Should the Preakness stay in Baltimore?

Roughly Speaking

The battle over keeping the Preakness in Baltimore has ignited a divisive political conflict that’s quietly been brewing, mostly out of public view, for years. For nearly 150 years, the second jewel of the triple crown has hosted names like Seabiscuit, Secretariat and dozens of two-legged celebrities for the Preakness, including models, athletes, and actors. The race attracts hundreds of thousands of fans to the area on Preakness weekend.But despite its historic roots, the millions of dollars it generates, and a state requirement that Baltimore must host the Preakness barring an extreme disaster or emergency, its owners have expressed more interest in investing its future in its Laurel Park facility, some 30 miles away.Baltimore Sun reporting revealed this year that the Canadian-based Stronach group, the owner of the track and the race, has spent most of the state aid it receives for track improvements on Laurel Park since 2013. Though track in Laurel hosts significantly more horse racing events than its Baltimore counterpart and may prove to be in better condition, city residents, neighborhood leaders and others maintain that moving the Preakness away from Baltimore would wreak further havoc on an area in decline.In this episode: Community leaders, city residents, policy experts and Baltimore Sun reporters wade in to help untangle the question at the heart of this debate: Is the Baltimore Preakness worth saving? *Note: A previous version of this episode misstated when the Baltimore Colts left Baltimore. The Colts left Baltimore in March 1984. We regret the error.