Friday, October 14, 2016

Stadium Surprises


  • Years later, there is still a legal battle going on between the two moms. [RJ]
  • Late night breaking news complicated the Assembly's consideration of the stadium bill. And now a wildfire will delay things further. [KNPRLas Vegas Sun; RJ]
  • The attack on a UNLV law professor was random. [RJ]
  • Heads up!  The debate next week is already starting to have impacts on traffic and police presence in the area. [Fox5Vegas]

43 comments:

  1. Despite the traffic issues, I am looking forward to Trump's overwhelming third and final debate victory over Crooked Hillary (as it will be written by the online polls on breitbart).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are you smoking?

      Delete
    2. I wish the Trump Koolaid was really radiator fluid. That would be a major step in making America "great again."

      Delete
    3. I'm smoking victory you cucks

      Delete
    4. Keep watching FOX News and you will have a great understanding of the world in general and Trump in particular. He is way ahead and so smart.

      Delete
    5. Smoking the Eric Johnson ally to Trump lighter fluid. Trump rally at Johnsons' campaign event on the 20th.

      Delete
    6. Dear Ma. Border, who do you support for Pres?

      Delete
    7. Is there seriously a Trump really happening at a Judge Johnson campaign event?

      Delete
    8. Probably, he is a conservative.

      Delete
    9. Character assassinations aside, I prefer Trump on the issues. Clinton has basically promised war in Syria. At least Trump has consistently stated we need to get out of the middle east where we have done tremendous damage from Bush through Obama. He is pro-2nd amendment and his SCOTUS nominees will not be left-wing ideologues.

      Delete
    10. I'm just curious if the RJ will grossly misrepresent the presidential race and the Senate races again, like they have in the past with their pretty little agenda.

      Like when they hand Sharon Angle winning or super close to Harry Reid 6 years ago, and he won pretty substantially.

      Now, they seem to be highlighting how Joe Heck and Catherine Cortez-Masto are even steven, but I've seen other polls that show she is 5-7 points ahead.

      That whole newspaper is an editorial and should be labeled as such.

      Delete
  2. Discuss:

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/tv_ad_tells_viewers_about_banned_information_in_tort_trials_civil_defense_b/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like free speech to me, not to mention the truth. If you have a med Mal case in Nevada it is known you have health insurance or medicaid. I agree with John Morgan, not to mention he is a genius in business.

      Delete
    2. Fine. Then the collateral source doctrine needs to go away. Particularly in light of the ACA's mandate that everyone obtain health insurance. It's not longer an issue that the tortfeasor shouldn't benefit from the plaintiff's prudence, because it's no longer prudence that drives the purchase of insurance, but the freaking law. That being the case, there's no reason why plaintiffs should reap a windfall when someone else is picking up the tab.

      Delete
    3. Isn't the plaintiff picking up the tab by paying insurance? Why does a tortfeasor get the benefit of a plaintiff paying $1000 a month for health insurance? If the tortfeasor hit someone with no health insurance, then they would pay more.

      Delete
    4. The individual mandate requires everyone to buy health insurance, or to pay a penalty. There is no fortuity to the presence of such insurance at this point.

      But sure, let's keep pretending that collateral source is something other than a means to inflate jury verdicts.

      Delete
    5. That would be fine if you can disclose that the tortfeasor has insurance since it is the freaking law as you say. Prior to ACA did you feel the same way?

      Delete
    6. Interesting thread here that should be explored further nationwide-is it time to get rid of the collateral source rule, at least with regards to health insurance and car insurance? I'm sure we all have anecdotes regarding jurors after trials all saying "well we knew he had insurance".

      Delete
  3. Stadium bill passed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No (bleeping way). That $900MM NDOT issue should have been the final nail in this proverbial coffin that will be on the corner of Paradise and Tropicana.

      Delete
    2. Lets hope the NFL owners do the right thing and grant the move!!! GO RAIDERS!

      Delete
    3. The stadium would be owned by the public, and would be financed with general obligation bonds issued for a term of 30 years. Any profits from the stadium, however, would flow to the private investors, a point that generated much of the opposition to the project.

      Delete
    4. Funny, I am strongly hoping the NFL shuts this nonsense down. Terrible deal for taxpayers.

      Delete
    5. On the other hand, I love that they put in a back door for a new stadium for UNLV (so long as they can raise $200M for it). Boyd is a dump fire. A $500M 35-50k seat stadium for UNLV closer to campus would be a great benefit for UNLV athletics (not just football) and you could STILL sell some pretty big evemts like UEFA games, college neutral-site games, and bigger concerts than we can host now.

      Delete
  4. Las Vegas could build it's own stadium for $750,000,000. I can't believe this went through in a special session. Laws for billionaires and laws for the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely. Why's it gotta cost roughly TWICE what the next-most expensive NFL stadium did? I refuse to believe you couldn't build a decent enough stadium for $650M. Build it with expansion in mind...then if the Raiders get a deal take their $500M and expand it and the state can throw in $300 or so for infrastructure.

      Delete
    2. I don't get why everyone keeps focusing on the 1.9B number. While that may be the final price tab, that isn't the public's contribution (to the extent that you accept that there is a public contribution that isn't reimbursed by tourists [room tax, increased economic activity, increased entertainment, sales and gambling tax receipts, etc.]). Unlike any of the other stadiums that were built with public money, they didn't have a private investment of $650M (Adelson money)+ $500M (NFL money.

      The addition of those 2 sources reduces the bond funding from the state to $750M. The state further saves money because of the agreement to use this stadium for UNLV purposes. Without this stadium the price tag for a UNLV only stadium was 300-500M which would be paid from public funds. Using the conservative number, the public is kicking in maybe 450M for a state-of-the-art stadium, that can be used for additional purposes when a game isn't scheduled and which can only increase economic activity and the tax base.

      Delete
    3. The stadium is exempt from property tax. See SB1 Section 35,(c).

      Delete
    4. property taxes are just one of the many forms of taxes imposed. How about general sales tax, entertainment tax, gross receipts tax, as well as the increased tax revenues from surrounding businesses and resulting from increased visitor traffic?

      Delete
  5. How long until the first law suit about the way this special session was done and tax increased? Thanks to the ESA case, we know citizens can just go straight to court now...

    ReplyDelete
  6. What is wrong with left wing ideologues? If we had the left wing in place when Gore beat Bush we would not even be talking about the shit on this blog i.e. ISIS and Syria. Since when does the Supreme Court decide an election? Only when there is a conservative bench does that happen. The 5 to 4 has been around way to long. No one is against the second amendment right to have guns. You have once again been getting your news from the source, FOX.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am SO GLAD stadium passed! Hooray! NFL team in LV and economic stimulus. We need expedited road improvements too, so that's a great bonus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know what that means, right? NDOT will pull every last dime from every other planned improvement south of Mesquite (goodbye, NW Spaghetti Bowl in 2017. Hello, 2025. Maybe.) and dump it road improvements to support Adelson's Happy Little Whorehouse. Won't affect any projects in Northern Nevada. But Southern Nevada will get hosed. Again.

      Delete
    2. But, FOOTBALL!!!

      Delete
    3. Exactly as predicted: NDOT will shuffle things in Clark County. Meaning the people who actually live and work and commute here get screwed. http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/traffic-transportation/ndot-plans-shuffle-future-clark-county-freeway-projects-near-raiders

      Delete
  8. For the last year, I have been unable to access http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/ from Google Chrome (which I always use), but I can access it from IE (which I never use). Has anyone else had this problem? If so, were you able to fix it, and how? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have exactly this problem. I use Edge (the new IE) to get around it although even then I still have problems on some pages. I would rather use firefox but that always gives the error. Would be really nice if they fixed whatever the problem is.

      Delete
    2. I'm a die-hard Firefox fan. There are only a couple websites I use Edge on: One is www.clarkcountycourts.us because it doesn't work in Firefox anymore. The other is pornhub because the stupid video player doesn't work well in Firefox.........

      Delete
    3. So you use Edge all the time then.

      Delete
    4. Speaking of Odyssey sucking a$$.... I wonder if their maintenance this weekend will fix it?
      https://eighthjdcourt.wordpress.com/2016/10/14/e-filing-for-the-eighth-judicial-district-court-will-be-out-this-saturday-oct-15-from-9-930-p-m/

      Delete
    5. It's been this way for awhile with me as well - only on IE, not Firefox. I think it's a joke because when you call down to the courthouse, they treat me as if I'm a computer newbie who just discovered the Internet.

      I think the service Wiznet provides is much less than ideal, also. I know a few companies bolted Wiznet in the past - I believe Maricopa County was one of them. I'd like to know how they are with now and also wish the courts would explore alternative options to being charged $3.50 per filing

      Delete
  9. Don't use Chrome for when you pay your bar dues or when you do your forms, not everything appears.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I used IE and it worked for me last year anyways.

      Delete