The Great Giveaway
Why High Taxes Don’t Equal Strong Services - Unmasking the Quiet Deals That Drain Our Communities
The Paradox of a Wealthy County With Weak Services
When I talk to people about Prince George’s County, I hear a familiar frustration rise to the surface. Folks look around and ask, almost in disbelief, how a place often described as one of the richest Black counties in the United States can still struggle with underfunded schools, aging infrastructure, and public services that never seem to match the tax bills we pay. The question hangs in the air like a challenge: How can a community with so much wealth on paper feel so deprived in practice? What most residents don’t see, and what rarely makes the headlines, is the quiet network of deals, incentives, and concessions that siphon public dollars away long before they ever reach our classrooms, our neighborhoods, or our everyday lives.
What rarely enters that conversation is the simple but uncomfortable truth: the county’s tax base isn’t the problem — it’s the way that base is quietly carved up before it ever reaches the public. For decades, Prince George’s County has offered generous tax breaks, long ‑ term abatements, and incentive packages to stadium developers, casino operators, luxury housing builders, and other large ‑ scale projects that promise “economic transformation.” These deals are often framed as investments in growth, but the returns almost never match the projections. Instead, millions in potential revenue are diverted away from schools, transit, libraries, and essential services, leaving residents to shoulder the burden while private interests walk away with the benefits. The result is a community that pays top ‑ tier taxes but receives bottom ‑ tier services — not because we lack resources, but because so much of our public wealth is given away before it can do any public good.
The pattern becomes even clearer when you look at the marquee deals that have shaped — and drained — Prince George’s County over the past several decades. Take the Washington Commanders’ stadium in Landover, originally built with substantial public incentives and long ‑ term tax concessions that delivered far less economic return than promised. Today, the team is preparing to leave Maryland altogether, with Washington, D.C. advancing plans for a new $3.7–$4 billion stadium at the old RFK site, backed by billions in public subsidies and redirected tax revenues that will stretch well into the 2050s.[1] The proposed D.C. deal includes more than $1.15 billion in public contributions for infrastructure, parking, utilities, and a youth sports complex — all while the team avoids property taxes through a long ‑ term lease arrangement.
Meanwhile, Prince George’s County is left with the familiar aftermath: a publicly supported stadium whose anchor tenant is departing, and a tax base that never saw the projected boom materialize. The same dynamic is now emerging in other large ‑ scale projects, such as the proposed Sphere entertainment venue at National Harbor, which is slated to receive roughly $200 million in combined state, local, and private incentives despite community concerns about traffic, infrastructure strain, and whether the projected $1 billion in annual economic impact will truly reach residents.[2]
And on the horizon, the county faces another high ‑ stakes question: whether to open the door to major data center development. While data centers promise tax revenue, county reports warn they generate few permanent jobs, place heavy demands on the electrical grid, and may raise energy costs for residents — prompting calls for stricter zoning and greater transparency before any new incentives are granted. Together, these examples reveal a consistent theme: large projects arrive with big promises and even bigger public concessions, but the long ‑ term benefits to the community remain uncertain at best.
Understanding the Financial Tools Behind the “Great Giveaway”
Introduction to Financial Tools
Many large-scale developments in Prince George’s County and similar communities are shaped by a set of financial mechanisms designed to attract private investment. These tools—tax incentives, abatements, Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreements, and concessions—are often presented as engines for economic growth and good employment. However, the real impact on public services and transparency can be far more complex.
Definitions and Explanations
Tax Incentives - These are reductions or exemptions from taxes granted to businesses or developers to encourage investment in a particular area. For example, a new stadium developer might receive a property tax break for several years, reducing their operating costs and making the project more attractive. In Prince George’s County, the Washington Commanders’ stadium benefited from such incentives, which were intended to spur local economic activity but ultimately left the county with less revenue than projected.
Tax Abatements - A tax abatement temporarily lowers or eliminates taxes on a property or business, typically for a set period. The idea is to make it easier for new projects to get off the ground. For instance, luxury housing developments in the county have received long-term abatements, allowing owners to pay reduced taxes for years, with the expectation that the development will bring jobs and spending to the area.
PILOT Agreements (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) - PILOTs are arrangements where developers or businesses make negotiated payments to the local government instead of traditional property taxes. These payments are often lower than what full taxes would be, and the specifics are usually determined behind closed doors. PILOTs are common for large, public-facing projects—such as casinos or entertainment venues—where developers argue that their presence benefits the broader community.
Concessions - Concessions may include infrastructure improvements, free land, discounted utility rates, or other benefits granted to developers as part of a deal. These extras, while not always obvious to the public, can add up to significant savings for private interests and further reduce the resources available for public needs.
Economic Development Narrative
These financial tools are consistently marketed as “economic development” strategies. The argument goes that by giving developers a break up front, communities will benefit in the long run from increased jobs, improved infrastructure, and expanded local spending. Major development projects are frequently awarded substantial public incentives based on promises of significant economic returns. Yet in many cases, these anticipated benefits do not materialize, resulting in revenue shortfalls for the community rather than direct taxpayer costs being covered.
These financial tools are consistently marketed as “economic development” strategies. The argument goes that by giving developers a break up front, communities will benefit in the long run from increased jobs, improved infrastructure, and expanded local spending. However, as seen with many of the stadium and casino projects, the projected benefits often fail to materialize, leaving taxpayers to cover the gap.
Transparency and Oversight
Despite their significance, the details of these deals are rarely visible to residents. Negotiations typically occur between developers and government officials with limited public input or oversight. Agreements may be finalized before community members ever learn of them, and the technical nature of the deals can make it difficult for the public to understand their true impact. Political incentives, such as the desire to claim job creation or attract high-profile projects, can further encourage officials to prioritize rapid approval over thorough scrutiny. This lack of transparency means that taxpayers often do not see how much public wealth is being given away—or what they are getting in return.
While tax incentives, abatements, PILOT agreements, and concessions are promoted as pathways to prosperity, their hidden costs and lack of transparency often undermine public services. When millions in potential revenue are diverted to private interests, schools, transit, libraries, and other essential services are left underfunded. For Prince George’s County and similar communities, greater oversight and public involvement are critical to ensuring that economic development truly benefits all residents—not just a select few.
Case Study #1: The Washington Commanders Stadium Deal
The original Maryland stadium deal for the Washington Commanders (formerly Washington Football Team) stands as a prominent example of how economic development incentives are deployed and their broader implications. In Prince George’s County, officials granted substantial tax incentives to the stadium developer, including property tax breaks and infrastructure concessions, with the aim of stimulating local economic growth.3
These incentives reduced the team’s operating costs and were justified by promises of increased jobs, local spending, and enhanced prestige for the county.4
Despite these economic promises, the actual outcomes fell short of expectations. While the stadium did attract visitors and some temporary economic activity, the projected long-term benefits—such as sustained job growth and increased tax revenues—did not materialize. Instead, the county found itself with less revenue than anticipated, as the tax breaks and abatements diverted millions away from essential public services like schools, road maintenance (i.e. snow removal) and transit.
The Commanders’ eventual departure from Prince George’s County revealed the vulnerability of such incentive-based deals. Once the team leaves, the county will be left with ongoing infrastructure costs and diminished tax income, which raise questions about the long-term sustainability of stadium subsidies. This outcome illustrates how short-term economic development strategies can leave lasting fiscal challenges for local governments.
The emerging proposal for a new stadium in Washington, D.C., slated for 2030, further complicates the regional landscape. 2 Competing jurisdictions are now offering even larger incentives to attract high-profile projects, intensifying the race for development and public spending. Policymakers and residents should thoroughly review these deals and push for greater transparency in negotiations.5
---
Case Study #2: Casinos and Entertainment Districts
The development of MGM National Harbor and similar casino projects in Prince George’s County has been accompanied by a suite of economic incentives, including PILOT agreements, tax abatements, and infrastructure concessions. These arrangements were intended to position the county as a premier entertainment destination, promising significant job creation and expanded local tax bases.* 6
However, the gap between projected economic uplift and actual community benefit remains stark. While casino revenues have increased, much of the financial gain has been offset by the incentives granted to developers. The anticipated spillover effects—such as increased local spending and employment—have not fully materialized, leading to disappointment among residents and policymakers.
Moreover, the allocation of casino revenue has not resolved core service deficits. Although some funds are earmarked for public programs, the diversion of potential revenue through incentives means that schools, libraries, and transit systems continue to face budgetary shortfalls. This case highlights the need for a more strategic approach to economic development, ensuring that public resources are used effectively and equitably.
This pattern is not unique to Prince George’s County. In nearby jurisdictions, the Maryland Live Casino in Anne Arundel County and the Horseshoe Casino in Baltimore City have followed similar trajectories. Both projects were supported by substantial incentives and public investments, with local governments aiming to revitalize their economies and generate new revenue streams. As with MGM National Harbor, these casinos were touted as engines of job creation and urban renewal, but questions remain about the long-term benefits for surrounding communities.
For example, Maryland Live has generated significant gaming revenue, but critics note that the broader economic impact has been muted by the costs of tax breaks and infrastructure support. Similarly, the Horseshoe Casino’s presence in Baltimore has not delivered on early expectations for substantial neighborhood revitalization or sustained job growth, with some local services still struggling to see meaningful improvements. These cases further illustrate the complexities and trade-offs of using public incentives to attract large-scale entertainment developments.
---
Case Study #3: Large-Scale Housing and Mixed-Use Developments
Prince George’s County has also extended tax breaks and abatements to developers of luxury housing and mixed-use projects. These incentives are often justified by the “growth pays for itself” narrative, which claims that new development will generate enough economic activity to offset the initial loss of tax revenue.
While it is encouraging to see new communities such as Westphalia, Beechtree, Balmoral, Woodmore, Fairwood, South Lake, and Mill Branch Crossing take shape in Prince George’s County, a significant issue persists: developers have not been required to directly fund the infrastructure improvements—such as upgraded roads and new schools—needed to support the influx of residents in these areas. As a result, the responsibility for building and maintaining essential public services often falls to the county and its taxpayers, rather than being shared equitably with those driving the growth.
In reality, the costs associated with rapid development—such as increased demand on schools, roads, and utilities—frequently exceed the additional revenue generated. Infrastructure strain becomes apparent as public services struggle to keep pace with population growth, and the promised economic benefits remain elusive.
---
Emerging Frontiers: Data Centers and the Next Wave of Incentives
The push for data center development in Prince George’s County represents the latest frontier in the use of economic incentives for attracting private investment. Data centers are often granted property tax reductions, expedited permitting, and utility concessions, with the expectation that they will drive technological growth and diversify the local economy.
Yet, the trade-offs of such deals are significant.
Data centers typically create few permanent jobs while consuming large amounts of energy and placing new demands on local infrastructure. The experience of Northern Virginia’s data center boom offers cautionary lessons: unchecked incentives can lead to zoning conflicts, environmental strain, and limited public benefit.*7,8,9,10
---
The Regional Pattern: D.C., Maryland, and Virginia in a Race to the Bottom
A recurring theme across the region is the competition among jurisdictions—D.C., Maryland, and Virginia—to attract the same developers, teams, and large-scale projects. This rivalry often results in a “race to the bottom,” where local governments offer increasingly generous incentives, weakening their bargaining power and eroding the tax base. Recent examples include the high-profile negotiations surrounding the Washington Commanders and Washington Wizards franchises. Both teams have actively courted offers from multiple jurisdictions, leveraging their economic and cultural significance to secure the most favorable terms. The Washington Commanders, for instance, explored new stadium sites in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, prompting each locality to propose escalating incentive packages, including tax breaks, infrastructure commitments, and expedited permitting. Similarly, the Washington Wizards’ ownership considered moving the team from D.C. to Virginia, sparking a competitive bidding process between the District and Northern Virginia officials, each offering substantial public subsidies and development concessions.11,12,13
The cumulative effect is a diversion of public wealth away from essential services. As millions are granted to private interests, schools, libraries, and transit systems are left underfunded, harming long-term community welfare. The lesson for policymakers is clear: regional cooperation and standardized incentive policies are needed to prevent destructive competition and protect public resources.
---
Who Really Benefits — and Who Pays the Price
An analysis of economic development incentives in Prince George’s County reveals a consistent pattern: developers, team owners, and private investors are often the primary beneficiaries, while residents shoulder the long-term costs. These costs manifest as higher taxes, reduced public services, and increased fiscal pressure on local governments.
For a majority-Black county, the racial and economic justice implications are especially pronounced. Diverting public wealth to private entities can exacerbate existing inequalities, leaving vulnerable communities with fewer resources and opportunities. To truly serve the community, development deals must be structured so that residents directly receive the benefits of public investment. It is the responsibility of policymakers and decision makers to put safeguards in place and actively ensure these benefits are delivered, making certain that citizens—not just private interests—are the primary beneficiaries of economic development initiatives.
---
What Stronger Oversight and Smarter Policy Could Look Like
To address these challenges, Prince George’s County and its regional partners should implement stronger oversight and smarter policy frameworks. Transparency reforms, such as public deal disclosures and independent economic impact reviews, can help ensure that incentives are justified and understood by residents.
Guardrails on incentives—such as caps, clawback provisions, and community benefit agreements—can prevent excessive giveaways and ensure that developers deliver on their promises. Most importantly, reinvesting in public goods like education, transit, and health care should be prioritized as the true engines of economic growth.
---
Conclusion: Reclaiming Public Wealth for Public Good
The evidence from Prince George’s County is clear: the county is not inherently poor, but its resources are being drained by a pattern of costly economic development incentives. By reasserting public interests, demanding greater accountability, and fostering a new conversation about development, policymakers and residents can work together to reclaim the county’s future.
Moving forward, a commitment to transparency, equitable investment, and community empowerment will be essential for ensuring that economic development serves the public good—not just private profit.
The path to reclaiming public wealth requires vigilance, policy innovation, and the active participation of all residents. By learning from past experiences and insisting on smarter strategies, Prince George’s County can build a more prosperous and equitable future.
Dr. Lawrence Anderson
Source: Fenit Nirappil & Sam Fortier, “How D.C. won the Commanders stadium sweepstakes, for now,” The Washington Post, January 8, 2024.
Source: Katie Shepherd & Meagan Flynn, “A $1 billion Sphere venue is planned for D.C. area. Will taxpayers help pay for it?” The Washington Post, January 23, 2024.
3. See “Tax Abatements,” “PILOT Agreements (Payment in Lieu of Taxes),” and “Concessions” in the preceding section for details on the types of incentives commonly used in such deals.
4. Refer to the “Economic Development Narrative” paragraph in the context for further discussion on the rationale behind these incentives and their expected outcomes.
5. Refer to the “Economic Development Narrative” paragraph in the context for further discussion on the rationale behind these incentives and their expected outcomes.
6. See “Tax Abatements,” “PILOT Agreements (Payment in Lieu of Taxes),” and “Concessions” in the preceding section for details on the types of incentives commonly used in such deals.
7. The Washington Post, “How Data Centers Are Remaking Northern Virginia,” 11/18/2022.
8. The New York Times, “Data Centers Are Taking Over the World,” 2/6/2023.
9. Loudoun County Government, “Data Center Impacts and Planning,” 2021.
10. Northern Virginia Regional Commission, “The Data Center Boom: Economic and Environmental Impacts,” 2020.
The Washington Post, “Commanders’ stadium chase sets up bidding war between D.C., Maryland and Virginia,” 2/25/2022.
The New York Times, “With Wizards’ possible move, D.C. and Virginia offer competing deals,” 3/14/2024.
13. Citizens Against Government Waste, “The Scandal of Taxpayer Funded Stadiums,” 4/2/2023. [https://www.cagw.org/fields-of-failure-the-scandal-of-taxpayer-funded-stadiums/]
Check out: “The Synthetic Empire: The Rise of Corporate Rule, the Fall of Democracy, and the Path to Reclaim Our Future” by Dr. Lawrence Anderson
