Two personal insults in one thread... we need to ban these two. Can I get an “Amen” to that?
It is amazing how many people are clueless how the Stadium is funded!
- Thread starter Rebel1986
- Start date
Respectfully, I don't quite agree. I am a local resident and college football fan with no direct connection to UNLV. I hated the funding deal for the stadium. The way the VGK were funded -- privately -- was perfect and makes me like them more. What many fail to understand is that Las Vegas is attractive enough for a team like the Raiders that eventually one would move here and pay their own way, just like what happened with the VGK.
To your point, while the hotel tax was never intended to go elsewhere, one must realize that there is a finite amount that said tax can be raised. If it was going to be raised, it could have been spent on anything. I would have much rather had it spent on education -- even on UNLV directly would have been fine.
Spending tax dollars -- no matter what tax they come from -- on a pro sports team is crazy. Here, it is worse as we are seeing that the public owns essentially none of the stadium and the Raiders have total control over it (even squeezing out UNLV home games).
This tax was agreed to by those who wanted the stadium, and they are the ones that want the stadium. Finite amount that tax can be raised? How about the public entities learn to live off exactly the same percentage year after year and never increase the tax, and that only be left to special funding for items requested by those who actually pay the taxes instead of those who want others to provide additional funding to their personal benefit.
As for more money for the CCSD, not in a million years. They toss money in the trash by the 100's of millions and have turned into a social program that gives free food to any and all even including family members. Received an e-mail over the summer letting me know that they would provide free meals to family members if they wanted to show up. They also push their own political beliefs and harass those who do not agree with their political agenda, so I am happy to never provide any additional funding to the school district.
As for more money for the CCSD, not in a million years. They toss money in the trash by the 100's of millions and have turned into a social program that gives free food to any and all even including family members. Received an e-mail over the summer letting me know that they would provide free meals to family members if they wanted to show up. They also push their own political beliefs and harass those who do not agree with their political agenda, so I am happy to never provide any additional funding to the school district.
I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. I'd more accurately frame it as the tax was agreed to by the legislators, who saw it as an easy way to raise taxes without upsetting their constituents. Their other options were to not raise the tax (fine by me), or to raise the tax and use the funds on something else (I'd be better off with this than the stadium). I was just giving "education" as an example of one way the funds could have been spent. I'm not knowledgeable enough about CCSD to understand their fundamental problems, and was not making a statement on that.
That wasn't the main point of my previous post though. Spending any public money on a pro sports team is a ridiculous concept that has not proven to be a good "investment" anywhere else. And, it was not necessary in Las Vegas either. This city is an attractive enough destination that eventually pro sports teams will want to move here (see, NHL) regardless of public funding incentives.
It is clear you are making a statement that taxes that had been voted on to be raised by the hotel casinos specifically for the stadium should be instead redirected to a pet project of you or someone else. This tax was raised for only one reason, and the casinos would have never voted to increase their tax for any other use. If you want to spend money on public projects, why don't you donate your own money instead of insist that taxes are raised on other people.
Not to delve into politics etc. I'm fiscally pretty conservative. Not a fan of corporate welfare, bailouts or tax dollars funding building projects like Allegiant stadium, regardless if the taxes are on locals and or tourists. There are numerous articles that show how stadiums have not brought the financial boom to cities that many anticipated.
That said, Vegas is a different animal. We see it with VGK games, 20%, sometimes more are away fans. That's in an 18k seat arena. Now we are talking a 65k seat stadium. The concerts, the conference championships, potential NCAA tournament games down the road etc should bring in some extra tourism which is always good for the city.
I'm not enamoured with the idea of tax dollars paying for the stadium, but with Vegas it might work out where in other cities it hasn't.
As for the money going to education/CCSD, I'm all for it once CCSD allows an audit. Say the words external audit to those in charge there and watch how quickly things get quiet. Take a trip down Sahara and view the CCSD building affectionately called the Taj Mahal by folks that work for CCSD. Not sure I trust those folks with my tax dollars any more than I like seeing the tax dollars used for a stadium.
Last edited:
That is pretty much it. The tax, if the Raiders opted not to come, would though have had a secondary purpose in building UNLV a new stadium up to $300 million. Without looking I believe that was the amount. Raiders coming ended up with a $750 million tax. Either way there would have been a lodging tax.
The amount was around $500-600 million, but I believe UNLV was going to have to come up with somewhere north of $250 million of that total! I do believe you are correct that if the stadium ended up not being built, they would have gone ahead and used a scaled down amount towards a UNLV stadium based on UNLV providing a portion of the funding out of donations.
But... But... It's for the kids!!!!
I'm being sarcastic since they have 10 thousand six-figure administrators that excel at pushing paper around but they need more funding since the State of NV lags in education.
*Cough*Cough*BS*Cough*Cough*
This is a fair line of thought. I don't think the VGK comparison is really valid here though except as a method for which this should have happened -- without public money.
The issue was the way this was pushed through was to allow as little public input as possible. It was done in a quickly called special session if I recall correctly. Details were not totally ironed out first either. This is evidenced by the fact that UNLV is not able to use the stadium for its games.
It seems to me that Las Vegas / Nevada capitulated to every one of the Raiders' demands despite being in a strong negotiating position -- the Raiders weren't likely staying in Oakland and had limited quality options as to where to move to.
At least, if that had happened, UNLV would presumably have owned the stadium and gotten revenue from it. All of the revenue from the stadium being built will go to the Raiders. They don't even have to pay property taxes! One would have thought 750 million would buy at least a portion of ownership of the venue being built.
I was only using VGK as an example of how much tourism might come in for Raider games. I have to imagine 20k for all home games? Maybe more?
He actually has some valid points.
I posted articles last time that showed stadiums that have been funded by tax dollars have not been traditionally good for the cities. They do not generate the expected revenue.
That doesn't mean it won't work here.
But..
I think it's right to question why the richest professional sports league in the country needs tax payer dollars to move franchises around. It's fair to question why a franchise that according to Forbes is worst 2.1 billion dollars needs tax dollars to relocate and build a stadium.
Essentially it's a parachute.
I hope it works.
I think it will because Vegas is different.
But there are legitimate concerns.
Last edited:
It isn't in regards to concerns that the stadium will succeed, and that they will have issues with covering the bond cost, it has more to do with his acting like this tax money should have been spent on other public projects. This tax was clearly approved only for the development of this project, and would have never been approved by those who will be paying this tax for any other type of us.
The Vegas is different thing is really, really a big deal. I think it will work because of that. It might not but I think it gives it a better chance. I don’t think there’s a ton of things you can do by the traditional route. It’s one of, if not the most, unorthodox cities in the country, even world. Normal rules don’t apply.
And I agree with you regarding tax money for education. I’m a huge fan of education but I don’t trust things here. It’s more like big business. I wish it was all spent wisely, if it were, we wouldn’t be 49th. But why do they need that specific tax money. The weed money they are taking in (lol) gets us 15 armed security guards at each public school.
Gotta love money, power, and politics.
I don't really understand this point at all. Those who will be paying this tax didn't approve it. They don't even live in the state. In any event, it is a totally irrelevant point. It is public/government funds, regardless of how raised. Just because "this tax was clearly approved only for the development of this project," doesn't mean it makes financial sense.
I'm not sure why it is controversial to suggest that the city/state/unlv got a bad deal here -- and at the very least should have gotten a portion of ownership or other guarantees as to the stadium to help ensure it is a good deal for the public. Somehow, in a much less financially profitable league, the VGK owner built an arena and paid for an expansion team himself. What happened here is that the Raiders wanted to have their cake (public funds) and eat it too (total control). They should have at least had to choose one or the other, but the negotiators did a poor job.
Considering you are clueless, it is time for you to go away. By the way, the stadium is owned by the Las Vegas Stadium Commission, which is under the Clark County Commission, but that doesn't fit your agenda does it?
"and at the very least should have gotten a portion of ownership or other guarantees as to the stadium to help ensure it is a good deal for the public."
The above statement shows that you most likely live out of state and definitely only read those headlines and stories from people who are against the stadium, and make you statements based on you lack of education in the truth.
"and at the very least should have gotten a portion of ownership or other guarantees as to the stadium to help ensure it is a good deal for the public."
The above statement shows that you most likely live out of state and definitely only read those headlines and stories from people who are against the stadium, and make you statements based on you lack of education in the truth.
Last edited:
A fair amount of people typically against the stadium are against it for this reason.
It required public funding/tax dollars.
No the money would not have been approved to go to other projects or things like education.
But it certainly raises a number of questions
Namely why the Raiders, a franchise who according to Forbes is worth 2 billion dollars needed any public/tax dollars to build a stadium at all.
The other proposed project (name escapes me) would have given UNLV 300 million I think for an on campus stadium. This would arguably have been a better deal for UNLV as they would be the only tenant and not had to work around the Raiders schedule. Would also likely have dropped game day operation costs as the proposed stadium was around 45k seats and smaller in scale.
I find the arguments for and against the stadium pretty interesting. One aspect in particular being, the number of people who claim to be fiscal conservatives willing to suspend their ideology because this is something they want to see personally (professional sports/nfl in Vegas).
Magestic/Majestic, I think.
At the time, I think I preferred being with the big stadium, but it wasn’t like I was gung ho sold on it, it really didn’t matter, we just needed to get away from the Dust Bowl.
In retrospect, I’d rather have the smaller project owned by UNLV. I think the Raiders had means, but saw an opening here and took full advantage, and are a moderate parasite in this relationship.
That's the one....
Personally think that could have been a better deal for UNLV to be honest.
I just find it funny..Bill to raise taxes for education or roads or police etc comes up.
Hell no!
Stadium...Hell yes!
That said, the unique nature of Vegas makes it more likely that this will work out for the city where it failed other places.
The VGK arena is owned by MGM. They saw the value in having T Mobile since they will attract events other than the VGK games.
For me, the reason I figured that we should attempt this stadium is that it will attract even more people to LV and its funded by tourists. In terms of providing more funding for education, I see what doing that previously caused (the aforementioned Taj Mahal and 6-figure administrators who occupy space in said venue). If the funding hired more teachers and moved those teachers out of the mobiles they are teaching in I'd be more for it. I'm aware that there have been more schools built lately (one was named after my uncle), but I still see Taj and shake my head.
For me, the reason I figured that we should attempt this stadium is that it will attract even more people to LV and its funded by tourists. In terms of providing more funding for education, I see what doing that previously caused (the aforementioned Taj Mahal and 6-figure administrators who occupy space in said venue). If the funding hired more teachers and moved those teachers out of the mobiles they are teaching in I'd be more for it. I'm aware that there have been more schools built lately (one was named after my uncle), but I still see Taj and shake my head.
Exactly.
The idea of public money or tax dollars basically being corporate welfare irks me some.
But for the reasons you mentioned it should ultimately be a positive to the driving force of the economy here which is tourism.
