 Unafiliated or other party voters.  Taking the percentages from the Gonzales poll and applying those proportions to those that have already voted, we find that an estimated 9,085 people would have voted for Question A, and 9,324 have voted against it; or 49.4% for, 44.4% against, and 6.2% undecided.  This appears to show an edge to the For Question A side, on the strength of higher Democrat turnout in early voting.  Democrats represent 44% of registered voters in Anne Arundel County, as compared to 37% for Republicans and the remainder other parties or unaffiliated; Democrats have accounted for nearly 50% of early voters (nearly +6 as compared to registration), while Republicans have accounted for 38% of early voters (less than +2 as compared to registration).  Expected stronger Republican turnout on Election Day will inevitably make this projected lead for Question A smaller.

Projected Question A votes (through the first four days of early voting):
49.4% For
44.4% Against

Finally, some truth about slots

There has been so much deception from the slots opposition that it's difficult to tell when you actually here the truth.  But some small bits of the truth appears to have emerged Thursday.

First, the facts: the slots opponents are organized under the banner of "No Slots at the Mall."  No Slots at the Mall is principally funded by the Maryland Jockey Club.  The controlling interest in the Maryland Jockey Club is held by Penn National Gaming, both of which co-own Laurel Park. Penn National is the owner of the Hollywood Casinos in Charlestown, West Virginia and Perryville, Maryland (among many others).

Since Charlestown is a short drive from Baltimore, any competitor's casino in Anne Arundel County (like the Cordish proposal adjacent to Arundel Mills Mall) would be potential competition for Charlestown.  And the Maryland gaming statute only allows a company to own one license in the state, so because Penn National owns Perryville, they would be unable to open another site in Maryland.

So, what to do?  Well, less than one month after opening Perryville, Penn National is now willing to sell it's license there in order to pursue another location, presumably one at Laurel Park.  Now, do you see?  It's one big money game for Penn National.  Defeat slots at Arundel Mills Mall, sell off Perryville,  re-open the zoning process in Anne Arundel County, and attempt to re-acquire the Cordish license to develop slots at Laurel Park.

Their opposition has nothing to do with a "family-friendly" Arundel Mills Mall, or traffic congestion, or crime.  Those are just failed talking points to placate the families around the mall.  The real opposition has everything to do with injecting new money into the Maryland Jockey Club and Penn National Gaming.

On a side note, for all of the opposition's claims about protecting kids from gambling, it is especially ironic that the Maryland Jockey Club has a Pony Pals Kids Club:

Celebrate your birthday with a party at Laurel Park or Pimlico Race Course for a fun afternoon that will bring you close to the horses.

A race will be named in honor of the birthday boy or girl in our official racing program - plus, we'll take your picture in the Winner's Circle with the winning jockey of the race! 

We've got an awesome kids menu with all your favorites, and a birthday cake, too.

We'll present the birthday guest of honor with a cool present, and each of your friends will receive a Pony Pals goodie bag.

Your own special hostess will greet you and your party, and coordinate your activities for the day.

Don't forget your Pony Pals invitations and thank you notes.

That's right, they want kids to have their birthday parties at a race track.  So much for protecting kids from gambling.

How did Arundel Mills voters vote on the 2008 slots referendum?

This is a map of Anne Arundel County voting precinct 1-22-32, which contains Arundel Mills Mall and the areas around it.  The boundaries are Ridge Road and Arundel Mills Blvd on the east, MD-175 on the south, the train tracks on the western county border, and MD-100 on the north.

The people that live in this precinct (and to some extend, the neighboring precincts to the east which we'll get to later) are said to be those who are most opposed to a slots casino adjacent to the Arundel Mills Mall.  So it would be interesting to know: how did these people vote in 2008 on the statewide ballot question that authorized slots?  As a reminder, here is the text that was on the ballot:

Authorizing Video Lottery Terminals (Slot Machines) to Fund Education

Authorizes the State to issue up to five video lottery licenses for the primary purpose of raising revenue for education of children in public schools, prekindergarten through grade 12, public school construction and improvements, and construction of capital projects at community colleges and higher education institutions. No more than a total number of 15,000 video lottery terminals may be authorized in the State, and only one license may be issued for each specified location in Anne Arundel, Cecil, Worcester, and Allegany Counties, and Baltimore City. Any additional forms or expansion of commercial gaming in Maryland is prohibited, unless approved by a voter referendum.

While this ballot question did not list specific locations, some voters in Anne Arundel County believed that Laurel Park would be the most logical choice, and apparently voted accordingly.  Let's take a look at the final certified votes for Anne Arundel County voting precinct 1-22-32 in 2008 on the statewide ballot question:

1-22-32: 1393-904 (60.64%-39.36%)

Now let's also include the results of the three precincts directly east of this one:

1-06-32: 806-453 (64.02%-35.98%)
1-05-32: 570-403 (58.58%-41.42%)
1-20-32: 984-641 (60.55%-39.45%

For the sake of this post, we'll call these four precincts "Arundel Mills voters."  Now let's take a look at the aggregate totals:

Arundel Mills voters: 3753-2401 (61.0%-39.0%)
Anne Arundel County: 149,604-103,814 (59.0%-41.0%)
Maryland 1,482,295-1,043,129 (58.7%-41.3%)

In other words, Arundel Mills voters voted for slots in a greater proportion as Anne Arundel County as a whole, and even more so than compared to voters statewide.  These are the same voters who are supposedly outraged at the Cordish proposal set to be built adjacent to Arundel Mills Mall.  There is a name for these sorts of people who claim to support things, but then turn around and oppose them when they realize that it's being built close to them: NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).

Regardless of the outcome next month, it will be interesting to see what the true level of support and opposition is in these precincts.

Poll: Arundel voters evenly split on slots at the mall

From the Baltimore Sun's Maryland Politics blog:

Pollster Patrick Gonzales released numbers Wednesday morning showing that a slim majority of Anne Arundel County voters favor installing a slots emporium at the Arundel Mills Mall, but the margin is within the sampling error.

The questionnaire found voters want the 4,750-machine casino at the mall by 48 to 45. Eight percent are undecided. (The error margin is /-3.5 percent.) The casino would be the state's largest and residents, supported by a group that wants to build a casino at the Laurel racetrack, want to stop the project by killing a zoning measure the County Council passed.

The question will only appear on Anne Arundel ballots, but the issue has the feel of a state-wide race because both sides have poured millions into television advertising seen well beyond the county borders.

See the full article here.

No Slots at the Mall crashes kids pumpkin contest at Arundel Mills

Consider the following photograph via @bbaskin:

Courtesy of @bbaskin

Yes, it's fall.  Pumpkin-time, and they have a kids pumpkin contest set up in Arundel Mills Mall.  See that box at the front of the table? It's a ballot box.  You vote for pumpkins in different categories and drop your vote on a slip of paper into this box:

Courtesy of @bbaskin

This is the ballot box for the kids pumpkin contest; slots opponents who have no life but to try to inject politics into a kids contest are stuffing the ballot box with "votes" that proclaim "No Slots at the Mall."  You can see one "vote" at the middle of the picture, and at least one more along the left edge.

Seriously, and I ask this of slots opponents: have you no decency that you can't let a kids pumpkin contest be, instead of making it a forum for your political viewpoint?  Stand outside the mall and hold a sign, but don't crash a kids contest.  You make me sick.

You would think that they could take their $3.3 million of Maryland Jockey Club money and put it to better use.

Slots opponents may try to dismiss these stunts, but they certainly can't defend them.  And of course, this isn't the first time that No Slots at the Mall have used shameful tactics.

Re: Slots opponents shameful campaign

The user "ConsDemo" posted some comments about my blog post about the anti-slots campaign here in Anne Arundel County.  Rather than reply via the comments, I thought it would be appropriate to reply in a new blog post since my reply will contain some of No Slots at the Mall's own advertisements, which are perhaps the most damning evidence of all.

At the mall: When someone says they "parked at the mall" do you presume they mean within the physical structure of the mall? 

The casino would be in the same vicinity as the mall. I think many people understand that's what the opponents mean. I haven't heard an add claim they slots would be within the mall.

When someone says they're "shopping at Arundel Mills mall," do you presume they're shopping in the parking lot, or do you presume they're actually shopping within the physical structure of the mall?  People go to Arundel Mills to shop or see a movie, not to park in the parking lot. Parking is just what you do when you get there.  It is not the end result.  If the opponents mean something other than what they're saying, then they should come out and say it. "Near the mall."  "Across the parking lot from the mall."  Until then, I'll maintain to say otherwise is dishonest.

Of course the slots will be in the same vicinity of the mall.  No one has questioned this point.  The entire point of this location is to take advantage of the crowds that already go there.  But my point was to directly combat the assertion that the slots are "at the mall" and  "in the mall." Since you haven't heard an ad claim that they would be within the mall, see for example the following "No Slots at the Mall" advertisement, and notice the following quote at 21 seconds in the video: "They just don't belong in the mall."




Now watch this next ad and see the first quote:  "We have the power to keep a slots parlor out of Arundel Mills mall."  Complete with a graphic of a family shopping in the mall!  This is a clear indication that they're trying to make us believe the slots are in the mall and that by voting against Question A, the slots parlor will move to Laurel Park:



Words matter, and it's very clear to be that the people behind this campaign chose their words carefully.

Family-friendly: As for the quality of life at the mall. Yes, traffic is bad, adding the casino, absent significant road enhancements (and none are planned) will make it MUCH WORSE.

If you go to Atlantic City, there are strip clubs every other block and 24/7 alcohol consumption, that's Arundel Mills within a few years after the casino comes. That's what people are worried about, you shouldn't belittle their concerns if you want them to vote your way.

I've been stuck in Arundel Mills traffic before so I am not going to comment on that point other than to say that I agree traffic is a problem.  But while the ads sometimes talk about traffic, it really isn't one of their key talking points.  As for crime, I see that the slippery slope is alive and well!  Do you really believe that one referendum to place slots at one building near Arundel Mills will lead to 24/7 alcohol and strip clubs "within a few years"?  Atlantic City has been around a long time.  It's an entire city dedicated to gambling.  We're talking about one facility for slots.  To make this leap is so far-fetched that I am not sure I even know how to respond to it.  Your argument is akin to claiming that suspending a kid from school will ruin his self-esteem and therefore make him a murderer.  In fact, the text of Bill No. 82-09 (the zoning bill that Question A seeks to approve) explicitly prohibits adult book stores or adult movie theaters within 1,000 feet of video lottery facilities.

Not opposed to gambling, just this location.

I haven't seen an ad from "no Slots" that claims slots would be placed at Laurel, merely that it is a possible alternative location.

I'm glad you pointed this out, because it gives me the opportunity to show yet another misleading advertisement from the good folks at No Slots at the Mall.  Here is the video's actual description at YouTube: "Vote Against Question A to prevent the development of a slots parlor at Arundel Mills Mall. Instead, slots can be developed at Laurel Park, a location where gaming already occurs and isn't near kids and families."  The following commercial has been playing on TV here in Anne Arundel County.  Watch it, and see how it clearly states that voting for Question A will re-locate slots from Arundel Mills to Laurel Park, including the quote: "Let's put slots at Laurel Park, not Arundel Mills mall."  And the most damning of all: "To put slots in the best location, vote against Question A."




Finally, consider this editorial by the Baltimore Sun:

The battle over slots at Arundel Mills Mall has taken to the airwaves, with TV ads by opponents that mislead Anne Arundel County voters on two critical details: first, that slots would be more lucrative if located elsewhere; and second, that rejecting the county zoning plan would lead to the machines' being located at a racetrack instead.

Laurel Park has no standing as an alternate location for slots. Magna Entertainment Corp. had a chance to bid for the Anne Arundel site but failed to post the fee required under law. Should the zoning proposal fail this fall, it's not at all clear what would happen next. Should the license be awarded a second time, there's certainly no guarantee it would go to Laurel Park.

Meanwhile, the revenue generated by the Arundel Mills project, with its proposed 4,750 machines, is expected to far surpass any other slots location in the state. Don't take the word of Cordish Cos.; that's the findings of the state's independent video lottery location commission, which estimates slots will generate about $30 million in tax revenue each year for the county alone.

Opponents' complaints about traffic or locating gambling near a mall are fair game (although, as developer David Cordish pointed out earlier this week in a debate on Baltimore's WYPR, the latter gripe may prove somewhat hypocritical as Magna recently opened an upscale shopping center next to Gulfstream Park Racing & Casino in Florida).

Reasonable people can differ on the project, but the facts are the facts. The mall attracts more than 14 million visitors a year, and that is bound to bring in more slots patrons then Laurel Park, which has averaged fewer than 3,000 in attendance on live racing days and is no more heir apparent to slots than the fast-food restaurants on nearby Route 1.

Slots opponents shameful campaign

I wrote previously about the dishonesty in the anti-slots campaign here in Anne Arundel County, but I wanted to go back a bit and see what else the opponents have been saying.  I found an editorial written by David Jones, Chairman of "No Slots at the Mall."  On August 30, he wrote an article in the Baltimore Sun entitled "Slots at the mall: a terrible idea."  He wrote this article in defense of "No Slots at the Mall" advertisements which some have criticized as inaccurate.

There are three themes which reverbate throughout: not just Mr. Jones article, but their commercials and advertisements:

• "At the mall."  A woman in one of the anti-slots advertisements says "...they just don't belong in the mall."  The name of the group is "No Slots at the mall."  Every other talking point is "at the mall" or "in the mall."  This claim about the location is as dishonest as those who say the "ground zero mosque" is "at ground zero" rather than two blocks away.  Now I know you think this is a petty point, but it's actually a significant difference.  Your children eating lunch at the food court aren't going hear the ding-ding-ding of a winning slot machine.  The plan is for a completely separate structure.  It's not attached to the mall, it's not at the mall, it's not in the mall.  To claim this is to be dishonest.

• "Family-friendly."  The article's tagline is "Why ruin this family-friendly destination when Anne Arundel has a better location?"  Yet Mr. Jones doesn't seem to believe this himself.  He writes that "Arundel Mills mall already has serious crime and traffic problems."  Wait, what?  Are we "family-friendly" or do we have "serious crime" problems?  One or the other?  Both?  Really?  Are you saying that the addition of gambling will be worse than the "serious crime" problems that already exist?  You can't have it both ways.

• "Not opposed to gambling, just this location."  Mr. Jones clearly states that "many of us who oppose the slots facility at that location are not against gambling..."  So if you're not against gambling in general, what about the gamblers themselves?  Well, that's another question altogether. Mr. Jones: "Parents are legitimately alarmed about co-mingling children with gamblers in such close proximity. Gamblers entering and exiting the slots facility would have easy access to the food court, shops, parking lots and other areas in the mall."  Stop the presses!  Gamblers will have easy access to the food court!  The horror!  You want to laugh about that, then you realize what they're doing.  The slots opponents don't want them "co-mingling" with children in close proximity.  Who are we talking about here, gamblers or child molesters?!  Seriously, this is pure character assassination on the part of the slots opponents, and it is shameful.  A woman in one of the advertisements says "I have no problem with gambling and slots being in Anne Arundel County, they just don't belong in the mall."  Back in 2008, 59% of Marylanders (and the same percentage of Anne Arundel County voters) voted to approve slots in Maryland; the opponents know it would be foolish to oppose gambling in general.  So they would rather hedge their bets and latch on to the location issue, and claim that they were victims of a bait-and-switch because they thought the slots would be located at Laurel Park.  So let's take a look at that ballot question from 2008:

Authorizes the State to issue up to five video lottery licenses for the primary purpose of raising revenue for education of children in public schools, prekindergarten through grade 12, public school construction and improvements, and construction of capital projects at community colleges and higher education institutions. No more than a total number of 15,000 video lottery terminals may be authorized in the State, and only one license may be issued for each specified location in Anne Arundel, Cecil, Worcester, and Allegany Counties, and Baltimore City. Any additional forms or expansion of commercial gaming in Maryland is prohibited, unless approved by a voter referendum.

Did you see anything about Laurel Park in there?  No?  Go back and look again.  Not this time, either.  Go figure.  Now it is true that Laurel Park was in the news and it was one of the possible locations, but slots hadn't even been approved, and the proposals hadn't even been submitted.  So if you voted for slots with the belief that they would be located at Laurel Park, then you simply did not follow the issue closely enough, or you assumed something that had yet to take place.  Don't blame Cordish because you were unable to understand the issue.

The reason you see the same themes throughout every article, commercial and advertisement is because you are being subject to the campaign of a well-funded interest group campaign who will do whatever it takes to gets slots away from Arundel Mills and into Laurel Park.  "No Slots at the Mall" is funded by the Maryland Jockey Club, who also hired an out-of-state firm to get the referendum on the ballot in the first place.

It's time for David Jones and "No Slots at the Mall" to renounce and remove their inaccurate ads, stop the shameful comparison which suggest that gamblers would be a menace to children if they're in close proximity. Sure, they don't come right out and say it, but they want to plant that thought in the back of your head that that gamblers just might molest your child.

Shameful.

Political ads of slots opponents in Anne Arundel County are dishonest

Take a look at this political ad ("Citizen 3") opposing the slots location near Arundel Mills mall:



Here's the quote from the first woman: "A stand-alone venue would be a much better fit."  Well isn't that amazing, because the proposed Cordish slots location is a stand-alone venue; it is not connected to the mall.  Not only is this quote inaccurate, but it implies that the slots location is part of the mall.

The remainder of the quotes reinforce the same thing: "It doesn't make sense; it needs to be in a location by itself."

"Slots and a family-friendly mall do not go together."

"They just don't belong in the mall."

"I don't think it's a good idea to have slot machines there (the mall)."

On a side note: Is anyone really willing to argue that there is really anything family-friendly about Arundel Mills mall?

The next video ("Citizen 1"):



"I have no problem with gambling and slots being in Anne Arundel County, they just don't belong in the mall."

And finally, the same rhetoric in the third video ("Citizen 2"):



"I want a place for my child to be able to go to play safely."  Seriously?!  The mall itself (especially during the holidays) isn't even safe!

"I would not take my children to the mall if there is a slots parlor there."

All three of these ads use quotes that either directly say, or imply, that the slots are in the mall, or part of the mall.  This is simply not true; the Cordish plans have been public for a long time and it is clear that the plans call for a separate facility.  Sure, it's in the same area as the mall, but saying the slots are in the mall is as dishonest as those who refuse to make the distinction that the "mosque" is "at ground zero" rather than two blocks away (see for example that I made this distinction in my comments about that issue).  Does anyone really believe that they won't be able to take their children to a mall when a slots casino is a quarter of a mile away across the parking lot?  Really.