[NLVgal]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

That is how a republic works. Your representative votes, not you.

From what I understand in certain locales, this type of spending comes up for a referendum and a public vote.

Thanks for the civics lesson, btw.

[Grumpypotpie]

Originally Posted by NLVgal

From what I understand in certain locales, this type of spending comes up for a referendum and a public vote.

Thanks for the civics lesson, btw.

Is it different because it's not 'technically' money being provided by the local citizenry? I would think the average citizen doesn't get much say in how taxes levied by the state on visitors are disbursed.

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by Grumpypotpie

Is it different because it's not 'technically' money being provided by the local citizenry? I would think the average citizen doesn't get much say in how taxes levied by the state on visitors are disbursed.

Nevadans can put anything the Legislature passes on the ballot with a petition drive equal to 10% of the people that voted in the previous election . The high turnout puts that number around 105,000. It has nothing to do with who pays the tax or if it is a tax at all. It could be a law about anything.

Regardless, it's well established that this is not just a tax on tourists. Thousands if not tens of thousands of locals live in hotels at some point during the year. They are using our property taxes as collateral for the stadium bonds and as a backup funding source.

[manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

As TV markets go, it isn't just the Bay Area as it pertains to the Raiders. Sacramento is also a Raiders' TV market. It's twice the size of Las Vegas by itself. Monterey/Salinas adds another 250,000 households. The Oakland TV market is about 5.5 million total TV households.

Las Vegas is 736,000 households and an NFL team here would have no other official TV markets. That is why the NFL isn't thrilled with the relocation idea. The Raiders' current market is eight times the size of the one it wants to move to. Sure, it shares with the 49ers. Even if you chop it into two, the Raiders' still have four times the reach now than what they would have in Las Vegas.

Add the home exclusivity rule to that and you're taking about six Sunday afternoon games off TVs in Las Vegas, the highest rated neutral NFL market in the country. That's a loss of about 500,000 cumulative viewers in the Las Vegas TV market every season before you include the ones that go to the games. When you add that, you're well over one million.

I don't think you can chop it in two though.

The San Francisco 49ers have way more than 50% of the area's support. It's more like 75-25%.

Just because Sacramento and Monterey are in the Raiders catchment area doesn't mean there's a ton of support there for the Raiders as well.

I would say the real catchment area is just the East Bay, which isn't much bigger than LV.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

I don't think you can chop it in two though.

The San Francisco 49ers have way more than 50% of the area's support. It's more like 75-25%.

Just because Sacramento and Monterey are in the Raiders catchment area doesn't mean there's a ton of support there for the Raiders as well.

I would say the real catchment area is just the East Bay, which isn't much bigger than LV.

Potential market is the important number. There's room for growth even without population growth.

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

I don't think you can chop it in two though.

The San Francisco 49ers have way more than 50% of the area's support. It's more like 75-25%.

Just because Sacramento and Monterey are in the Raiders catchment area doesn't mean there's a ton of support there for the Raiders as well.

I would say the real catchment area is just the East Bay, which isn't much bigger than LV.

This may be true, but that isn't the metric the NFL uses for market size. All of those markets are in the reach and are potential Raiders fans, as the NFL sees it. As the Raiders improve and the 49ers go 2-14, the interest will shift. Part of the reason it is so lopsided is because the Raiders have not posted a winning record in 14 years before this one.

The Raiders can't grow any sort of fan base winning four games a season. Moving to Las Vegas wouldn't change that. The team would face the same battle.

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by robr2

Potential market is the important number. There's room for growth even without population growth.

Right. This week will probably prove this. The NFL waivered the San Francisco TV market for Christmas Eve so that the 49ers could be on West Coast close to home. This meant that 49ers and Raiders were on TV at same time even with Raiders at home.

Which game do you think won the time slot in ratings? The 1-13 49ers at the 4-10 Rams or the Raiders still in play for the #1 AFC seed hosting another team still in playoff hunt?

The ratings won't come out for another couple of days but the Raiders winning that time slot is a huge favorite which would demonstrate the market isn't slanted that far in the 49ers' favor. If you've watched any 49ers home games this year you know that the no-shows are substantial. Local team interest is at or near an all time low.

[Cold Warrior]

Thousands if not tens of thousands of locals live in hotels at some point during the year.

This needs a citation. In the last 5 decades I have stayed in a hotel in my hometown exactly zero times.

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

This needs a citation. In the last 5 decades I have stayed in a hotel in my hometown exactly zero times.

You aren't on the verge of homelessness or been involved in homeless charities, I presume from this comment, so you're probably not familiar with the weekly rental hotel industry or had a need for its services. Many Las Vegans do. It was one of the few aspects of the bill that received any sort of debate but proponents refused to add an exception for low cost motel rooms.

Las Vegans that are a step above living on the streets but don't have a security deposit or good enough credit for an apartment live in places like Siegel Suites, Emerald Suites or one of the Manor properties by the week. The stadium/LVCC tax adds about $4-5/wk to that bill.

If they pay for less than 30 days at a time, the transaction triggers the stadium tax. If they could pay for/commit to 30 days then they probably wouldn't need an extended stay to begin with.

There are about 3,000 such rooms in the market that mostly cater to locals. The number of individuals this affects depends on an unknown churn rate. Many people live in these then sleep out in the street for a while and return when their fortunes turnaround or when they find a charity that will help them get back into one. Others live in them full time hoping to save for an apartment deposit.

[Bps401]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

This needs a citation. In the last 5 decades I have stayed in a hotel in my hometown exactly zero times.

Weeklys