Vegas paper says Raiders stadium “could” prompt development, in pioneering move of subjunctive journalism

The Las Vegas Review-Journal has presumably not needed to be in the business of boosterism for a new Raiders stadium since its owner, Sheldon Adelson, was cut out of the stadium deal early this year, but old habits die hard. So we have this article from Saturday’s paper, which looks at whether development is taking off around the stadium site, and follows this thought process:

  • There hasn’t been a ton of new interest in buying up land around stadium site.
  • One developer did buy a 2.5-acre parcel for about six times the going rate per acre, and now other landowners are looking for premium prices as well.
  • Conclude that whether or not the stadium actually results in new development, “at the very least, it seems the Raiders’ arrival has pushed up some property values.”
  • Run all this under the headline “Las Vegas Raiders stadium could spark nearby projects,” because in an infinite universe, anything could happen.

I’m honestly kind of sorry to have spent this much of your time and mine on this, but it’s important to see how that “stadiums bring economic development” meme we were just talking about spreads: A whole lot of people are going to see that headline in their daily newspaper (or, let’s be real, in their Facebook feeds) and think, “Oh, hey, maybe that Raiders stadium deal will be a boon to the surrounding area!” Whereas all that’s really happened is one guy gambled by spending $7.25 million on a plot of land the size of 2,500 king-size mattresses, and now everyone else is hoping that their property will be worth more now, and, bingo, newspaper headline. Thank god for journalism, or we might be forced to use the evidence provided by our own eyes.

Share this post:

8 comments on “Vegas paper says Raiders stadium “could” prompt development, in pioneering move of subjunctive journalism

  1. Sure, the headline stinks. The spike in economic activity south of the Strip, however, will be very real. (Assuming the Raiders move, which I doubt.)

  2. Even is there was a spike I wouldn’t expect to see much evidence now while the stadium is still under construction. Way too many variables while they’re still talking about redoing offramps and settling general access issues. Who’d want to buy up an expensive parcel right now only to find that it’d be sub-optimal once all those changes were made?

  3. A clever headline. Alas, the statement “The stadium could prompt development” contains not the subjunctive mood but the conditional mood.

    An example of the subjunctive mood would be “It is necessary that the stadium prompt development”.

Comments are closed.