[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

No since this will be paid for with a tourist tax it will go straight to the Nevada legislature to be voted on.

Nevada voters have a veto referendum right. It is losing more than 2-1 in statewide polls not initiated by Las Vegas Sands. Giving tax money to billionaires for their toys is exactly the type of thing that gets people fired up. Also, wait until people realize that the tax money will go directly to the billionaires to repay their so-called investment which is nothing more than a loan.

Maybe if the language fixes some of that, it can make more people happy. There is certainly no reason to assume Sands/Raiders get everything they want. They may concede some points to make opponents happy and prevent it from going to ballot where they will almost certainly lose based on current public perception.

[SkyIsland]

Pffft. What polls? Why should anyone from outside Clark County have any say in it?

You don't know what the majority of citizens want. The majority are clueless and would say room taxes should go to schools. No, that money will go to more "what happens here" commercials. And why is it that you transplants are against anything that would benefit the future of this city? Many real Las Vegans would gladly pay a few extra dollars to see this city improve. Some us us want to see this city become world class, not fall into mediocrity.

The exposure alone will bring in more than $750 million since the NFL demographic is basically the same as the average Las Vegas tourist. Free advertising every Sunday for 20 or 30 years. Plus Monday night football, Superbowl, etc. What's the yearly advertising budget the LVCVA? $100 million?

An NFL team will bring in more business, jobs, taxes, and improve the city as a whole. It's not about bringing tourists to NFL games. Las Vegas could easily sellout the stadium even without Raider fans from So Cal. It's not about redeveloping land around the stadium. It's about raising the profile of the city, economic expansion, and growing tourism in the long run.

UNLV's stadium is probably going to cost around $500 million (which I'm sure you are all against) and it will be built. So we need to get the raiders while we can and build the best stadium in the country. You cheapskate transplants are just going to have to deal with it.

[Cold Warrior]

The polls generated by neutral parties are at minimum 2-1 opposed.

Post a link.

[LasVegasPlayer]

Pffft. What polls? Why should anyone from outside Clark County have any say in it?

The Nevada Legislature is the one that votes on it so people outside Clark County have a say. The fund is a state one, as will the agency involved. That is why the state will vote on it at the legislature level and voters will have the veto referendum right if it passes there. The referral would be a statewide referendum.

Post a link.

OK. This came out last week.

KTNV/RASMUSSEN POLL: Voters opposed to putting taxpayer money up on potential Raiders stadium - Story

Note that the poll is listed as $500 million in public funding. The true number is 2.5 times that, yet it is still losing. Imagine where it goes if the current language remains and people become educated on how bad the deal is.

Voters statewide opposed the measure by a 60 to 28 margin, with 12 percent unsure.

Argue that only Clark County residents should have a say? It is still losing by 20 points:

Fifty-five percent of voters polled in Nevada’s largest county said they’d oppose pledging up to $500 million in public funds to help finance a stadium that could potentially bring an NFL team to Las Vegas, with 35 percent in favor and 10 percent undecided.

Margin of error is 4%.

Voters overwhelmingly support expansion of the convention center over a stadium:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/305729254...-F03-22-16-2-1

While hardly scientific, this forum is 3-1 opposed. Others are in the 2-1 to 3-1 range.

There is a Las Vegas Sands poll floating around that says the opposite. The questions were suspect in my mind, as was the source, obviously. One should hardly accept a poll from the person wanting the project. The questions were leaked to Jon Ralston. He posted them on Twitter.

UNLV's stadium is probably going to cost around $500 million (which I'm sure you are all against) and it will be built.

I'm not opposed to that at all. The real number is $250 million. I'm all for giving Adelson and the Raiders that $250 million as long as UNLV gets to play there for free and no future taxes go to it.

We can argue about whether it will bring $750 million in economic benefit to Las Vegas. Stadiums have not done that anywhere else. I'm not sure why Las Vegas is different. We can agree to disagree there except that the real number is really about $1.4 billion when you consider the tax district and future funds that go to Sands/Raiders so if you think that it will only bring $750 million it is a loser to you, too.

Of course, the stadium could be a priceless amenity to you with no ceiling. That is an opinion I can respect. However, the fact that an overwhelming majority of people oppose it is an irrefutable fact.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

The Nevada Legislature is the one that votes on it so people outside Clark County have a say. The fund is a state one, as will the agency involved. That is why the state will vote on it at the legislature level and voters will have the veto referendum right if it passes there. The referral would be a statewide referendum.



OK. This came out last week.

KTNV/RASMUSSEN POLL: Voters opposed to putting taxpayer money up on potential Raiders stadium - Story

Note that the poll is listed as $500 million in public funding. The true number is 2.5 times that, yet it is still losing. Imagine where it goes if the current language remains and people become educated on how bad the deal is.



Argue that only Clark County residents should have a say? It is still losing by 20 points:



Margin of error is 4%.

Voters overwhelmingly support expansion of the convention center over a stadium:



While hardly scientific, this forum is 3-1 opposed. Others are in the 2-1 to 3-1 range.

There is a Las Vegas Sands poll floating around that says the opposite. The questions were suspect in my mind, as was the source, obviously. One should hardly accept a poll from the person wanting the project. The questions were leaked to Jon Ralston. He posted them on Twitter.



I'm not opposed to that at all. The real number is $250 million. I'm all for giving Adelson and the Raiders that $250 million as long as UNLV gets to play there for free and no future taxes go to it.

We can argue about whether it will bring $750 million in economic benefit to Las Vegas. Stadiums have not done that anywhere else. I'm not sure why Las Vegas is different. We can agree to disagree there except that the real number is really about $1.4 billion when you consider the tax district and future funds that go to Sands/Raiders so if you think that it will only bring $750 million it is a loser to you, too.

Of course, the stadium could be a priceless amenity to you with no ceiling. That is an opinion I can respect. However, the fact that an overwhelming majority of people oppose it is an irrefutable fact.

All irrelevant pretty much. The vote will come after the Casinos and Culinary jumps in. And the NV legislature is in fact fully controlled by Clark County. If the Clark County legislator stick together...rather than the Repubs siding with upstate it is a piece of cake.

And Las Vegas is vastly different. No other city other than perhaps Orlando has a main source of its GDP coming from visitors. And it is that we need to protect. A world class stadium merely helps perfect the strip infrastructure. How good a deal we Las Vegans get is of course of great interest. But we still need the stadium with or without the Raiders.

[calisoccer99]

Once this gets approved next month and goes to get voted on in legislature it will be a done deal. No one is going to tell Adelson, Wynn and the Ferttias no in Vegas.

And the UNLV stadium they would want to build would be about 500 million. It would be open air and much smaller. So no Super Bowl, no international soccer, fewer mega concerts.

[LasVegasPlayer]

^^ You are more correct than my number. I looked it up. The original number of $250 million was before a shaded stadium was proposed. It was raised to $423 million when the Trop site was acquired, which is no longer considered viable. I think that entire discussion died when the Raiders one came up because there is no reason to have a different UNLV study while the Raiders movement is alive.

I apologize for that error and would support giving any amount that would otherwise be spent on a UNLV stadium. That $423 million is still $1 billion less than what is wanted over the course of the tax district.

[Willy702]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

I'm not opposed to that at all. The real number is $250 million. I'm all for giving Adelson and the Raiders that $250 million as long as UNLV gets to play there for free and no future taxes go to it.

We can argue about whether it will bring $750 million in economic benefit to Las Vegas. Stadiums have not done that anywhere else. I'm not sure why Las Vegas is different. We can agree to disagree there except that the real number is really about $1.4 billion when you consider the tax district and future funds that go to Sands/Raiders so if you think that it will only bring $750 million it is a loser to you, too.

Of course, the stadium could be a priceless amenity to you with no ceiling. That is an opinion I can respect. However, the fact that an overwhelming majority of people oppose it is an irrefutable fact.

This is right on. The story that we need $2 billion to build a stadium is ridiculous. Its completely ruining the whole discussion really. There is a need for a stadium and such a stadium will provide modest economic benefit to the city. When these clowns came up with a cost of $1.7-2.1 billion someone in the community should have absolutely lost it. Jerry World in Arlington cost $1.1 billion and its over the top like nothing else, including over 90,000 seats. How do these people seriously tell the story that you need to pay double to get something with 65,000 seats?

This all gets back to my central argument, that the political discourse in Las Vegas is a mess. Everything is all or nothing. Either not a single penny of tax money or pay whatever it costs because I want it. There never is a serious look at what incrementally can and should be spent. There never is a willingness for either side of a debate to accept what the other side says may have merit. So in the end nothing gets done. If the city and its powers that be got behind the UNLV stadium idea and said hey maybe we make it a little bigger and pay a little more it would have a chance at the NFL, it would be $600-700 million. Maybe a little more for the land, but if land is seriously that much then you need to move it somewhere cheaper. Walk a mile, save half a billion should be the motto if need be. Visitors and locals alike are not going to shun events there just because its not spitting distance from the Strip.

Better yet, maybe save a few hundred million on the site and pay for a few miles of light rail or monorail to get there. Gee that's a nice idea that should be on that list of things you will never hear in Vegas thread.

[Cold Warrior]

Voters were specifically asked if they’d support or oppose “the use of up to $500 million in state taxpayer money to help finance a stadium that would bring the NFL’s Raiders franchise to Las Vegas.”

Has anyone proposed the use of state taxpayer money?

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

Has anyone proposed the use of state taxpayer money?

I see your point but the statement is accurate. The statement doesn't tell the whole story to someone that has not followed the topic and one could make an argument that it may sway the poll based on that. However, it is accurate because by definition these would be state taxes based on the fact the stadium authority would be a state agency and the taxes that would funnel to Sands/Raiders etc would go through it based on the initial proposals.