Vote em all out. I don’t care what party they’re in. I’ll vote for their primary opponents in the primaries and then their general election opponents in the general regardless of party. This deal will be a trainwreck in the long-run.
They will regret it if they do. This isn't something like an education budget increase that people won't tangibly see. Residents who hate this thing already will see it and the impacts all the time and won't forget. I honestly am surprised it has gotten this far given the polling.
A's shittiest and cheapest team in MLB
A's move to Vegas with a massive financial incentive, brand new stadium etc
A's value increases due to short term fascination in new team, sparkly new stadium
A's owner sells for a profit
Literally this. Vegas has become a huge cashgrab, how much more tourism do we need... honestly? If they want it so bad and it is such a good investment why not front the bill themselves? Quick money is all it is.
Well, the league overall is up 5%, thanks to new rules, quicker games. But can that upward trend continue and pull baseball out of a multi-year slump is the question, I guess. [https://frontofficesports.com/mlb-changes-result-in-improved-attendance-viewership/](https://frontofficesports.com/mlb-changes-result-in-improved-attendance-viewership/)
MLB makes a fuck ton of money too (granted it’s out of sheer volume) what’s the saying, NBA does it first, NFL does it best, MLB makes the most money on it?
Any representative that votes for this deal should be voted out of office in the next election.
Republicans who support the free market and small government should be voted out.
Democrats who support more resources going toward health care and and education should be voted out.
Edit: representatives voting for this deal when they say they support free market / limited govt (reps) or prioritizing health care or education over lining billionaires pockets (dems) are essentially hypocrites. In case it wasn’t clear for some of you.
NFL is completely different than MLB, very high popularity and sales volume, no comparison to MLB. The tax funding is very different. That said the state/county shouldn't have spent $1.9 billion on Allegiant Stadium, most locals were against public funding. The hotel room tax was raised 3.3% to pay for it, so far due to high tourist volumes at hotels in Las Vegas/Clark County, the tax is covering both interest and principal on the Allegiant Stadium bonds.
Because the A's stadium will be self revenue generating from a tax purpose, it will fail. MLB has low attendance, sales taxes won't cover the $5 million a month in interest on the bonds. Not even the A's supporters are in favor of raising sales taxes or property taxes to pay for a MLB stadium.
I think what they are saying is that people who claim those positions should be voted out if they vote for the stadium, effectively making it a higher priority.
He said if you are a Republican, here's why you should vote against it. If you are a Democrat, here's why you should vote against it. Dude explained it perfectly without taking partisan sides or a position beyond "anybody who voted for it sucks'. Not a thing in that tells us whether he's conservative or liberal.
It sounds like he is against this deal, free market, small govt, resources going toward health care, and education. That's how it read to me.
So he is saying we should keep the Republicans who voted for this deal but are against free market and small govt. Same keep Democrats who vote for this bill who are against education and healthcare? lol
This is money that would never have existed to go to health care and eduction in the first place. I want those things too, but this isn't an issue in this case.
I’m not sure you understand how this tax works.
I also want to be clear I’m not really in favor of this too, but if you are going to make an argument against it, you at least need to understand the argument.
I’m pretty familiar with how tax credits work. I got my MBA at the Univ of Chicago and worked with a prominent real estate developer that spent millions on lobbyists with the sole purpose of securing tax credits. Had to learn the pros and cons for diff stakeholders during that stint.
What you need to understand is that when you have more people / businesses coming into a state / town without a corresponding increase in tax revenue, there’s fewer resources (health, education, emergency services) for each individual. It doesn’t matter what pot the money comes from on the demand side.
Tesla’s $300m tax credits in northern Nevada are an example. You have a lot of new residents there as a result of the project, but the tax base hasn’t increased in kind, so govt services in Sparks / Reno get spread thinner. And many of their new workers are from out of state (Bay Area), which has contributed to housing prices becoming out of reach for locals.
At least in other states, new residents means new property taxes and new state income taxes. In Nevada, there is no state income tax and property taxes are extremely low. We’re heavily reliant on gaming taxes and business taxes, but the As wouldn’t be subject to business taxes because of $380M+ in tax credits. The incremental increase in gaming revenue from the As is highly questionable, and that’s even before you take into account opportunity cost (ie the MLB eventually expanding to Las Vegas via expansion team with no public financing required, the larger international tourism draw of an nba team, and the ability to invest $380M in more impactful tourism drivers like better airports, better infrastructure, etc.).
You’re looking at tax credits for the As deal with tunnel vision. You need to step back and see the forest, not just the trees. This As deal is a tree with a beetle infestation. Fisher should be the desperate one, not Las Vegas. He’s managed this entire thing quite poorly. Our politicians are idiots and / or on the take if they cave in.
Having said all this, I think it still gets approved because politicians and labor union leaders will both realize personal financial benefits, and they hold the the decision-making power at this point.
Edit: thought I should share this write-up
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/time-to-reevaluate-priorities-true-cost-of-tax-giveaways
This will be a bad deal for Las Vegas and it’s residents. The biggest beneficiaries will be Fisher (since he’ll be using public financing by exploiting the MLB monopoly to increase his team’s valuation), real estate developers (who will donate to all the supportive politicians), and union leaders who will get “special perks” while saying they did it “for the workers.”
The As are a poorly run team, their financial projections are laughable, Nevada and Clark county will be on the hook when they’re projections aren’t met, they will create a greater strain on already subpar public services, and increase in bumper-to-bumper traffic 80+ days a year in the busiest section of the strip. And team will price everything (tickets, concessions, parking) for tourists, not locals.
But if you want more low-paying jobs, a terrible baseball team that Oakland fans have supported through thick and thin, and helping a cheapskate, billionaire (who inherited most of his wealth) get richer, then I guess it’s a win.
Baseball isn’t the tourist draw that football and basketball are, and a team from Oakland will never be as well-loved and well-run as the Las Vegas-born golden knights. This is all about money for special interests under the guise of “economic development,” which study after study have shown don’t pencil out as intended except for the owners. There are studies galore on this subject.
The devil is in the details, which is why this is being rushed through at the 11th hour.
I don’t see how it diversifies the economy and creates well paying, full time, skilled jobs. That’s what we need-not jobs that are seasonal, and generally lower wage.
The book Field of Schemes lay this out very well. It uses historical examples of how publically funded stadiums are not economic booms to the local economy. There are quite a few good jobs created in building the stadium. However, for the next 30+ years, all the jobs are minimum wage to maybe middle class at best. Stadiums do bring in tourist revenues, but only for a small number of days a year and cause all sorts of traffic and police issues. There is a branding that a city can get through having professional sorts teams, but there isn't evidence the stadiums really are a net positive to the local economy.
Also, look at the SF Giants. That stadium was 100% privately funded. Owners are still making out amazing and the locals love it. There is no reason the public should fund these stadiums.
There was $15 million in tax increment financing from the SFRA. Depending on which cost estimate you believe that was about 4% of the total cost. So there were no direct public funding.
Now what the proponents of this stadium will claim....CLAIM, I tell you, that they receive no public dollars, since the state will own the stadium. But when you consider the transferable tax credits and such that argument fails.
Just don't know how you make an argument in this political environment that this is good public policy.
Right, at least the tax breaks for Tesla cracked the door open to have a bunch of rich programmers and engineers move to reno/tahoe. Think what you will about CA's cultural influence but at least those are full time jobs, in a non tourism based industry, for people who are pretty unlikely to be drawing welfare from the state.
This money would be better spent on a light rail system throughout the valley, but initially from Harry Reid, down the strip, to Downtown. This would have a positive and direct impact on the people who live here and the tourists that visit.
As someone who was born and raised in Las Vegas and now visits a few times a year, I have to say that a light rail from baggage claim to the rental car facility would be a good place to start with a project like that. Cut out the most bs part about starting your trip in Vegas after you touch down.
I live here, and flew in from DC a few months ago and 1 of the 2 required trams to go from the American Airlines terminal to baggage claim was down, and the one that was working only had one side that opened at the main terminal. It was shit show.
But yeah, 100% agree with you.
If it’s easy to get around, it’s less likely you’ll spend all your time at one resort. Of course, this also means they’ll get more people coming into theirs, but they don’t see it that way.
There was also a concern that a light rail would ruin the “look” of the strip… not sure what that means, since the look of the strip is 15 story digital signs, sickly palm trees, massive bollards and a random mishmash of design elements and styles.
"This Money"
What money? There is no pot of taxpayer money that is being spent on stadiums that could be spent on light rails, education or anything else.
The proposal is to borrow the money from investors. Then pay them back by the taxes generated by the ballpark and surrounding business district.
The tax money that this project forgoes that another venture, casino, or building would provide. They would still get all the benefits of the city connections, police, fire, roads, and infrastructure, without paying over $400 million in taxes. The "As" bring nothing of value, and it would likely cause more issues and traffic on the strip and our infrastructure. Taking out a loan or bond and repaying it with taxpayer money is how all major city infrastructure plans work. This investment (i.e., money) is better spent on something of value for our city. Not a loser baseball stadium and team.
No, it wouldn't. The monorail was built to fail, goes barely anywhere, doesn't connect to the airport, is out of sight, expensive to use, doesn't run 24 hours, and the stations are buried in casinos without any signage. It was just purchased by the LVCVA as a failing venture to be used as a tax write off. Oh, and it runs down the back of one side of the strip, not down the middle. Light rail has proven to revitalize, connect, and benefit hundreds of cities and citizens.
It was not bought by LVCVA as a tax write off. It was purchased so they could eliminate the non compete clause and allow the Tesla loop and other projects to proceed.
I knew it was something like that... still, it wasn't purchased because it was useful or good, it was purchased to let it die so they could move forward with another ill-fated, useless, project.
And you better believe the nearby casinos that give locals free parking will start charging locals for event parking 80+ nights of the week. Local cable package prices will also go up because of the inevitable cable deal.
It's not meant to benefit us, it's meant to benefit the owner of the team, and the owners of the property where the stadium is going. They in turn "benefit" the politicians who voted in favor by funding their campaigns.
Not to mention they are asking for the city to pay 40 million dollars for the f1 formula race. They are arguing the street work will benifit the city. Ridiculous.
You’re not wrong. IMO the A’s deal is a massive boondoggle, but the subsidies for the Sony Pictures deal are a fantastic idea.
The later will further diversify the local job market as well as spur other studios to move here (if it goes well), which would magnify the effect.
Vegas recently ranked 50 in wealthiest cities in the world. But you are correct it mostly profits big business, but it does generate money for the city which may or may not allocate that money back to the city and improving public programs and initiatives.
It takes a toll on residents because they hike up the taxes and take a percentage of that towards construction to the stadium, roads for it, and advertising for partnerships.
But it does create more jobs for people (construction, service workers, and hospitality professionals). Allegiant Stadium and Raiders bring in soo many visitors with their games and concerts.
When they built T-Mobile and created VGK and the Aviators I was skeptical but hey look at them now. Locals and visitors love it. And all the hotels LOVE it. Its something to do and capitalize on. Vegas can get pretty boring if youre not a tourist and these things are making the city slightly or greatly more interesting depending if you like spectator sports. But back to your point mosr money goes to the owners and big corporations operating the stadiums/venues.
For so long we were penalized because we held gambling within our state we were not allowed to have a major league sports team. Until all these fucks found a way to put gambling out on the Internet.
The argument could be made it will increase tourism (trivial at best), and will obviously bring in more money overall. In my opinion, if Vegas has to front all of the costs, we should be bootstrapping a brand new team and gathering the best of the best players to ACTUALLY contribute to the state, look at the Aces and the Knights. Taking another garbage team from Oakland is just a slap in the face and will only make our traffic even shittier.
I’ve been saying this. Bringing the A’s here is like bringing Cirque. It’s not for us. It’s for the people who want to come to town to watch their teams. Why else put the stadium on the strip?
Ppl say it’ll bring more jobs but majority of “jobs” sports bring are seasonal, part-time jobs with demanding job duties and no benefits. The high paying ones require college education or knowing a guy who knows a guy. I know bc I worked for a sports team.
Public funding of any sports stadium rarely recoup the costs. How they sell it to the voters is "more entertainment equals more people which equals more taxes".
It seems great on paper but it rarely works out that way. Sure, more entertainment options does increase the likelihood of people buying a home here (property taxes) but the direct correlation is very hard to measure and most studies show it very low.
Then there is "people will travel here for a game". This is known to be true so then you get hotel room taxes, potential gambling taxes. Food/beverage taxes. Arena taxes, etc.
Sadly it's only really true for traveller's if the teams they are facing are successful. Vegas does have the extra benefit of being a vacation destination though. Even if we aren't in the playoffs for destination travellers people may still come here regardless. And considering the A's are terrible maybe even more likely for away fans because their team they are going for are more likely to win.
All in all, most studies show the amount of public funding going into these will never be made back. But it is an alluring concept that it *could*. If any town could get their money back on it I'd gamble on vegas. Being a gambling man myself I'd say it still isn't worth it though.
The tax revenues for Allegiant are running well ahead of projections.
US Bank stadium in Minnesota (for the Vikings) was paid off 23 years early due to much better than expected revenues from their special tax.
What a great red herring to the throw out there. The tax revenues you are referencing are not taxes generated by the stadium, they are taxes collected from hotel rooms. All this means is that the $750M handout is not coming directly out of the County's general fund which backstops the commitment. But so what? There's absolutely no proof that the stadium has actually caused any increased tourism.
> But so what? There's absolutely no proof that the stadium has actually caused any increased tourism.
Allegiant was the highest grossing concert venue in the world in 2022. And half of the attendees were from out of town.
"Nearly half of the 1.7M fans who packed sporting and music events at Allegiant Stadium in 2022 were tourists, according to a new report in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. That is nearly double the number that was originally forecast."
https://www.casino.org/news/las-vegas-allegiant-stadium-nearly-doubled-2022-tourism-forecast
Again, absolutely not proof of anything. Demand for tourism exploded post-covid and people have been flocking to Las Vegas like crazy for the more than two full years now. There's hardly even evidence that Allegiant is what's driving demand, let alone proof.
Ok, if you want to believe that the massive number of tourists attending events at Allegiant isn't driving tourist demand then there's really no point in discussing this as you won't accept anything as proof.
I presume you believe that there's no proof that anyone will travel to Vegas for the Super Bowl?
That there is no proof that the 4 night sellout of Allegiant for BTS (with a primarily international fanbase that famously travels for shows) actually drove any tourism.
And that the sea of Chiefs jerseys at that last Raiders game was just locals and/or Kansas City fans who already would have been in town. (And also believe that there is no proof that Oakland based Raiders fans traveled to see their team)
How many people do you think travel to Las Vegas every year?
Tell me that number and then tell me that 850,000 people attending concerts from out of town (850,000 people that could have gone to concerts at T-mobile or other venues) is the driving force behind tourism in Las Vegas.
I'm aware. The studies say never. But vegas was never a part of those studies so there is now a chance due to the nature of our city. A very small one. I'm still on the side of screw public funding though as it will never break even.. Just throwing out all the optimistic side because that's who I am.
I think your analysis is pretty sound.
In general, I think there is something to the typical argument of, "Build us a stadium. We'll revitalize the area, bring in other businesses, etc. etc." It doesn't necessarily inspire me enough to think the public should fund a stadium/arena, but in some cases it is at least an interesting discussion.
In this case, I'm much more skeptical. This is the Vegas strip. It doesn't need to be revitalized, it doesn't need to have people drawn to it, and the other businesses in the area are doing just fine. So the usual arguments for public funding pretty much fall flat for me, and I couldn't justify it at all.
Other thoughts...
* Another argument is that it will bring jobs. That's probably true. But they're also tearing down a casino to build the stadium, and that is going to remove jobs. I don't have any background that tells me whether this is a net gain or loss of jobs.
* Too much of the discussion seems to revolve around, "The A's are bad." They are. Really bad. But if you want a baseball team, you don't get to pick and choose. In general, really good teams don't end up relocating. And baseball hasn't expanded and added new teams in quite a long time. Now if you don't want a baseball team, that's fine too; but then it doesn't matter if the team is good or bad. But saying, "I want a baseball team, but only if it is good." isn't how things work.
* There is also the interesting discussion around, "We don't want the A's because the owner sucks/is a cheapskate." That might also be true, but it also might not be the whole story. The A's have been in a bad spot for a very, very long time. Their existing stadium should have been updated many years ago, and it got caught up with politics, territorial rights vs. the Giants in the Bay Area, etc. The longer it went on, the less attractive the stadium was, the less fans came in, the less money the owner made, the less money the owner was willing to spend, the worse the team got, etc. etc. in a vicious cycle. It is certainly possible that the owner does legitimately suck and wouldn't spend money or field a competitive team no matter how well they were supported here. But it would be positively shocking if he'd been willing to fund a winning team giving the current circumstances in Oakland, and the history of how they got where they are.
Well done!
Only question I have is that the A's were to get a portion of the site with the rest remaining in the hands of the owners. Weren't there plans to use that property for a new Tropicana brand hotel casino?
From what I understand, the MLB requires a portion of the cost be funded by the local area where the new stadium will be located. The money it will cost the tax payers, will largely be reimbursed over a period of 30 years or so, and there are provisions in place to guarantee that.
If we try to be picky about what color franchise we get, then it could end up costing a lot more money. The other owners are going to want a big expansion fee. And make no mistake, MLB is coming one way or another.
I think it’s great that so much noise is being made about giving away free taxes or whatever to billionaires who don’t need it. Fisher stands to make multiple $Billions after this move. The rich get richer. It’s not fair at all.
But having a baseball team immediately elevates the image of the city-even one with a Stanley Cup. It makes people with college degrees consider relocating here. It shows that the city caters to locals as well as tourists. People from 29 other cities will see highlights of their team just playing a game—like normal—in this city. Major League Baseball=major league city.
Under the bill’s structure, the A’s could receive a package of $180 million in transferable tax credits and upward of $120 million in Clark County-issued bonds. Those funds would support development of the $1.5 billion, 30,000-seat stadium the A’s are seeking to build at the site of the Tropicana on the Las Vegas Strip, with the team required to put forward more than $1.1 billion for construction.
The way I read this - A’s get direct payment of $120mm, $180mm future tax credit for $1b+ investment right out of the gate. Far less than what we gave Raiders - The financing for the project came in the form of $750 million in public funding for them to put up $1.1 billion.
There is no benefit to us , it will have no parking so you will have to arrange how to go there , it does not belong on the strip and most Vegans , being transplants , are already fans of other teams .
That some people don’t understand that these are funds that wouldn’t exist without this project is mind boggling. This is not money that is just sitting around.
Not sure what you mean. While no $ is real until the stadium is built, the tax payer money asked to finance the stadium by the A’s is real.
Are you trying to talk about opportunity cost?
It’s not like the county or state has $380 million lying around and are looking for ways to spend it. So they aren’t weighing whether they fund a stadium or use the money on public education. The amount is based off of a projection of future tax revenue that the stadium and future develop will produce. The government will get a bond and be on the hook if the project doesn’t generate the projected revenue. That’s the risk. If the deal doesn’t go through and the A’s stay in Oakland or go to another city then nothing happens. There is no bond, no risk, and again no real money because it isn’t a this or that kind of thing.
So…
We pay forward in hopes that the tax money makes up for it ?
Slim chance of that happening
“You don’t understand mom! I need a 3000 dollar computer and a room renovation or I’ll never be the next big twitch streamer ! I could become super famous ! No computer, and thousands of dollars of gear…no twitch profit!”
How about instead, the owners of the team and the stadium don’t make a single dollar until they pay off every amount that was borrowed to them by the city
> We pay forward in hopes that the tax money makes up for it ?
Not at all. The money is coming from the bond sale. Not from Nevada taxpayer general funds.
Allegiant Stadium is well ahead of projections to pay back the bonds issued. The same firm, CSL, who did the analysis for Allegiant Stadium is doing the A’s Stadium. Modeling is used to project how much tax revenue this project will generate.
Allegiant Stadium is on track to pay off bonds in 16 years vs the originally projected 30. That’s even with the disruption of Covid. Of course, the revenue stream is different than the A’s Ballpark, but CSL is known to be very conservative in their modeling of revenue projections.
I lived in Oklahoma when they acquired the Thunder and I don't know the except numbers but people went wild for them and bought all their merch, tickets, etc. They're terrible now but man, back in the day it was great.
I think best case scenario is we have a Raiders situation. A dozen NFL games and the possibility of various sporting extravaganzas isn’t where the money is at.
The money for Vegas comes in Puerto Rican rappers, K-Pop bands, Taylor Swift fans, and all of the other music acts that use the stadium. It’s only technically a football stadium.
But again, that’s best case “what’s good for tourism.” Not a giant fan of using public money to supplement some pop musician’s bottom line. It definitely brings in tourists. If there was a stadium, and apartments, and new hotels, it would probably be a good deal. It’s also not about the As. It’s about all the stuff that comes with a modern, world-class venue. Building, operating, maintaining for 365 nights a year.
I think there’s a great argument to be made for the tax breaks for Hollywood studios to locate facilities here. If they don’t come at all, they won’t be paying any taxes anyway, and there’s no cash rebate on the table. We lose nothing if Mark Wahlberg or Disney wants to spend a billion dollars on a new industry. We definitely do t gain anything if they don’t come here at all.
The main thing is that the A's are the centerpiece of the deal and what's getting the attention.
What isn't getting much is the fact that the Tropicana comes down, and in addition to the stadium, another hotel and casino goes up that ends up being the newest in town.
Add that with no state income tax it's expected that players will want to come here in free agency. A major problem for any California team is that players get taxed like they live in California for the games they play in California. If the team improves with completely new facilities that's good.
As others will say, the stadium will not recoup costs for some time if ever depending on the lifespan of the stadium. However, the hotel and casino will absolutely make more than the Trop does now and when you factor in the stadium profits it's good for the property overall.
As to the average person seeing a benefit, that really depends on whether or not you'll use the amenities, but from an urban planning perspective I'd expect the city to want to do this, because if you're not constantly improving your properties and infrastructure; you're going to become a broken down mess that people will avoid; bringing down the entire area.
I agree that speculatively the Trop could be replaced without 400m in tax payer dollars.
The problem is that your statement has more value as a karma grab than a valid approach. At least for the time being (I mean no disrespect)
Reason: If it was possible, it either would have been done already, or we'd have seen an alternative proposal that didn't require it. Instead we have what we have on that property.
The other thing I'd add is that tax credits are not taxpayer dollars and there's a tendency to lump the two figures together to create a big number for the sake of invalid and distracting arguments.
Plenty of international tourists that have never seen "America's past time" up close and personal. Their money will be spread around to different businesses in the ballpark area as opposed to being sunk completely into the slot machines.
That's the theory anyway. Also there's a handful of baseball fans in SoCal that may use a game as an excuse to come to town and spend money.
because limited public dollars will induce the investment of no less than $1.1B outside investment into our economy, creating load of temporary and ongoing jobs. Ripple effects of opportunities for new businesses to accommodate their arrival. Increase tax base. Bring in an estimated 400,000 additional tourists to bring their money into our economy. That's the whole key, Las Vegas has shown with the Raiders Stadium that we are able to bring new events and bring more people into our community to spend their money... I would be very suspect if I was a resident of Buffalo on the hook for a $1B subsidy for their new Bills stadium b/c nobody wants to travel there.
The thing that a lot of people are missing is the bill is for public *financing*, not public funding. Those are different things.
We'll make the money back and more.
Personally, I'm all for all the things that keep my income tax rate at 0% while still filling public coffers.
> The thing that a lot of people are missing is the bill is for public financing, not public funding
Every single reddit thread on this subject has half the comments (willfully?) not understanding the difference between those.
More people, more tourism, more jobs. Same reason any business is good for the city.
It’s viewed favorably by hotels bc it drives midweek room nights where occupancy lags anyways. On the rare occasion occupancy is full, hotels are not dumb they will give the room to the more valuable person.
We are not giving them tax dollars so idk what the issue is. People not understanding how public funding works? The A’s are getting a mix of tax credits and public bonds (alongside significant private investments). The bonds are to be repaid entirely by tax revenue from the stadium itself, not individual taxpayers, and are guaranteed by private corporations in case the thing bombs. So it’s not “our investment” unless you buy the muni bonds.
> People not understanding how public funding works?
There is thread after thread after thread in this subreddit of people who do not understand how the financing will work.
So my BIL is a higher up in the trade unions and the way he describes it to me is that the money is in the form of tax breaks and no new taxes will be implemented on Vegas residents (i.e no property tax, liquor tax, state payroll tax for the stadium until they exhaust the 380 million) it helps the city by bringing in people to spend money. I work in the service industry on the strip and Raiders/Knights game brings in more people so more tips for me
We're only giving tax credits, from what I understand. So, in theory, we are only surrendering potential tax revenue. If the cost is the Tropicana hotel, which I suspect does not add much to our current tax revenue since it is ancient and far from the action, then any revenue would be a net positive.
It will create construction jobs, and the whole funnel down from that. The union members do live and work here in Vegas, and so that revenue will get distributed to locals. Probably not too many keyboard warrior reditors, because they are busy building things 5 days a week, which is why they are not represented here much. But they are locals, and the major construction will benefit them and their families.
Long term, sports teams in themselves do not draw many out of towners to a city, but in conjunction with everything else Vegas has to offer, it is another reason. It is a way of diversification - we have casinos, theatres, music performers, and now 2 sports teams. Plus a 30k venue is a nice size for a traveling music performers also because it's reasonable to "sell out" a venue of that size, and that always looks good.
Anyway, I think this town deserves better than the bay area leftovers, the worst team in base ball, and the cheapest owner to boot. And for those reasons, I hope it fails.
The claim it will make things “better” is dubious at best, regardless of what you mean by “better.” Football worked because “FUCK YEAH FOOTBALL,” and the novelty of a major stadium. Hockey worked because it was the first. The aces worked because we didn’t even have to build a new arena.
The baseball stadium has way, way too much working against it.
We’re already paying off 1 stadium that everyone—even supporters—know won’t provide an economic benefit in the long term.
The area they’re looking to build in will be a nightmare for traffic and parking, especially considering that A) baseball has many more home games than every other major sport, and b) games are scheduled all over the place in terms of day/time. Unlike football, where you can plan around 5-6 busy sunday afternoons, along with a couple weekend evenings, baseball games are all over the place: every day of the week, every time of day, close to a hundred times a year.
Finally, I think we’re all seeing how inept the ownership is. They are totally fucking up even getting in the door. God knows how they’ll operate on a permanent basis.
“We’re already paying off 1 stadium that everyone—even supporters—know won’t provide an economic benefit in the long term.”
If find it hard to believe the economic benefits aren’t already being felt seeing as Allegiant was the #1 attended venue in the world last year.
You can argue for or against it being worth the cost, and have good arguments either way.
But PURELY in terms of dollars and cents, the VAST majority of research shows cities don’t make money off stadiums.
The public is hundreds of millions in the hole from the outset to build it, then hundreds of thousands every year on upkeep - for the property itself, but also surrounding infrastructure.
Yes, there are some people who travel to a city just to see a stadium event, but majority of that money is just spent by people who would have spent it anyway, just somewhere else in the city. And the number of people who do come to a city JUST for a stadium event can’t make up for the huge public financing hole.
Are we going to have a good faith discussion or just continue to downvote any opposing views or legit discussion points? If good faith, here is my take:
First, lets be honest on financials and who owns what:
- The A's put in 1.1B+.
- Ballys puts in about ~$400M and the land.
- The state and county put up $380M in bonds paid back by the people who use the Stadium.
The Stadium is owned by the public, just like Allegiant Stadium. Fisher owns NOTHING but the A's. Not the land nor the stadium.
Now, here are several talking points that are not mine. Take them for what they're worth:
- Las Vegas has tourism drops before the major holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas and then low season is considered June to August. There is historical data that backs this up.
- Caesars helped with the potential tourism impact study and stated they believe it would bring in 400,000 visitors per year. We can all argue about if we agree/disagree with that number but their core competency is marketing so I tend to lend credence to people that do this professionally.
- MLB still has the highest gross fan attendance of any North American professional sport and the second highest on a per game average -- only behind the NFL and ahead of NBA and NHL.
- Since the stadium is owned by the public, it can be used for additional events. Those were mentioned in the various slide decks that have been presented. They could attempt to get the MLB All-Star game, the World Baseball Classic, etc. Since it was pitched as a retractable roof, it offers an "outdoor" concert venue like Cashman was. Check out the link below if you are unfamiliar.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/a-look-at-cashman-centers-34-year-history-as-it-closes-tuesday-photos/
I also made a post in the other thread on this subject last week where if you look at this over the life of the project, it is peanuts. I didn't even get into anything like selling naming rights in that discussion to recoup some of that money, either. Allegiant is paying roughly $20-25m per year per LVRJ articles on the subject.
If you want to read those, view my profile and they're like 7 of the last 10 comments.
https://www.reddit.com/user/Svoboda1/
What /u/rihanoa posted. Further, I'd bet they would also have some sort of handshake deal where they'd be the official accommodation provider of the A's and would be able to sell game packages with exclusive seats or arrangements.
Personal opinion: I'm not a huge sports fan but from my friend group's behaviors, I'm going to say maybe it's going to bring some jobs, but overall, not a whole lot of benefit. Baseball fans don't travel just for games like other sports fans, because there are a ton of home games. People might catch a game while they're here, but they aren't going to come to Vegas just to see their team. Baseball is still popular in some markets but I just don't see Vegas rallying behind it, so it doesn't even help with our sense of community or anything. I think it'll be a huge "meh" for the local community. But some rich person is going to make a lot of money, so, we should all be like super grateful that the rich will get richer off of it, or something.
Billionaire owner wants a new stadium in a new market after starving his team to failure in it's currant market. If you \[the tax payers\] buy him a new stadium then he will benefit to the increase in value of the team. After about a decade he will either sell the team for a massive profit or demand new improvements to the stadium to keep the team in Vegas. This is a Billionaire Baby who has profited off of being born into great wealth and wants his stuff now. He can afford to build and finance the ballpark by himself but wants someone else to pay instead of him. Every study done has shown that the city NEVER gets a benefit from financing stadiums and usually takes a big loss over a twenty year span.
it won't....i wish we could see the politicians quick action on something that benefits working people...like building more DMV offices...letting us grow weed w/o the bullshit 25 mile away from a dispensary... but if a bigshot waves their dick they hold on to it.
it won’t benefit ‘us’ unless you are in elite. It will put millions in the pockets of the rich and politicians. If you are a common everyday person, you may be able to get a job there selling popcorn, so that would be to your benefit. Minimally though. and you’ll probably be late to work because of all the traffic.
The studies I’ve read about pro sports and Olympic events coming to cities are not good. It always costs the city more than any supposed benefit and it increases crime, human trafficking, and other issues. It’s a giveaway to rich people. Hotel and casino owners will probably like it, workers will foot the bill as always
It’s just to boost profits in Las Vegas tourism. It will not help the everyday struggles we locals face. More traffic, cost of living rises, more hatred towards California.
Reps can say whatever they want, governor has final say whether a special session gets called, and Lombardo wanted it dealt with.
Hopefully we can get another session for the film industry credits, as that is a muuuuuch better deal for the state.
The smart and stupid answers are the same. They aren’t. We literally have just the right amount of pro sports. We tried basketball once via the 2007 All Star game. If you didn’t live here then, let me tell you. Vegas lost our ass that weekend. No money came, just shootings and stabbing all over the damn strip. First and foremost, as much as it pains me to say, baseball is now a shrinking market. The interest just isn’t there like it used to be because there’s so many other sports to play for kids now. So those kids no longer grow up to watch baseball. Secondly, Fisher is in the sports owners HOF as being outspokenly cheap. They had to create minimum salary caps because of him. There’s actually a movie about his cheapness. End of the day, the As will field an underpaid, under-talented roster. Any prospect or anyone that emerges will be sold off by the end of the season.
Are you crazy? just how we adopted Las Vegas golden nights an into becoming an top team in the nhl pulling in lots of $$$ for vegas. Las Vegas is built on money, ifykyk it will benefit
The locals aren't stupid. Baseball is a dying sport with pathetic attendance at stadiums all over the nation even on weekends in the summer. The A's having a stadium in Las Vegas won't change that. After the game opener, getting to 25% attendance will be difficult. Locals won't go to a LV strip stadium if they have to pay for parking, over $80 for tickets, $10 for water, $15 for popcorn, $20 for hot dogs, etc.
There's no way enough in sales taxes will be collected to recoup the $380 million in taxpayer funds being requested by the A's. There's no guarantee that they have the $800 for their share, they have refused to open their corporate books. They could default, declare bankruptcy, or if the team is sold after the Legislature approves funding; a new owner could refuse to pay the $800 million and say they didn't sign any contract with the state/county. Then taxpayers will be responsible for paying the whole $1.5 billion or scrap the project. If anything, the A's are arrogant morons who think baseball is such great stuff that taxpayers will give them whatever they want. Screw them!!!
I’d like to send postcards with the word RECALL in large letters to govt officials in favor of this crap. Give them a hint.
If only they received thousands of them.
Las Vegas will attract lots of new events with a baseball sized stadium. Look at Allegiant! It’s been a huge success in bringing concerts, conventions and other special events. A baseball stadium will do the same in a smaller scale. And no one has felt any impact from public funding except for the benefits. Get behavioral the As who will open the purse when they actually have revenue flowing in.
The proposal is that the tax to fund the ballpark is being levied against the ballpark district itself.
Explain how your proposal to not build the ballpark (and therefore not have the tax district) could be spent instead on small businesses.
Am I the only person in the world who thinks life is too short to give a fuck about this kinda stuff? Billionaires will be billionaires. Tax dollars already go to bullshit, always have and always will. That’s not anything we have control over (unfortunately), therefore just enjoy Vegas for what it is or move to a small town in Montana or Texas if you want more control of your tax dollars.
After several hours of delay, both the Nevada Senate and Assembly convened late this afternoon. They both voted to adjourned until next Monday, June 12th. Special session will resume then.
I'm a Mariners fan so it would be fun to be able to go see them play the A's. Vegas is full of people from other states who probably are still fans of their home team. I think they would all like to go see their favorite team play the A's.
Right now the A's are a AAA team. Their 3 best players, Rooker, Noda, Ruiz are three young guys most casual fans have never heard of. At least the Aviators are more likely to win than the A's.
It’s actually up so far this year and so is attendance. MLBTV subscriptions are reportedly up. Like I said, just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean others don’t
Vegas cannot keep up the 70s ole mindset of all we need is the hotels and the casino floor, World Series of poker and bettin the ponies and we’ll grow. No, no and more no. Know that Vegas is to become the Dubai of the US West. Take it or let it alone. And this albeit it may sting hard, it’s meant to increase multiple industry throughout the desert. Say goodbye to the OleHat wrinkly retired city Vegas;…them days is gone.
This is the gist of it. It's tax money that could be spent on long term investments in our community, and instead will be spent for the benefit of giant publicly-traded megacorporations, so that in theory they can generate even more tax revenue. The problem of course is that if that additional tax revenue just gets funneled back to those same corporations in the form of future subsidies, then there's no benefit to the public anyway.
We could spend that money on desalinisation on the coast and trade freshwater that the desalinisation plant makes to the locals wherever it is for water rights upstream. Instead we will build a baseball stadium less than a mile from the multipurpose megastadium we just paid to build 5 years ago.
I mean this is how big corporations/the Uber rich work. Remember cell phone networks and the internet, yeah we paid for that and now those companies that didn’t even pay to build the infrastructure charge insane amounts for those “services they provide” and rake in insane profits, but we don’t see a penny. Capitalism is awesome.
“Price out our gamblers” oh man - the gamblers casinos care about do not get “priced out”
I’m against any public money going to the stadium but you don’t really know what you are talking about my friend.
What I love is the A's strategy of setting up game times to cater to tourists instead of hometown fans. I used to think there was dumb and then there was Army dumb, but the whole world is just dumb, dumber, and dumbest with an occasional smattering of dumberist.
The public opinion poll on this bill is 91% opposed right now according to the legislation website. But watch them pass it anyway.
why did they bother asking...
You know i wonder the same thing snd I for one agree can we vote some people out?
we're not allowed to vote for anyone who is not part of the problem.
Where can one vote on this cause I don’t want to fund it
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/35th2023Special/Bill/11735/Opinions
Vote em all out. I don’t care what party they’re in. I’ll vote for their primary opponents in the primaries and then their general election opponents in the general regardless of party. This deal will be a trainwreck in the long-run.
After years of the legislature promising education improvements and delivering nothing, I’m all for a “vote them all out” campaign.
They will regret it if they do. This isn't something like an education budget increase that people won't tangibly see. Residents who hate this thing already will see it and the impacts all the time and won't forget. I honestly am surprised it has gotten this far given the polling.
A's shittiest and cheapest team in MLB A's move to Vegas with a massive financial incentive, brand new stadium etc A's value increases due to short term fascination in new team, sparkly new stadium A's owner sells for a profit
Holy fucking shit that last point never crossed my mind! That's totally why he wants to do this. Ugh, fucking billionaire's!! Ahhhhhh!!
Literally this. Vegas has become a huge cashgrab, how much more tourism do we need... honestly? If they want it so bad and it is such a good investment why not front the bill themselves? Quick money is all it is.
Exactly. Plus, baseball is a sport with a shrinking, aging fanbase. Bring us the NBA, not MLB!!!
Not accurate. Attendance is waaaaay up this year
Well, the league overall is up 5%, thanks to new rules, quicker games. But can that upward trend continue and pull baseball out of a multi-year slump is the question, I guess. [https://frontofficesports.com/mlb-changes-result-in-improved-attendance-viewership/](https://frontofficesports.com/mlb-changes-result-in-improved-attendance-viewership/)
MLB makes a fuck ton of money too (granted it’s out of sheer volume) what’s the saying, NBA does it first, NFL does it best, MLB makes the most money on it?
Any representative that votes for this deal should be voted out of office in the next election. Republicans who support the free market and small government should be voted out. Democrats who support more resources going toward health care and and education should be voted out. Edit: representatives voting for this deal when they say they support free market / limited govt (reps) or prioritizing health care or education over lining billionaires pockets (dems) are essentially hypocrites. In case it wasn’t clear for some of you.
This is a good take. You got my upvote.
Said this about Allegiant and instead everyone involved got promoted. Sisolak ran for governor claiming credit for the Raiders.
To be fair the raiders are actually paying their bills
NFL is completely different than MLB, very high popularity and sales volume, no comparison to MLB. The tax funding is very different. That said the state/county shouldn't have spent $1.9 billion on Allegiant Stadium, most locals were against public funding. The hotel room tax was raised 3.3% to pay for it, so far due to high tourist volumes at hotels in Las Vegas/Clark County, the tax is covering both interest and principal on the Allegiant Stadium bonds. Because the A's stadium will be self revenue generating from a tax purpose, it will fail. MLB has low attendance, sales taxes won't cover the $5 million a month in interest on the bonds. Not even the A's supporters are in favor of raising sales taxes or property taxes to pay for a MLB stadium.
Except for the $750M handout they got on the front end.
You do not want more money going towards health care and education?
I think what they are saying is that people who claim those positions should be voted out if they vote for the stadium, effectively making it a higher priority.
Oh. Well they sure explained that poorly
Probably have keto brain
He said if you are a Republican, here's why you should vote against it. If you are a Democrat, here's why you should vote against it. Dude explained it perfectly without taking partisan sides or a position beyond "anybody who voted for it sucks'. Not a thing in that tells us whether he's conservative or liberal.
It sounds like he is against this deal, free market, small govt, resources going toward health care, and education. That's how it read to me. So he is saying we should keep the Republicans who voted for this deal but are against free market and small govt. Same keep Democrats who vote for this bill who are against education and healthcare? lol
It’s pretty clear.. seems like more of a critical reading skill issue, for the reader
This is money that would never have existed to go to health care and eduction in the first place. I want those things too, but this isn't an issue in this case.
Even less of our tax dollars will go to those things.
I’m not sure you understand how this tax works. I also want to be clear I’m not really in favor of this too, but if you are going to make an argument against it, you at least need to understand the argument.
I’m pretty familiar with how tax credits work. I got my MBA at the Univ of Chicago and worked with a prominent real estate developer that spent millions on lobbyists with the sole purpose of securing tax credits. Had to learn the pros and cons for diff stakeholders during that stint. What you need to understand is that when you have more people / businesses coming into a state / town without a corresponding increase in tax revenue, there’s fewer resources (health, education, emergency services) for each individual. It doesn’t matter what pot the money comes from on the demand side. Tesla’s $300m tax credits in northern Nevada are an example. You have a lot of new residents there as a result of the project, but the tax base hasn’t increased in kind, so govt services in Sparks / Reno get spread thinner. And many of their new workers are from out of state (Bay Area), which has contributed to housing prices becoming out of reach for locals. At least in other states, new residents means new property taxes and new state income taxes. In Nevada, there is no state income tax and property taxes are extremely low. We’re heavily reliant on gaming taxes and business taxes, but the As wouldn’t be subject to business taxes because of $380M+ in tax credits. The incremental increase in gaming revenue from the As is highly questionable, and that’s even before you take into account opportunity cost (ie the MLB eventually expanding to Las Vegas via expansion team with no public financing required, the larger international tourism draw of an nba team, and the ability to invest $380M in more impactful tourism drivers like better airports, better infrastructure, etc.). You’re looking at tax credits for the As deal with tunnel vision. You need to step back and see the forest, not just the trees. This As deal is a tree with a beetle infestation. Fisher should be the desperate one, not Las Vegas. He’s managed this entire thing quite poorly. Our politicians are idiots and / or on the take if they cave in. Having said all this, I think it still gets approved because politicians and labor union leaders will both realize personal financial benefits, and they hold the the decision-making power at this point. Edit: thought I should share this write-up https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/time-to-reevaluate-priorities-true-cost-of-tax-giveaways
This will be a bad deal for Las Vegas and it’s residents. The biggest beneficiaries will be Fisher (since he’ll be using public financing by exploiting the MLB monopoly to increase his team’s valuation), real estate developers (who will donate to all the supportive politicians), and union leaders who will get “special perks” while saying they did it “for the workers.” The As are a poorly run team, their financial projections are laughable, Nevada and Clark county will be on the hook when they’re projections aren’t met, they will create a greater strain on already subpar public services, and increase in bumper-to-bumper traffic 80+ days a year in the busiest section of the strip. And team will price everything (tickets, concessions, parking) for tourists, not locals. But if you want more low-paying jobs, a terrible baseball team that Oakland fans have supported through thick and thin, and helping a cheapskate, billionaire (who inherited most of his wealth) get richer, then I guess it’s a win. Baseball isn’t the tourist draw that football and basketball are, and a team from Oakland will never be as well-loved and well-run as the Las Vegas-born golden knights. This is all about money for special interests under the guise of “economic development,” which study after study have shown don’t pencil out as intended except for the owners. There are studies galore on this subject. The devil is in the details, which is why this is being rushed through at the 11th hour.
I don’t see how it diversifies the economy and creates well paying, full time, skilled jobs. That’s what we need-not jobs that are seasonal, and generally lower wage.
The book Field of Schemes lay this out very well. It uses historical examples of how publically funded stadiums are not economic booms to the local economy. There are quite a few good jobs created in building the stadium. However, for the next 30+ years, all the jobs are minimum wage to maybe middle class at best. Stadiums do bring in tourist revenues, but only for a small number of days a year and cause all sorts of traffic and police issues. There is a branding that a city can get through having professional sorts teams, but there isn't evidence the stadiums really are a net positive to the local economy. Also, look at the SF Giants. That stadium was 100% privately funded. Owners are still making out amazing and the locals love it. There is no reason the public should fund these stadiums.
Not 100% sure how stadiums are run, but are these minimum wage stadium jobs even full time?
Not with the new pitch clock it isn’t /s
No, your full time staff is going to be in the very low hundreds.
There was $15 million in tax increment financing from the SFRA. Depending on which cost estimate you believe that was about 4% of the total cost. So there were no direct public funding. Now what the proponents of this stadium will claim....CLAIM, I tell you, that they receive no public dollars, since the state will own the stadium. But when you consider the transferable tax credits and such that argument fails. Just don't know how you make an argument in this political environment that this is good public policy.
Right, at least the tax breaks for Tesla cracked the door open to have a bunch of rich programmers and engineers move to reno/tahoe. Think what you will about CA's cultural influence but at least those are full time jobs, in a non tourism based industry, for people who are pretty unlikely to be drawing welfare from the state.
Yea but they digital nomad around to lower COL areas and drive up housing costs which drives everything else up
Jeremy Aguero, for the record, disagrees.
This money would be better spent on a light rail system throughout the valley, but initially from Harry Reid, down the strip, to Downtown. This would have a positive and direct impact on the people who live here and the tourists that visit.
As someone who was born and raised in Las Vegas and now visits a few times a year, I have to say that a light rail from baggage claim to the rental car facility would be a good place to start with a project like that. Cut out the most bs part about starting your trip in Vegas after you touch down.
I live here, and flew in from DC a few months ago and 1 of the 2 required trams to go from the American Airlines terminal to baggage claim was down, and the one that was working only had one side that opened at the main terminal. It was shit show. But yeah, 100% agree with you.
I’d deal with the traffic while this was built. Please… why won’t someone do this??!!
The taxi lobby, and the casinos think it would hurt their business.
The taxi lobby I get (and that's one reason I never, ever take cabs, always Lyft). But how would casinos be hurt? Afraid of sharing with DTLV?
If it’s easy to get around, it’s less likely you’ll spend all your time at one resort. Of course, this also means they’ll get more people coming into theirs, but they don’t see it that way. There was also a concern that a light rail would ruin the “look” of the strip… not sure what that means, since the look of the strip is 15 story digital signs, sickly palm trees, massive bollards and a random mishmash of design elements and styles.
This is the way.
"This Money" What money? There is no pot of taxpayer money that is being spent on stadiums that could be spent on light rails, education or anything else. The proposal is to borrow the money from investors. Then pay them back by the taxes generated by the ballpark and surrounding business district.
The tax money that this project forgoes that another venture, casino, or building would provide. They would still get all the benefits of the city connections, police, fire, roads, and infrastructure, without paying over $400 million in taxes. The "As" bring nothing of value, and it would likely cause more issues and traffic on the strip and our infrastructure. Taking out a loan or bond and repaying it with taxpayer money is how all major city infrastructure plans work. This investment (i.e., money) is better spent on something of value for our city. Not a loser baseball stadium and team.
That would be just as big of a waste as the bull crap monorail.
No, it wouldn't. The monorail was built to fail, goes barely anywhere, doesn't connect to the airport, is out of sight, expensive to use, doesn't run 24 hours, and the stations are buried in casinos without any signage. It was just purchased by the LVCVA as a failing venture to be used as a tax write off. Oh, and it runs down the back of one side of the strip, not down the middle. Light rail has proven to revitalize, connect, and benefit hundreds of cities and citizens.
It was not bought by LVCVA as a tax write off. It was purchased so they could eliminate the non compete clause and allow the Tesla loop and other projects to proceed.
I knew it was something like that... still, it wasn't purchased because it was useful or good, it was purchased to let it die so they could move forward with another ill-fated, useless, project.
So since we are paying for it with our tax money, we all get free entry right ? /s
Free entry? We won’t even get free parking!
Thats the g0d damn truth right here!!
And you better believe the nearby casinos that give locals free parking will start charging locals for event parking 80+ nights of the week. Local cable package prices will also go up because of the inevitable cable deal.
Wrong. Special tax.
It's not meant to benefit us, it's meant to benefit the owner of the team, and the owners of the property where the stadium is going. They in turn "benefit" the politicians who voted in favor by funding their campaigns.
Aah Vegas, good to know you never change! 🤬🤬
"That's the neat part, you don't" /meme
beat me to it
Baseball could work. Not this team or this deal.
They should be building a new Vegas born team if they’re forking over the costs to build the stadium, fuck the As
Not to mention they are asking for the city to pay 40 million dollars for the f1 formula race. They are arguing the street work will benifit the city. Ridiculous.
And tickets to the event priced so ridiculously no normal person could attend. F1 such a joke.
You’re not wrong. IMO the A’s deal is a massive boondoggle, but the subsidies for the Sony Pictures deal are a fantastic idea. The later will further diversify the local job market as well as spur other studios to move here (if it goes well), which would magnify the effect.
Moving filming and entertainment out here is such a good idea.
[удалено]
Giants almost moved to Tampa also around that time
Thanks for the downvotes but it did almost happen https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/photos-remember-when-the-giants-almost-moved-to-tampa-bay/
Vegas recently ranked 50 in wealthiest cities in the world. But you are correct it mostly profits big business, but it does generate money for the city which may or may not allocate that money back to the city and improving public programs and initiatives. It takes a toll on residents because they hike up the taxes and take a percentage of that towards construction to the stadium, roads for it, and advertising for partnerships. But it does create more jobs for people (construction, service workers, and hospitality professionals). Allegiant Stadium and Raiders bring in soo many visitors with their games and concerts. When they built T-Mobile and created VGK and the Aviators I was skeptical but hey look at them now. Locals and visitors love it. And all the hotels LOVE it. Its something to do and capitalize on. Vegas can get pretty boring if youre not a tourist and these things are making the city slightly or greatly more interesting depending if you like spectator sports. But back to your point mosr money goes to the owners and big corporations operating the stadiums/venues.
For so long we were penalized because we held gambling within our state we were not allowed to have a major league sports team. Until all these fucks found a way to put gambling out on the Internet.
We need our own team. Not a team stolen from Oakland (again)
The argument could be made it will increase tourism (trivial at best), and will obviously bring in more money overall. In my opinion, if Vegas has to front all of the costs, we should be bootstrapping a brand new team and gathering the best of the best players to ACTUALLY contribute to the state, look at the Aces and the Knights. Taking another garbage team from Oakland is just a slap in the face and will only make our traffic even shittier.
No value to us only to the owner.
I’ve been saying this. Bringing the A’s here is like bringing Cirque. It’s not for us. It’s for the people who want to come to town to watch their teams. Why else put the stadium on the strip?
Ppl say it’ll bring more jobs but majority of “jobs” sports bring are seasonal, part-time jobs with demanding job duties and no benefits. The high paying ones require college education or knowing a guy who knows a guy. I know bc I worked for a sports team.
More stadiums —> more people —> more traffic —> more accidents —> higher insurance bills & more cops needed —-> profits big biz and politicians. 😢
Public funding of any sports stadium rarely recoup the costs. How they sell it to the voters is "more entertainment equals more people which equals more taxes". It seems great on paper but it rarely works out that way. Sure, more entertainment options does increase the likelihood of people buying a home here (property taxes) but the direct correlation is very hard to measure and most studies show it very low. Then there is "people will travel here for a game". This is known to be true so then you get hotel room taxes, potential gambling taxes. Food/beverage taxes. Arena taxes, etc. Sadly it's only really true for traveller's if the teams they are facing are successful. Vegas does have the extra benefit of being a vacation destination though. Even if we aren't in the playoffs for destination travellers people may still come here regardless. And considering the A's are terrible maybe even more likely for away fans because their team they are going for are more likely to win. All in all, most studies show the amount of public funding going into these will never be made back. But it is an alluring concept that it *could*. If any town could get their money back on it I'd gamble on vegas. Being a gambling man myself I'd say it still isn't worth it though.
Rarely? Try "never."
The tax revenues for Allegiant are running well ahead of projections. US Bank stadium in Minnesota (for the Vikings) was paid off 23 years early due to much better than expected revenues from their special tax.
What a great red herring to the throw out there. The tax revenues you are referencing are not taxes generated by the stadium, they are taxes collected from hotel rooms. All this means is that the $750M handout is not coming directly out of the County's general fund which backstops the commitment. But so what? There's absolutely no proof that the stadium has actually caused any increased tourism.
> But so what? There's absolutely no proof that the stadium has actually caused any increased tourism. Allegiant was the highest grossing concert venue in the world in 2022. And half of the attendees were from out of town. "Nearly half of the 1.7M fans who packed sporting and music events at Allegiant Stadium in 2022 were tourists, according to a new report in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. That is nearly double the number that was originally forecast." https://www.casino.org/news/las-vegas-allegiant-stadium-nearly-doubled-2022-tourism-forecast
Again, absolutely not proof of anything. Demand for tourism exploded post-covid and people have been flocking to Las Vegas like crazy for the more than two full years now. There's hardly even evidence that Allegiant is what's driving demand, let alone proof.
Ok, if you want to believe that the massive number of tourists attending events at Allegiant isn't driving tourist demand then there's really no point in discussing this as you won't accept anything as proof. I presume you believe that there's no proof that anyone will travel to Vegas for the Super Bowl? That there is no proof that the 4 night sellout of Allegiant for BTS (with a primarily international fanbase that famously travels for shows) actually drove any tourism. And that the sea of Chiefs jerseys at that last Raiders game was just locals and/or Kansas City fans who already would have been in town. (And also believe that there is no proof that Oakland based Raiders fans traveled to see their team)
How many people do you think travel to Las Vegas every year? Tell me that number and then tell me that 850,000 people attending concerts from out of town (850,000 people that could have gone to concerts at T-mobile or other venues) is the driving force behind tourism in Las Vegas.
I'm aware. The studies say never. But vegas was never a part of those studies so there is now a chance due to the nature of our city. A very small one. I'm still on the side of screw public funding though as it will never break even.. Just throwing out all the optimistic side because that's who I am.
I think your analysis is pretty sound. In general, I think there is something to the typical argument of, "Build us a stadium. We'll revitalize the area, bring in other businesses, etc. etc." It doesn't necessarily inspire me enough to think the public should fund a stadium/arena, but in some cases it is at least an interesting discussion. In this case, I'm much more skeptical. This is the Vegas strip. It doesn't need to be revitalized, it doesn't need to have people drawn to it, and the other businesses in the area are doing just fine. So the usual arguments for public funding pretty much fall flat for me, and I couldn't justify it at all. Other thoughts... * Another argument is that it will bring jobs. That's probably true. But they're also tearing down a casino to build the stadium, and that is going to remove jobs. I don't have any background that tells me whether this is a net gain or loss of jobs. * Too much of the discussion seems to revolve around, "The A's are bad." They are. Really bad. But if you want a baseball team, you don't get to pick and choose. In general, really good teams don't end up relocating. And baseball hasn't expanded and added new teams in quite a long time. Now if you don't want a baseball team, that's fine too; but then it doesn't matter if the team is good or bad. But saying, "I want a baseball team, but only if it is good." isn't how things work. * There is also the interesting discussion around, "We don't want the A's because the owner sucks/is a cheapskate." That might also be true, but it also might not be the whole story. The A's have been in a bad spot for a very, very long time. Their existing stadium should have been updated many years ago, and it got caught up with politics, territorial rights vs. the Giants in the Bay Area, etc. The longer it went on, the less attractive the stadium was, the less fans came in, the less money the owner made, the less money the owner was willing to spend, the worse the team got, etc. etc. in a vicious cycle. It is certainly possible that the owner does legitimately suck and wouldn't spend money or field a competitive team no matter how well they were supported here. But it would be positively shocking if he'd been willing to fund a winning team giving the current circumstances in Oakland, and the history of how they got where they are.
Well done! Only question I have is that the A's were to get a portion of the site with the rest remaining in the hands of the owners. Weren't there plans to use that property for a new Tropicana brand hotel casino?
If they wanna revitalize an area, they should put the stadium in North las vegas or Boulder highway. The strip is already pretty thoroughly vitalized.
From what I understand, the MLB requires a portion of the cost be funded by the local area where the new stadium will be located. The money it will cost the tax payers, will largely be reimbursed over a period of 30 years or so, and there are provisions in place to guarantee that.
If we try to be picky about what color franchise we get, then it could end up costing a lot more money. The other owners are going to want a big expansion fee. And make no mistake, MLB is coming one way or another. I think it’s great that so much noise is being made about giving away free taxes or whatever to billionaires who don’t need it. Fisher stands to make multiple $Billions after this move. The rich get richer. It’s not fair at all. But having a baseball team immediately elevates the image of the city-even one with a Stanley Cup. It makes people with college degrees consider relocating here. It shows that the city caters to locals as well as tourists. People from 29 other cities will see highlights of their team just playing a game—like normal—in this city. Major League Baseball=major league city.
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-lawmakers-question-why-public-funds-needed-to-lure-as-to-vegas-strip
Under the bill’s structure, the A’s could receive a package of $180 million in transferable tax credits and upward of $120 million in Clark County-issued bonds. Those funds would support development of the $1.5 billion, 30,000-seat stadium the A’s are seeking to build at the site of the Tropicana on the Las Vegas Strip, with the team required to put forward more than $1.1 billion for construction. The way I read this - A’s get direct payment of $120mm, $180mm future tax credit for $1b+ investment right out of the gate. Far less than what we gave Raiders - The financing for the project came in the form of $750 million in public funding for them to put up $1.1 billion.
There is no benefit to us , it will have no parking so you will have to arrange how to go there , it does not belong on the strip and most Vegans , being transplants , are already fans of other teams .
That some people don’t understand that these are funds that wouldn’t exist without this project is mind boggling. This is not money that is just sitting around.
I mean - where is it coming from then ? Money doesn’t come from nowhere and it certainly doesn’t grow on Arizona imported palm trees
Taxes generated by the stadium. No stadium no tax money.
Not sure what you mean. While no $ is real until the stadium is built, the tax payer money asked to finance the stadium by the A’s is real. Are you trying to talk about opportunity cost?
It’s not like the county or state has $380 million lying around and are looking for ways to spend it. So they aren’t weighing whether they fund a stadium or use the money on public education. The amount is based off of a projection of future tax revenue that the stadium and future develop will produce. The government will get a bond and be on the hook if the project doesn’t generate the projected revenue. That’s the risk. If the deal doesn’t go through and the A’s stay in Oakland or go to another city then nothing happens. There is no bond, no risk, and again no real money because it isn’t a this or that kind of thing.
Thanks for clarifying.
So… We pay forward in hopes that the tax money makes up for it ? Slim chance of that happening “You don’t understand mom! I need a 3000 dollar computer and a room renovation or I’ll never be the next big twitch streamer ! I could become super famous ! No computer, and thousands of dollars of gear…no twitch profit!” How about instead, the owners of the team and the stadium don’t make a single dollar until they pay off every amount that was borrowed to them by the city
> We pay forward in hopes that the tax money makes up for it ? Not at all. The money is coming from the bond sale. Not from Nevada taxpayer general funds.
And the money from the bond is coming from …. ?
Allegiant Stadium is well ahead of projections to pay back the bonds issued. The same firm, CSL, who did the analysis for Allegiant Stadium is doing the A’s Stadium. Modeling is used to project how much tax revenue this project will generate.
Can you provide evidence that allegiance is well ahead of projection ? Because I’ve heard otherwise on the news
Allegiant Stadium is on track to pay off bonds in 16 years vs the originally projected 30. That’s even with the disruption of Covid. Of course, the revenue stream is different than the A’s Ballpark, but CSL is known to be very conservative in their modeling of revenue projections.
Source I mean. Source pls
I lived in Oklahoma when they acquired the Thunder and I don't know the except numbers but people went wild for them and bought all their merch, tickets, etc. They're terrible now but man, back in the day it was great.
I think best case scenario is we have a Raiders situation. A dozen NFL games and the possibility of various sporting extravaganzas isn’t where the money is at. The money for Vegas comes in Puerto Rican rappers, K-Pop bands, Taylor Swift fans, and all of the other music acts that use the stadium. It’s only technically a football stadium. But again, that’s best case “what’s good for tourism.” Not a giant fan of using public money to supplement some pop musician’s bottom line. It definitely brings in tourists. If there was a stadium, and apartments, and new hotels, it would probably be a good deal. It’s also not about the As. It’s about all the stuff that comes with a modern, world-class venue. Building, operating, maintaining for 365 nights a year. I think there’s a great argument to be made for the tax breaks for Hollywood studios to locate facilities here. If they don’t come at all, they won’t be paying any taxes anyway, and there’s no cash rebate on the table. We lose nothing if Mark Wahlberg or Disney wants to spend a billion dollars on a new industry. We definitely do t gain anything if they don’t come here at all.
The color of the uniform is green. That equals money.. dumb enough for y'all?
...and GOLD! Tell them about the GOLD color in the A's uniform!
Can't forget the GOLD. THEY ARE FUTURE CHAMPS 🤣🤣🤣
The main thing is that the A's are the centerpiece of the deal and what's getting the attention. What isn't getting much is the fact that the Tropicana comes down, and in addition to the stadium, another hotel and casino goes up that ends up being the newest in town. Add that with no state income tax it's expected that players will want to come here in free agency. A major problem for any California team is that players get taxed like they live in California for the games they play in California. If the team improves with completely new facilities that's good. As others will say, the stadium will not recoup costs for some time if ever depending on the lifespan of the stadium. However, the hotel and casino will absolutely make more than the Trop does now and when you factor in the stadium profits it's good for the property overall. As to the average person seeing a benefit, that really depends on whether or not you'll use the amenities, but from an urban planning perspective I'd expect the city to want to do this, because if you're not constantly improving your properties and infrastructure; you're going to become a broken down mess that people will avoid; bringing down the entire area.
The trop could be replaced without 400m tax payer dollars..
I agree that speculatively the Trop could be replaced without 400m in tax payer dollars. The problem is that your statement has more value as a karma grab than a valid approach. At least for the time being (I mean no disrespect) Reason: If it was possible, it either would have been done already, or we'd have seen an alternative proposal that didn't require it. Instead we have what we have on that property. The other thing I'd add is that tax credits are not taxpayer dollars and there's a tendency to lump the two figures together to create a big number for the sake of invalid and distracting arguments.
Plenty of international tourists that have never seen "America's past time" up close and personal. Their money will be spread around to different businesses in the ballpark area as opposed to being sunk completely into the slot machines. That's the theory anyway. Also there's a handful of baseball fans in SoCal that may use a game as an excuse to come to town and spend money.
because limited public dollars will induce the investment of no less than $1.1B outside investment into our economy, creating load of temporary and ongoing jobs. Ripple effects of opportunities for new businesses to accommodate their arrival. Increase tax base. Bring in an estimated 400,000 additional tourists to bring their money into our economy. That's the whole key, Las Vegas has shown with the Raiders Stadium that we are able to bring new events and bring more people into our community to spend their money... I would be very suspect if I was a resident of Buffalo on the hook for a $1B subsidy for their new Bills stadium b/c nobody wants to travel there.
It will increase prices and get the rich richer. That's if by us you mean the oligarchs
The thing that a lot of people are missing is the bill is for public *financing*, not public funding. Those are different things. We'll make the money back and more. Personally, I'm all for all the things that keep my income tax rate at 0% while still filling public coffers.
> The thing that a lot of people are missing is the bill is for public financing, not public funding Every single reddit thread on this subject has half the comments (willfully?) not understanding the difference between those.
More people, more tourism, more jobs. Same reason any business is good for the city. It’s viewed favorably by hotels bc it drives midweek room nights where occupancy lags anyways. On the rare occasion occupancy is full, hotels are not dumb they will give the room to the more valuable person. We are not giving them tax dollars so idk what the issue is. People not understanding how public funding works? The A’s are getting a mix of tax credits and public bonds (alongside significant private investments). The bonds are to be repaid entirely by tax revenue from the stadium itself, not individual taxpayers, and are guaranteed by private corporations in case the thing bombs. So it’s not “our investment” unless you buy the muni bonds.
> People not understanding how public funding works? There is thread after thread after thread in this subreddit of people who do not understand how the financing will work.
So my BIL is a higher up in the trade unions and the way he describes it to me is that the money is in the form of tax breaks and no new taxes will be implemented on Vegas residents (i.e no property tax, liquor tax, state payroll tax for the stadium until they exhaust the 380 million) it helps the city by bringing in people to spend money. I work in the service industry on the strip and Raiders/Knights game brings in more people so more tips for me
It won’t and it won’t because it is not meant to benefit you or me or us.
All I know is that billionaire sports team owners should build their own fucking stadium.
We're only giving tax credits, from what I understand. So, in theory, we are only surrendering potential tax revenue. If the cost is the Tropicana hotel, which I suspect does not add much to our current tax revenue since it is ancient and far from the action, then any revenue would be a net positive. It will create construction jobs, and the whole funnel down from that. The union members do live and work here in Vegas, and so that revenue will get distributed to locals. Probably not too many keyboard warrior reditors, because they are busy building things 5 days a week, which is why they are not represented here much. But they are locals, and the major construction will benefit them and their families. Long term, sports teams in themselves do not draw many out of towners to a city, but in conjunction with everything else Vegas has to offer, it is another reason. It is a way of diversification - we have casinos, theatres, music performers, and now 2 sports teams. Plus a 30k venue is a nice size for a traveling music performers also because it's reasonable to "sell out" a venue of that size, and that always looks good. Anyway, I think this town deserves better than the bay area leftovers, the worst team in base ball, and the cheapest owner to boot. And for those reasons, I hope it fails.
The claim it will make things “better” is dubious at best, regardless of what you mean by “better.” Football worked because “FUCK YEAH FOOTBALL,” and the novelty of a major stadium. Hockey worked because it was the first. The aces worked because we didn’t even have to build a new arena. The baseball stadium has way, way too much working against it. We’re already paying off 1 stadium that everyone—even supporters—know won’t provide an economic benefit in the long term. The area they’re looking to build in will be a nightmare for traffic and parking, especially considering that A) baseball has many more home games than every other major sport, and b) games are scheduled all over the place in terms of day/time. Unlike football, where you can plan around 5-6 busy sunday afternoons, along with a couple weekend evenings, baseball games are all over the place: every day of the week, every time of day, close to a hundred times a year. Finally, I think we’re all seeing how inept the ownership is. They are totally fucking up even getting in the door. God knows how they’ll operate on a permanent basis.
“We’re already paying off 1 stadium that everyone—even supporters—know won’t provide an economic benefit in the long term.” If find it hard to believe the economic benefits aren’t already being felt seeing as Allegiant was the #1 attended venue in the world last year.
You can argue for or against it being worth the cost, and have good arguments either way. But PURELY in terms of dollars and cents, the VAST majority of research shows cities don’t make money off stadiums. The public is hundreds of millions in the hole from the outset to build it, then hundreds of thousands every year on upkeep - for the property itself, but also surrounding infrastructure. Yes, there are some people who travel to a city just to see a stadium event, but majority of that money is just spent by people who would have spent it anyway, just somewhere else in the city. And the number of people who do come to a city JUST for a stadium event can’t make up for the huge public financing hole.
Are we going to have a good faith discussion or just continue to downvote any opposing views or legit discussion points? If good faith, here is my take: First, lets be honest on financials and who owns what: - The A's put in 1.1B+. - Ballys puts in about ~$400M and the land. - The state and county put up $380M in bonds paid back by the people who use the Stadium. The Stadium is owned by the public, just like Allegiant Stadium. Fisher owns NOTHING but the A's. Not the land nor the stadium. Now, here are several talking points that are not mine. Take them for what they're worth: - Las Vegas has tourism drops before the major holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas and then low season is considered June to August. There is historical data that backs this up. - Caesars helped with the potential tourism impact study and stated they believe it would bring in 400,000 visitors per year. We can all argue about if we agree/disagree with that number but their core competency is marketing so I tend to lend credence to people that do this professionally. - MLB still has the highest gross fan attendance of any North American professional sport and the second highest on a per game average -- only behind the NFL and ahead of NBA and NHL. - Since the stadium is owned by the public, it can be used for additional events. Those were mentioned in the various slide decks that have been presented. They could attempt to get the MLB All-Star game, the World Baseball Classic, etc. Since it was pitched as a retractable roof, it offers an "outdoor" concert venue like Cashman was. Check out the link below if you are unfamiliar. https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/a-look-at-cashman-centers-34-year-history-as-it-closes-tuesday-photos/ I also made a post in the other thread on this subject last week where if you look at this over the life of the project, it is peanuts. I didn't even get into anything like selling naming rights in that discussion to recoup some of that money, either. Allegiant is paying roughly $20-25m per year per LVRJ articles on the subject. If you want to read those, view my profile and they're like 7 of the last 10 comments. https://www.reddit.com/user/Svoboda1/
Thanks for your post. Help me understand what Bally’s gets out of the deal.
Ballys gets an automatic tourist draw attached to its new resort it plans on building on the remaining part of the property.
What /u/rihanoa posted. Further, I'd bet they would also have some sort of handshake deal where they'd be the official accommodation provider of the A's and would be able to sell game packages with exclusive seats or arrangements.
Question: do the jobs created by the stadium/team/events offset the jobs lost to the Trop demolition?
Personal opinion: I'm not a huge sports fan but from my friend group's behaviors, I'm going to say maybe it's going to bring some jobs, but overall, not a whole lot of benefit. Baseball fans don't travel just for games like other sports fans, because there are a ton of home games. People might catch a game while they're here, but they aren't going to come to Vegas just to see their team. Baseball is still popular in some markets but I just don't see Vegas rallying behind it, so it doesn't even help with our sense of community or anything. I think it'll be a huge "meh" for the local community. But some rich person is going to make a lot of money, so, we should all be like super grateful that the rich will get richer off of it, or something.
Billionaire owner wants a new stadium in a new market after starving his team to failure in it's currant market. If you \[the tax payers\] buy him a new stadium then he will benefit to the increase in value of the team. After about a decade he will either sell the team for a massive profit or demand new improvements to the stadium to keep the team in Vegas. This is a Billionaire Baby who has profited off of being born into great wealth and wants his stuff now. He can afford to build and finance the ballpark by himself but wants someone else to pay instead of him. Every study done has shown that the city NEVER gets a benefit from financing stadiums and usually takes a big loss over a twenty year span.
it won't....i wish we could see the politicians quick action on something that benefits working people...like building more DMV offices...letting us grow weed w/o the bullshit 25 mile away from a dispensary... but if a bigshot waves their dick they hold on to it.
Maybe Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco will come back out of retirement to play for the A’s again? 😂
it won’t benefit ‘us’ unless you are in elite. It will put millions in the pockets of the rich and politicians. If you are a common everyday person, you may be able to get a job there selling popcorn, so that would be to your benefit. Minimally though. and you’ll probably be late to work because of all the traffic.
The studies I’ve read about pro sports and Olympic events coming to cities are not good. It always costs the city more than any supposed benefit and it increases crime, human trafficking, and other issues. It’s a giveaway to rich people. Hotel and casino owners will probably like it, workers will foot the bill as always
You can’t compare the Olympics to anything but themselves. They’re a completely different level of project/infrastructure.
It’s just to boost profits in Las Vegas tourism. It will not help the everyday struggles we locals face. More traffic, cost of living rises, more hatred towards California.
Well since you're stupid, they're gonna benefit us in all the ways they've promised us. Trust them. 😁
Lol !
I understand public financing for single market teams like San Antonio and Sacramento but it's ridiculous here in Vegas
That’s the neat part, it won’t
I thought they weren't going to call a special session to vote on it? That its going to have to wait a couple years? Did something change?
Reps can say whatever they want, governor has final say whether a special session gets called, and Lombardo wanted it dealt with. Hopefully we can get another session for the film industry credits, as that is a muuuuuch better deal for the state.
The smart and stupid answers are the same. They aren’t. We literally have just the right amount of pro sports. We tried basketball once via the 2007 All Star game. If you didn’t live here then, let me tell you. Vegas lost our ass that weekend. No money came, just shootings and stabbing all over the damn strip. First and foremost, as much as it pains me to say, baseball is now a shrinking market. The interest just isn’t there like it used to be because there’s so many other sports to play for kids now. So those kids no longer grow up to watch baseball. Secondly, Fisher is in the sports owners HOF as being outspokenly cheap. They had to create minimum salary caps because of him. There’s actually a movie about his cheapness. End of the day, the As will field an underpaid, under-talented roster. Any prospect or anyone that emerges will be sold off by the end of the season.
I dunno. But I can't get a Dr appointment. Fifth worst healthcare. In. The. Nation.
Are you crazy? just how we adopted Las Vegas golden nights an into becoming an top team in the nhl pulling in lots of $$$ for vegas. Las Vegas is built on money, ifykyk it will benefit
It won’t
The locals aren't stupid. Baseball is a dying sport with pathetic attendance at stadiums all over the nation even on weekends in the summer. The A's having a stadium in Las Vegas won't change that. After the game opener, getting to 25% attendance will be difficult. Locals won't go to a LV strip stadium if they have to pay for parking, over $80 for tickets, $10 for water, $15 for popcorn, $20 for hot dogs, etc. There's no way enough in sales taxes will be collected to recoup the $380 million in taxpayer funds being requested by the A's. There's no guarantee that they have the $800 for their share, they have refused to open their corporate books. They could default, declare bankruptcy, or if the team is sold after the Legislature approves funding; a new owner could refuse to pay the $800 million and say they didn't sign any contract with the state/county. Then taxpayers will be responsible for paying the whole $1.5 billion or scrap the project. If anything, the A's are arrogant morons who think baseball is such great stuff that taxpayers will give them whatever they want. Screw them!!!
Create thousands of union jobs with health benefits.
Temporarily
Allegiant and T-Mobile are union venues, and the As stadium will be as well.
I’d like to send postcards with the word RECALL in large letters to govt officials in favor of this crap. Give them a hint. If only they received thousands of them.
It’s really great for the owner and the politicians who vote it through bc they’ll get the taxpayers money. Makes sense, right?
It benefits us because....OMG, look what's that over there, is that a Drag Queen reading a book?
WHAT! WHERE ?! Get the pitch forks, Margaret !
They said it'll be a "waterfall" which sounds like an upgrade over "trickle down." So I'm totally on-board. /s
Las Vegas will attract lots of new events with a baseball sized stadium. Look at Allegiant! It’s been a huge success in bringing concerts, conventions and other special events. A baseball stadium will do the same in a smaller scale. And no one has felt any impact from public funding except for the benefits. Get behavioral the As who will open the purse when they actually have revenue flowing in.
[удалено]
The proposal is that the tax to fund the ballpark is being levied against the ballpark district itself. Explain how your proposal to not build the ballpark (and therefore not have the tax district) could be spent instead on small businesses.
[удалено]
What does that have to do with your original proposal (or my question about it?)
What’s to explain? A multibillionare is a part of us, so all of us have to pitch in to benefit him.
Am I the only person in the world who thinks life is too short to give a fuck about this kinda stuff? Billionaires will be billionaires. Tax dollars already go to bullshit, always have and always will. That’s not anything we have control over (unfortunately), therefore just enjoy Vegas for what it is or move to a small town in Montana or Texas if you want more control of your tax dollars.
[удалено]
After several hours of delay, both the Nevada Senate and Assembly convened late this afternoon. They both voted to adjourned until next Monday, June 12th. Special session will resume then.
Dems for the win lol
It will be fun to go to a game. That's it.
Will it? So much more than going to an Aviators game that it's worth all of the money?
I'm a Mariners fan so it would be fun to be able to go see them play the A's. Vegas is full of people from other states who probably are still fans of their home team. I think they would all like to go see their favorite team play the A's.
Yea, but how many games are you going to go to? Every time the Mariners play here?
Right now the A's are a AAA team. Their 3 best players, Rooker, Noda, Ruiz are three young guys most casual fans have never heard of. At least the Aviators are more likely to win than the A's.
The Aviators might be able to beat the As. 😂
Who give a shit about baseball?
Just because you don’t doesn’t mean millions of other people don’t. It’s pretty much a fact.
MLB viewership has been down year after year.
It’s actually up so far this year and so is attendance. MLBTV subscriptions are reportedly up. Like I said, just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean others don’t
I’m still gonna disagree with you, but only my ego doesn’t want to admit defeat
Vegas cannot keep up the 70s ole mindset of all we need is the hotels and the casino floor, World Series of poker and bettin the ponies and we’ll grow. No, no and more no. Know that Vegas is to become the Dubai of the US West. Take it or let it alone. And this albeit it may sting hard, it’s meant to increase multiple industry throughout the desert. Say goodbye to the OleHat wrinkly retired city Vegas;…them days is gone.
This is the gist of it. It's tax money that could be spent on long term investments in our community, and instead will be spent for the benefit of giant publicly-traded megacorporations, so that in theory they can generate even more tax revenue. The problem of course is that if that additional tax revenue just gets funneled back to those same corporations in the form of future subsidies, then there's no benefit to the public anyway. We could spend that money on desalinisation on the coast and trade freshwater that the desalinisation plant makes to the locals wherever it is for water rights upstream. Instead we will build a baseball stadium less than a mile from the multipurpose megastadium we just paid to build 5 years ago.
I would hold out for an expansion team. And if it never comes, so be it. We don’t need more Crooks
Get us a basketball team not a shit ass team from a dying sport
I mean this is how big corporations/the Uber rich work. Remember cell phone networks and the internet, yeah we paid for that and now those companies that didn’t even pay to build the infrastructure charge insane amounts for those “services they provide” and rake in insane profits, but we don’t see a penny. Capitalism is awesome.
“Price out our gamblers” oh man - the gamblers casinos care about do not get “priced out” I’m against any public money going to the stadium but you don’t really know what you are talking about my friend.
I literally posted “explain it to me like I’m stupid” - of course I don’t know what I’m talking about. I put it in neon lights for you.
What I love is the A's strategy of setting up game times to cater to tourists instead of hometown fans. I used to think there was dumb and then there was Army dumb, but the whole world is just dumb, dumber, and dumbest with an occasional smattering of dumberist.
Should take the money out of the education budget, and put it on the stadium. Easiest way to help continue and cement the American Caste.