Friday, September 16, 2016

Hail To The New Chief


  • Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez will become District Court Chief Judge on January 1, 2017. [eighthjdcourt blog]
  • A grand jury is targeting the husband in the death of a lawyer and North Las Vegas justice court pro tem judge after her death had previously been ruled a suicide. [RJ and a second article about her parents]
  • The More Cops tax hike is on its way to the legislature--along with a stadium. [RJ; Las Vegas Sun]
  • Former AG and current senate candidate Catherine Cortez Masto is against recreational marijuana and public money for an NFL stadium. [Las Vegas Sun]

36 comments:

  1. I just don't see why Las Vegas needs to have the most expensive NFL stadium to date. Why can't we throw in, say, $200 million and they build a $1.3B stadium? I feel like you can get a lot of stadium for that much money, even with land prices in the resort corridor.

    And it's STILL complete horseshit that the public puts in 1/3 but doesn't get 1/3 of the gate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Its horseshit and shortsighted stupidity by 100% of the commissioners. Disgusting that they would bend over and take it so happily. Look at St. Louis and the Rams and tell me why the fuck anyone would put public money up for a stadium to a franchise trying to leverage a better stadium in the LA market - no matter how many years down the road. Stupid, stupid, stupid commissioners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seriously... St. Louis is the EXACT reason why LV should not be going down this road. Especially with an owners like the Davis family. You can be certain they would look to move if anything didn't go their way.

      Delete
  3. Actually, the partial public funding of the stadium is not such a bad deal in Las Vegas's particular circumstances. In most cases, local residents have to suck up an additional sales tax. For the Raiders stadium, it's going to be paid for by an additional tax on hotel stays. That means it will be overwhelmingly paid for by out-of-state visitors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which could be used for something useful like schools, schools and schools. It doesn't matter who is being screwed over to pay for the stadium, its that its being used to pay for a stadium that is stupidly expensive and for the freaking' Raiders, the Michelle Bachmann of franchises.

      Delete
    2. Schools need less money not more. We need less taxes not more. We are becoming California, where Democrats rule the jungle and RINO's roar while licking donkey balls.

      Delete
    3. Las Vegas is also quite different than other cities who have helped pay for stadiums. Las Vegas is so dependent on tourism that it does actually make sense to spend taxes on a project like this, because it will lead to additional tourism dollars flowing into the city. It's essentially an investment into the primary industry of our state. It will lead to numerous events that millions of people will ultimately travel to Vegas for who may not have come if not for some sort of event at the new stadium. That same analysis does not necessarily apply in other cites.

      Delete
    4. Harrumph harrumph harrumph
      Conservative talking point
      Reaganomics, fearmongering, and vitriol
      The perfect blog post
      Harrumph harrumph harrumph

      Delete
    5. I could be convinced that there's value in public investment in a stadium. I just don't think it's right that Sheldon and his cronies get to pocket all the receipts.

      My normal attitude towards taxes and public spending generally is aggressively libertarian, but if you're going to publicly finance the LVCC or a stadium, then room tax dollars is as close as you'll get to what I'd think of as a moral tax. Basically, you're charging the resorts for marketing and business development that they're not allowed to opt out of. Not ideal, but better than an income tax.

      Delete
    6. Ridiculous. Nevadans piss and moan about taxes every chance they get. As a result, your schools are funded at one of the lowest in the nation, you can't attract good talent because no one wants to raise their kids in a place where education is terrible, and those who do come end up leaving in a few years. But Mark Davis rolls in to town and suddenly its "Let's raise the room tax!!!"

      Delete
  4. Here's my two cents on why I think the "expensive" stadium is justified and why I think it is not a big deal that the city gets money back on its investment: (1) having a state of the art stadium ensures that the team will not go anywhere for the next 10-15 years (minimum). The whole reason why Raiders are moving is because the stadium in Oakland is older than Fred Flinstone, and when they went to LA they were promised a new stadium (which never happened) which is why they went back to Oakland. CA in general is against providing public money for stadiums, which is why the only new stadiums are privately funded. So by Las Vegas having a great awesome kick ass stadium, we are not half assing the quality and ensuring we will have football to stay in town for a long while. By the way, don't forget that UNLV Rebels and other football conference games will be played at this stadium, bringing more money to the city for a long time to come.

    Second, the city doesn't need a direct return on investment because it will receive a huge indirect return on investment via games being held in the city right next to the strip. Not only NFL games, but also College Football and who knows what else that will be held there. Since UNLV is going to use the stadium I would argue that in itself is a direct return on investment, as the locals are essentially chipping in for UNLV to have a new stadium too, which brings in more money for the school via TV contracts and so forth. This stadium, combined with NHL hockey, will be great for Vegas as it will bring a huge influx of people more so than we already get and will definitely have Las Vegas moving faster in its recovery from the Great Recession. Who knows, we might even have a few more hotels pop up!

    Just remember guys, it takes money to make money! And this is a good deal, specially since the tax is paid by out of towners, and the rest is fronted privately. So both the city and the private companies are mutually invested in making sure this stadium thrives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One way to look at it is that the $750 is basically buying a new stadium for UNLV, and the private partners money is buying one for all other purposes. I don't think, though, that if public money were going to be spent on a new stadium for UNLV it would be that much.

      I can't deny though that I think it moves the University to a whole knew level....for whatever that's worth.

      Delete
    2. Except I heard UNLV will have to "pay to play" in the stadium and will not get any revenue from concessions, etc. for the games it plays there. Can anyone else confirm? If UNLV has to pay to play, then it's more taxpayer money going to greedy billionaires.

      Delete
    3. No one will be able to drive around town when there are games and events. The traffic will be so bad that Southwest Airlines even expressed concerns on one location. Let's put it to a vote or greater public scrutiny and find out exactly what are we getting into.
      I just hope reasonable minds will prevail. What is next after the stadium--a 5 billion light rail project because of the traffic gridlock. If the stadium does not pencil out, it should not be built. End of story. Let private enterprise or equity do it.

      Delete
    4. To 9:06 AM...

      Pass that joint around. You are clearly smoking some recreational MJ. Is it already legalized or did you bring it in from out of state? It must be some good stuff!

      Delete
    5. 9:06 I wish I shared your enthusiasm. The $750 million is not capped under the proposal by the SNTIC, meaning that if the costs go higher that they can come back to the public for more revenue.

      And, the $750 million is more than the private investment share ($650m) and more then the NFL's share ($500m). And, it sounds like the final report to the Legislature will make only the $750m amount mandatory, and simply indicate the intent of the private investment to be $650m, but that won't be mandatory. So the public will spend more than any other party on this.


      10-15 years of the Raiders won't get the return on investment; it will take 30 years to get the room tax money to cover the cost, and the increase in the room tax won't be reduced until 30 years has passed. The proposal envisions a 30-year lease with the Raiders - hopefully they like Vegas that long.

      If UNLV can use the stadium, that'd be awesome, and would for sure take the program to a new level - but they will lose revenue from Sam Boyd so you know they'll be asking for more money at the next session now too.

      And the additional "more cops" means an increase in sales taxes for everyone, not just tourists.

      I really hope this stadium is a positive thing for Vegas and does everything they are promising. Guess I better buy some Raiders gear and get on board.

      Delete
  5. The return on investing $750 million in our schools would be far, far, FAR greater than funneling cash to private enterprises using public money. They can build it 100% privately. Everyone knows this. That is the big pile of crap that is smeared all over the entire stadium.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bullshit. Money DOES need to be spent on schools, but it's pretty clear to me that "more money=better school outcomes" is complete horseshit. CCSD would piss away $750M on god only knows what and 15 years from now we'd still have the world high school graduation rates in the country.

      Somebody think of some good ways to SPEND school money and I'll vote for my own local taxes to pay for it. But not just for "More teachers, more buildings".

      Delete
    2. Oh...but yeah to your second point - no reason they couldn't build their own damned stadium with their own damned money.

      Delete
    3. When Nevada schools in general and CCSD in particular change their ways and actually try to educate the children rather than merely teach to a test and buy unnecessary administrative buildings housing a bloated bureaucracy, I'll be willing to look at whether they truly need more funds. Until then, it just sending more good money after bad money into a black hole! Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity!

      Delete
    4. How is that at all unique to CCSD? That is the definition of stupidity.

      Delete
  6. I don't know why it has to cost $1.9 billion. Stadiums have been built within the last 10 years for much less, even as little as $300,000,000. Sheldon and the Raiders are looking for the most expensive stadium ever? The whole thing could easily get done for under $1 billion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In January, it was $1.2B. In April or May, it was $1.4B. Now, it's $1.9B. And when it is built, my guess is that if $1.9B is actually spent, a lot of the money will somehow find its way to the friends of Sheldon and the politicians who have approved this fleece.

      Delete
  7. If we were really thinking ahead, we'd build the stadium to be capable of comfortably accommodating baseball games, too. It would also be nice to condition it on a change of the Raiders name to something Las Vegas related.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The NFL expressly has moved away from dual purpose stadiums because of field conditions and player safety.

      Delete
    2. Ironically, the Oakland Coliseum is the last of them.

      Delete
    3. Isn't it just a little?

      Delete
  8. Good God, what a bunch of braying-ass buzz killers. What, what, what about the children?!

    ReplyDelete
  9. is this a law blog or a stadium blog?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I just want to know why it seems like every politician who has a say in this is ready to put on the knee pads for Adelson and his cronies? Why aren't they fighting harder for a better deal for the public? Why can't they set this up an a low-interest loan? Or require a share of the gate? I'd be fully behind this if locals were given huge discounts on tickets. At least throw us a bone here if you're going to shove this stadium deal up our butts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm just spitballing it but maybe the reasons politicians are unwilling to take on Adelson are: (1) he owns the largest newspaper in the state; (2) he has more money than God; and (3) he has shown that he is willing to spend it to get whatever he wants.

      Delete
    2. Or, maybe those politicians are actually for the stadium. (I know, what a foreign concept that people may actually think differently from, for the most part, elitist attorneys that post on this blog.)

      Delete
    3. Hey, hey, hey. Be careful about throwing around the word elite--especially on this blog.

      Delete
    4. It's a trip when I socialize with my family and non-lawyers friends after I've been around only lawyers for awhile. For example, after the Hobby Lobby decision was issued, I was convinced its days were numbered, but in reality, it a pretty popular store.

      Delete
  11. How come we got a NHL team and a rink for them to play in and the public did not have to kick in? The NFL is a multi-billion dollar organization whose members are multi-million to multi-billionaires so why can't they finance the stadium that helps them? You put the money problem on them and they'll make sure they make money and that the Raiders stay till the debt is paid off. NO public money.

    ReplyDelete