Makes me sick how the media can be bought and manipulated so easily in this country which supposedly counts justice, fairness, truth, blah, blah, blah as major building blocks of its foundation. Sheldon must've been upset at the incredibly lopsided commentary regarding the stadium so he shuts down the comments section of the RJ. And now we get articles on how the public is going out and supporting this scam without the benefit of reading how the public actually feels. Nice.
Disgusting
- Thread starter JTthe2nd
- Start date
Sorry for you, but 90% of those people in LV want the project. As for the comment section of the RJ, that has always been an exclusive location for anti-UNLV propaganda by a very small group of people.
As for the RJ, most of the people on this site stopped following the RJ many years ago. Almost all newspapers have an agenda.
As for the media overall, they have been owned by politicians for years.
As for the RJ, most of the people on this site stopped following the RJ many years ago. Almost all newspapers have an agenda.
As for the media overall, they have been owned by politicians for years.
Last edited:
Agreed. I think papers have always been able to be influenced to some degree, but now it's rampant and blatant. Major papers have dropped to hover just above The Enquirer. All media nowadays. Such slants, no news.
Don't think we will ever know the true meaning. Too many interests that try and control public opinion to have any accuracy. I doubt it's 90 percent on either side. Probably closer to 50/50, 60/40 either way. Probably won't matter anyway.
I would say it is closer to 90% than 50%. The construction industry (10% of jobs) and the tourism industry (30%) combined make up almost half of all jobs in LV, and with all the new tourism and construction jobs, every one of their unions is backing the projects. Currently there are still a lot of people in both of these industries making far less money than they did before the economy crashed, and they see this is an abundance of good paying jobs. Most people know that this tax is totally on the back of the tourist with none of the cost coming from the Southern Nevada taxpayers.
The only additional tax is the separate item for the police sales tax increase (funny considering they just increased the sales tax less than a year ago for the same item)
The only additional tax is the separate item for the police sales tax increase (funny considering they just increased the sales tax less than a year ago for the same item)
I don't like how the folks that oppose this are hiding behind education to do it.
Additionally, Sandoval just passed the largest increase in education funding the last legislative session. from the USA Today:
The Nevada legislature approved the state's largest-ever tax hike that will raise up to $1.1 billion in new and extended taxes to initiate far-reaching reforms in Nevada's struggling K-12 education system.
In a 30 to 10 vote Sunday, the Assembly approved all three major facets of Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval's tax plan, including his "Nevada Revenue Plan," which is a hefty hike on cigarette taxes and the continuation of a group of formerly temporary business taxes called the "sunsets."
Last edited:
I hate to quote Bobby Knight, and I'll change the wording slightly, but....
If (the Stadium Deal) is inevitable, relax and enjoy.
If (the Stadium Deal) is inevitable, relax and enjoy.
This. People treat it like a one or the other proposition (stadium or education), when in reality, it's stadium or lining the pockets of politicians.
FWIW, if education was an option for where this money would go, that's what I would want. But the reality is that it isn't, so why not create jobs for the city and revenue for the university, much of which doesn't go back into athletics.
I have yet to run across one single person against it in my experiences so far.
Seriously? Are you talking UNLV fans or general public? I think you might see near polar opposite numbers between the two groups. I've met plenty of non-sports fans dead set against it. And I think the primary reason is there is a ton of ignorance out there to the real workings of the deal. If they fully understood the ins and outs, the non-supporter numbers would shift greatly, IMO.
I'm quite glad I'm not gonna have to pay for it cause I don't live there. Especially when Chris Hansen in Seattle is going to work on a NBA stadium without any public finding.
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/...-all-private-funding-for-proposed-sodo-arena/
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/...-all-private-funding-for-proposed-sodo-arena/
Well if you lived in Las Vegas, you wouldn't pay for it. The tourists pay for it. You are more likely to pay for it as a visitor if you happen to stay in a hotel.
Initially, yes. It could drive folks to visit somewhere else other than Las Vegas if lodging is too high. See: St. Louis Rams stadium and the city is still paying for it. There's a great NY Times article on it. Vegas won't see a dime of the profits, and it'll host less than 50 events a year. Not a good investment. The current largest stadium subsidy is Lucas Oil Stadium at $620m. $750m is a 21% increase on the highest subsidy ever for a stadium...
Vegas should ask Adelson if he really wants it, to pony up the rest of the money from his $28 billion piggy bank.
When I personally visit, I stay with friends or family, so a room tax doesn't affect me much.
I might be mistaken, but I could have sworn I saw a dollar figure with regards to the tax increase. It added up to something like 1-2 dollars per night, per room.
I don't know about you, but if I'm planning a trip somewhere, paying $150 per night instead of $149 per night isn't going to sway me in the slightest respect, let alone entirely change my destination.
MGM already built an NBA/Hockey arena without public funding. Big difference in dollars between a basketball arena and a football stadium.
By the way, Chris Hansen must have done pretty well for himself confronting all the guys who would come over to "talk" to the teenage girls if he's gonna build an NBA arena.
I'm against them moving here and I know others who feel the same way. This article has some pretty scary stuff in it IMO. Seems like we're being lied to. There is no proof that people who live in Vegas won't end up paying for it, so all the claims about this being free are very questionable at best. Here are some parts that were interesting to me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/s...ers-nfl-stadium.html?curator=SportsREDEF&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/s...ers-nfl-stadium.html?curator=SportsREDEF&_r=0
Last edited:
