Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nevada > Las Vegas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you support public financing to build a stadium for the Raiders
Yes 33 27.05%
No 89 72.95%
Voters: 122. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-25-2016, 12:58 PM
 
452 posts, read 334,504 times
Reputation: 339

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by beachhead View Post
Yes, but the quote was that a pro football team "revitalizes" an area. The raiders most certainly did nothing of the sort for the L.A. area. It sounds good in a press release, but reality shows that's not exactly true.

If they said 'it could", it wouldn't be as much of an exaggeration. Trying to sell a bad deal to the less intelligent is all that is.
Again that is different, the coliseum and surrounding area were already there before the Rams or Raiders started playing there.Plus the coliseum was a dump and still is a dump not much for the surrounding area to be excited about. A brand new arena will bring new business's to the area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-25-2016, 01:17 PM
 
15,749 posts, read 14,356,603 times
Reputation: 11807
I've never seen this to be the case. The community doesn't get much out of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
Better answer: The increased economic activity in the community is a greater benefit to the community than it is to the team owner, who can only reap a fraction of 'those awesome rewards'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2016, 01:57 PM
 
34 posts, read 34,838 times
Reputation: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
Better answer: The increased economic activity in the community is a greater benefit to the community than it is to the team owner, who can only reap a fraction of 'those awesome rewards'.

Not if it's publicly funded, it isn't. This has been well studied. The claim is false. It is a lie to sell a scam. The stadium owners and some peripheral businesses prosper, but the greater community, the taxpayers en masse, never fully recover. It's just more welfare for the already wealthy. The exact same case could be made for subsidizing any business, but it's only accepted here due to the bias of sports fandom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2016, 02:16 PM
 
799 posts, read 704,177 times
Reputation: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by calisoccer99 View Post
Again that is different, the coliseum and surrounding area were already there before the Rams or Raiders started playing there.Plus the coliseum was a dump and still is a dump not much for the surrounding area to be excited about. A brand new arena will bring new business's to the area.
Sorry, it is not different. At one point in time, the area around the Coliseum was a nice piece of suburban Los Angeles. Then, for whatever reason, it has decayed. Even the Rams left it. So, bring in the raiders (a pro football team) and according to those who are trying to sell this white gazeliphant to the good people of Las Vegas, bringing in a pro football team will re-vitalize the area around the stadium. That means, "make vital again, breathe new life into, etc." That did not occur. If anything with the raiders and the "thug mentality" they embody, and promote, the area continued to decline. It was so bad even the raiders left!

Like I said, I love football, but the reality is that public funding of a pro football stadium is a bad investment, and it's not appropriate use of tax dollars stolen from hard working Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2016, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge
2,420 posts, read 3,830,170 times
Reputation: 2496
Quote:
Originally Posted by beachhead View Post
If you're ever in L.A., go drive around the Coliseum (This is where the raiders played when they were there) It is a feces hole, and was when the raiders played there. I went to games, and parked on peoples front lawns (for a fee). I guess you could call it drawing business and revitalizing the area, but that's probably not what the picture you see when you read/hear those flowery words.

And it really really comes down to plain old common sense. If pro football stadiums are such great investments, why aren't the billionaires who own the teams paying for them so they can reap those awesome rewards? Answer: the billionaires are smart enough to know that they are extremely poor investments for losers, which is why they try to fool the taxpayers into paying for them.

I've been a football fan since I was a kid playing tackle out in the street. (yes we did that back before helicopter parents, and <gasp> survived!) If the raiders want to move here, great, just as long as it's done without the obligation of the taxpayer. The taxpayers should not be considered as an ATM.
You couldn't have said this any better. The owners contribute very little to a new stadium, especially a football stadium, because there's no money to be made. The politicians then lie to the citizens about all the businesses that will spring up around the new stadium. Economists have always proven that new stadiums are brutal money wasters. Restaurants, bars and retail stores that open near a new stadium are basically taking would-be customers from established businesses away from somewhere else. There's no gain. Just a transfer. This is one part that economists try to convey.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2016, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Southern Highlands
2,413 posts, read 2,010,223 times
Reputation: 2236
Quote:
At one point in time, the area around the Coliseum was a nice piece of suburban Los Angeles.
Not in my lifetime, and I lived in LA before the riots of 1965.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2016, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Southern Highlands
2,413 posts, read 2,010,223 times
Reputation: 2236
Quote:
Not if it's publicly funded, it isn't. This has been well studied.
A deal that doesn't yet exist 'has been well studied'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2016, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge
2,420 posts, read 3,830,170 times
Reputation: 2496
Here's an article regarding the new Vikings' stadium:

The New Vikings Stadium Is a Broken Window Metaphor Come to Life: Vandalism at the Minnesota Vikings new stadium turned the $1.1 billion glass structure into a hulking metaphor about the folly of publicly-funded ballparks.
The New Vikings Stadium Is a Broken Window Metaphor Come to Life - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2016, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Southern Highlands
2,413 posts, read 2,010,223 times
Reputation: 2236
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainBiking View Post
Here's an article regarding the new Vikings' stadium:

The New Vikings Stadium Is a Broken Window Metaphor Come to Life: Vandalism at the Minnesota Vikings new stadium turned the $1.1 billion glass structure into a hulking metaphor about the folly of publicly-funded ballparks.
The New Vikings Stadium Is a Broken Window Metaphor Come to Life - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Eh. A misrepresentation of 'Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas'. To say that

'economic activity redirected from one "unseen" purpose to another "seen" one, as in when a broken window is repeaired (sic), does not produce a net positive in economic activity'

is simply not true, nor is it Bastiat's point. It may or may not produce a net positive, depending on the merits of the two activities.


One more demerit for calling him an Austrian.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2016, 01:17 AM
 
6,360 posts, read 11,805,855 times
Reputation: 6795
Adelson gone quiet on this, I really think he's done with it. However it started a movement so it won't die just yet. Maybe the Fertittas now take up the push.

It always amazes me how people get so emotional in these arguments about public funding that they just lose sight of reasonable analysis. First of all no matter what happens, tourism taxes aren't paying for schools. Just not happening. Second the all or nothing debate is obscuring what really needs to be discussed for this project or any after it. There surely is some value to building a stadium with public funds. The question is where does it stop being worthwhile. For those who say not a dollar on it, well good luck with that. Governments spend money because the economy depends on it. They just shouldn't get taken and spend way more than necessary. What's the proper amount to even consider for a dome stadium has been totally lost here. Its not $750m, that's absurd. Even $550m is outrageous in my view. Doesn't matter if its just a small room tax increment, its still not a proper amount to spend.

The bigger problem which is leading to such a huge ask and why Oakland isn't even trying is no one will admit Mark Davis is the poor man of the NFL. Oh he's got a few million here and there, but his net worth is really all about the Raiders. They aren't a cash flow machine despite being in a cash flow league. If he gets to move into a new stadium no matter where its built, the guy is going to see his franchise value go up. A lot. Like half a billion dollars or more. He's not sharing a penny of that with whatever city he goes to.

If he had some cash on hand he could use, then he could chip in a lot more for the stadium of his dreams in the Bay Area and he could see an even better return on investment and also probably get some lucrative land next to it to make himself even more rich. That's what Rams owner Kroenke is doing, he's going to mint money not only with increased franchise value but by partnering up with developers to turn ghetto land in Inglewood into something fairly valuable. But unfortunately Mark Davis doesn't have cash or a way to get it and doesn't seem willing to sell a good chunk of the team until he's moved and gets to be half a billion dollars richer, so all he can do is hold up cities like Las Vegas for a stadium. Nevada needs to say no to him for this very reason.

Here is what should be done if the Raiders really were to move. Build a stadium for $700-800m, not this insane $2bn price tag. Have the city's tourists pick up say $200m, make Davis cough up $300m and the NFL and other investors cough up the rest. Once they sign for naming rights most of their investment will be covered. If Davis makes ticket holders buy seat licenses much of his cost will be recovered too. If the land cost is really that high, then move it somewhere a bit cheaper. Something with 30-40 events a year doesn't need to be placed on the most expensive real estate in the state. People will figure out how to get there. Sure some will complain about $200m in "public" funds, but that's a fair deal in terms of what it will generate in additional marketing value and the occasional big event which will draw in incremental visitors. Over 20 years its really very modest, but most importantly its fair and its not a dumb giveaway to a guy who stands to make a ton of money and he's not going to share a penny with the city or state's residents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nevada > Las Vegas

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top