The Nevada state legislature’s special session to discuss a $750-million-plus stadium subsidy to bring the Oakland Raiders to town kicks off today, which means it’s time for boosters of the plan to pull out all the stops in arguing that this not only is a reasonable amount of money to throw at two rich guys, but an absolute no-brainer. What do you got, stadium proponents?
- “Clark County Commission Chairman Steve Sisolak said the projects would put Las Vegas ‘on the map with other major cities.'”
Sisolak apparently said this back in early September (unless he said it again this weekend, which is possible), but the Las Vegas Review-Journal is reporting it as new news. Which is fine enough, because the notion that Las Vegas needs to be put on the tourist map is hilarious enough that it’s worth repeating as often as possible.
- Brookings Mountain West (a joint project of the Brookings Institution and UNLV, which would get to use the new stadium for football games) directors Robert Lang and William Brown: “More than 42 million annual visitors also will notice what action Nevada’s leadership takes. Our core economy and the region’s standing as a global tourist and convention destination are in play.”
This seems to be a twist on Sisolak’s remarks, only implying that if Nevada doesn’t spend $750 million on a football stadium, tourists will stop visiting Vegas because they’ll think the state has bad leadership. Still reasonably hilarious!
- Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce CEO Kristin McMillan: “Among peer tourism cities, Las Vegas is the only one without a 60,000-plus seat stadium. This means that cities such as Dallas and Orlando have a competitive edge.”
Okay, starting to sense an agreed-upon message here: Sure, people are flocking to Las Vegas now, but if we don’t have a football stadium, they’ll have no reason not to go to Dallas instead! Why this would suddenly start happening now after decades of Dallas having a football stadium and Vegas not is anyone’s guess, but as “cold Omaha” statements go, it’s a vivid enough image, I suppose.
- Richard Verlotta, Las Vegas Review-Journal “gaming and tourism” reporter: “Visitors will spend on hotel rooms, food, transportation, drinks and retail shopping. That’s where our schools, roads, parks and all things supported by tax dollars would benefit. It’s the foundation of our economy.”
This is another common on-message point — McMillan makes it as well — so long as you don’t actually do the math on whether increased visitor spending on those things would be worth more than $750 million. (Spoiler: It wouldn’t.)
- Construction union Local 872 leader Tommy White: “Let’s build this stadium. Let’s bring the economy back to Las Vegas. There’s so many communities in Las Vegas that have suffered no work.”
This would give the members of my union more jobs while construction was underway — it’s narrow self-interest, but at least it’s true! We have a winner!
Not that any of these arguments are really expected to win the day on the basis of pure logic, economic or otherwise — rather, they’re intended to provide political cover for the state legislators who are going to have to explain in a few days why they approved giving three-quarters of a billion dollars in tax money to a wealthy casino owner and a not-quite-as-wealthy NFL team owner so they could build a stadium for private use. In modern political discourse, you don’t need to actually prove that the emperor has new clothes — you just need to make the case that reasonable people can disagree over the definition of nakedness.