AG’s office says police protection of Horseshoe Casino is valid use of local community grants
Police presence at Horseshoe “arguably” makes the overall community safer because casinos are linked to increased crime, a state lawyer argues
Above: Photo of Baltimore police officers at the Horseshoe Casino on Saturday sparked a debate on Facebook.
State law allows Baltimore great latitude in dispersing local impact funds intended for neighborhoods around Horseshoe Casino, including paying for police officers at and around the facility, the Maryland Attorney General’s Office said today.
In an advisory opinion, a state lawyer said there is nothing to indicate that the 2007 video lottery terminal law precludes the city from using the community revenues to “increase law enforcement capacity to respond to crime incidents. . . within the casino or on casino property located in the community.”
The city has argued that uniformed officers are needed to “respond to crimes in the area and on the casino’s property, including robberies, vandalism, prostitution and gang activity,” wrote lawyer Sandra Benson Brantley in response to a request by state Sen. William C. Ferguson IV (46th), chairman of the Baltimore Casino Local Development Council (LDC).
The presence of uniformed officers assigned to the casino and casino parking garage has become a source of controversy in South Baltimore.
In addition to $1.6 million of local impact grants allocated for nine officers protecting the casino area, The Brew has reported that Police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts is paying overtime to 11 officers assigned to a newly-established “casino mini-district.”
Back and Forth on Facebook
A photo snapped by a South Baltimore resident showing two uniformed officers standing with hands clasped amid the casino’s slot machines Saturday night has caused some lively back-and-forth on Facebook.
“Is this appropriate use of city money, in particular funds that were supposed to be used to help the neighborhoods impacted by the casino?” asked Garrett Schiche, who also posted the photo on Twitter.
Others defended the police presence, with one saying, “Baltimore does not have a good reputation. If it makes tourists feel safe then it is worth it.”
“What are they supposed to be doing right now?” another said, agreeing. “They are probably on standby, which involves standing by and waiting to be needed. It’s not like you found them passed out & snoring like bears.”
Schiche pressed on. “Are resources disproportionately going to ensuring the success of a private entity rather than protecting the wider public?” he asked, adding:
“This has direct importance for us, in our neighborhoods. Do we still have frequent crime in our neighborhood? How about in all the other neighborhoods that are supposed to be covered under the casino impact area?”
In yellow, the outer borders of the Police Department’s new “casino mini-district” and, in red, the casino property itself. Also, $1 million worth of surveillance cameras purchased by the city for use in the vicinity of the casino.
Legality Questioned
At last month’s LDC meeting, Bill Marker questioned whether the allocation of community impact funds for casino protection was permitted under state legislation.
According to the law, 5.5% of slot revenues from the casino are to be used for “improvements in the communities in immediate proximity” to the facility. Marker, a resident of Barre Circle, said the language did not permit funds to be used to directly benefit the casino, which is privately owned and operated.
Brantley framed her advisory by citing research showing that casinos increase crime in the communities where they are located.
Saying there is “little doubt” that the need for public protection will only increase around Horseshoe, Brantley wrote that “increased capacity in light of a growing need arguably is an improvement for the immediate community overall.”
Yes, with an Exception
She followed that remark with an important caveat: “At the same time, it is unlikely that the General Assembly intended that local impact grant funds be used to pay for ordinary business expenses incurred by the casino, such as security guards.”
She concluded, “In my view, so long as the City uses local impact grant funds for one of the listed purposes” in the law – which includes public safety as well as infrastructure improvements, sanitation and community development – the allocation of police, surveillance cameras and personnel to monitor the surveillance cameras is in compliance with the law.
The new casino, operated by Caesars Growth Partners LLC, has an undisclosed number of security guards on its payroll.
– Fern Shen contributed to this story.