Poll finds Nevada residents don’t want a taxpayer-funded stadium

A proposed deal to move the Raiders to Las Vegas will only happen if the Nevada state legislature approves public funding to build a stadium. And a new poll suggests that the legislators’ constituents may not be on board with that.

A KTNV-Rasmussen Reports poll asked likely voters, “Do you favor or oppose the use of up to $500 million in state taxpayer money to help finance a stadium that would bring the NFL’s Raiders franchise to Las Vegas?”

The result was that 60 percent of Nevada voters opposed the idea, and only 28 percent supported it. The stadium proposal did better among residents of Clark County, where Las Vegas is, but only a little better: 55 percent opposed the plan, while 35 percent supported it.

It’s important to note, however, that the wording of the poll could have had an effect on the results: The question didn’t make clear that the proposal is for a tax on hotel rooms to finance the stadium, which means the money would largely be coming from people outside the state.

“The survey question leaves out critical information,” said Las Vegas Sands executive Andy Abboud, one of the proponents of the stadium. “Specifically, the public funding would come from an increase in the hotel tax, which is predominantly paid by those visiting Clark County, not its residents.”

Nonetheless, hotel tax dollars that go toward a stadium are still tax dollars that go toward a stadium. And most Nevada residents are skeptical of that.

42 responses to “Poll finds Nevada residents don’t want a taxpayer-funded stadium

  1. “It’s important to note, however, that the wording of the poll could have had an effect on the results”

    Ya, especially when you consider that the proposal is NOT a taxpayer funded stadium, but funded by a tourist tax instead.

  2. Title could have been “Poll finds ‘ANY STATE’ residents don’t want a taxpayer-funded stadium”.

    But we all know most people don’t get a say in any of that, anyway.

  3. People are tire of Corporate and Billionaire welfare on the backs of working people and the functionally poor. Let those rich bastids pay for their own Palaces.

  4. Money is money is money. Seriously. That $500 million could be spent on better education, infrastructure, and health care for Las Vegas. How do people not get this?

    It makes no sense to do something that has the likelihood of damaging the Las Vegas tourist industry just to line the pockets of billionaires. Las Vegas lives and dies with tourism. Don’t tax it to death just to hand it to Mark Davis.

    Plus today’s $500 nillion is sure to turn in to tomorrow’s $3.5 billion.

  5. Also worth noting, the wording of “…. up to 500 million.” is not accurate either. The developers are demanding 750 million from hotel taxes and kickbacks from the revenue that is generated from a tax increment district created around the stadium. #stayinoakland

  6. They should do a poll and see how many reaidents support tax breaks for businesses. Public contributions toward stadium construction also comes in the form of tax breaks, the savings of which over a 30 year period can reflect a signifigant “investment”. Towns and cities accross the planet do these things. Disney is filming a movie in Australia because of 20m in tax breaks. Id bet liberal Australia’s citizens wouldnt favor “tax money going to the super rich people”. In order to attract businesses cities have to offer incentives. It doesnt matter if its a manufacturing plant or Stadium/Entertainment complex. Besides Nevada has an obligation to contribute 50% of the cost due to the fact a public university will have dual use of the facility. Otherwise they will pay 100% for a new UNLV stadium that wont house the NFL.

  7. citizenstrange says:
    Jul 28, 2016 10:44 AM
    Money is money is money. Seriously. That $500 million could be spent on better education, infrastructure, and health care for Las Vegas. How do people not get this?
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Probably because your take on it is completely wrong. That 500 million could not be spent on that agenda because it would only exist for the stadium. No stadium, no extra 500 million. Additionally, earmarking money for those services simply puts it in the coffers for the semi-corrupt legislatures to raid for other causes that seem more important at the time.

  8. Let the NFL fund the stadium. Any organization with enough money to pay a stuffed suit fraud of a commissioner $40M a year surely doesn’t need any corporate welfare.

  9. $500 million?

    I thought it was supposed to be %750 million.
    I read that Mark Davis was upset at the lower number.

  10. joetoronto says:
    Jul 28, 2016 10:37 AM
    …Ya, especially when you consider that the proposal is NOT a taxpayer funded stadium, but funded by a tourist tax instead.
    senatorblutarsky says:
    Jul 28, 2016 10:55 AM
    Invalid poll. The results were predetermined by the inaccurate wording.
    ————————————-
    You guys don’t get it. Ultimately, any such taxes paid go to the state to spend on everything, and hotels would soon push for other state breaks to make sure their prices don’t have to rise. And most tourists are taxpayers too, anyways. Bottom line is the average joe is paying for the rich to get richer.

  11. Fixed it:

    “Do you favor or oppose the use of up to $500 million in out of state visitor money to help finance a stadium that would bring the NFL’s Raiders franchise to Las Vegas?”

  12. joetoronto says:
    Jul 28, 2016 10:37 AM
    “It’s important to note, however, that the wording of the poll could have had an effect on the results”

    Ya, especially when you consider that the proposal is NOT a taxpayer funded stadium, but funded by a tourist tax instead.
    _______________________________

    While technically true, ANY tax-payer money that goes to the stadium/team is money NOT spent on roads, buildings, programs, etc.

    It won’t technically cost the Vegas tax-payers anything, but it’s still an “opportunity cost.”

  13. Good for them.
    Let those Robber Baron owners fund their own stadium.
    Let them use PSL receipts, help them raise money, for these poor owners

  14. The sad truth is that this will probably happen anyway. Once the acorn is planted the mighty oak tree will grow. Unfortunately, little people like us really don’t have a say in matters of this magnitude.

  15. Do people realize the income that building a stadium will generate? Jobs, Taxes and fees that will be fed back into the community?
    And it’s just not a Raiders stadium. Isn’t it also going to be used by UNLV and other events like concerts and soccer?
    People get so closed minded about costs that they forget to factor in the returns and benefits.
    A stadium would be a money maker for the Las Vegas area.

  16. How many of those grand casinos in Las Vegas and Reno were funded by the taxpayers, local or tourist? Those huge casinos, which were built privately (over $2 billion), generate massive revenue because they’re used EVERYDAY. A stadium will be used a handful of times a year and sit gathering dust the vast majority of the year.

    If the Vegas bosses can build privately funded casino resorts, then so can the Raiders and other sports teams who want to go there. In fact, the NFL can pay for ALL their own stadiums.

  17. It’s not that the tax payers don’t want to pay for a stadium its that they don’t want the god awful Raiders to come to town. If it where the Broncos the stadium would already be under way.

  18. Since when does it matter what the taxpayers want?

    Just look at Minneapolis, where the City Charter requires voter approval for such projects. All the polls showed that the voters would reject public funding for a new stadium. Nevertheless, the politicians, aided by self-serving lawyers, made an end run around voter approval and built the stadium anyway.

    It’s to Hell with the people who pay the bills. The only thing which matters is the Golden Rule, viz., “He who has the Gold rules.”

  19. “Those huge casinos, which were built privately (over $2 billion), generate massive revenue because they’re used EVERYDAY. A stadium will be used a handful of times a year and sit gathering dust the vast majority of the year.”

    No they generate massive revenue because they are a CASINO

  20. Ya, especially when you consider that the proposal is NOT a taxpayer funded stadium, but funded by a tourist tax instead.
    __
    Wait, did you just say something funded by a tourist tax is NOT taxpayer funded?? I don’t think you know what some of those words mean. If you pay a tax, either as a tourist or a citizen of a town/city/county/state you are a taxPAYER.

  21. FinFan68 says:
    Jul 28, 2016 10:56 AM

    citizenstrange says:
    Jul 28, 2016 10:44 AM
    Money is money is money. Seriously. That $500 million could be spent on better education, infrastructure, and health care for Las Vegas. How do people not get this?
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Probably because your take on it is completely wrong. That 500 million could not be spent on that agenda because it would only exist for the stadium. No stadium, no extra 500 million. Additionally, earmarking money for those services simply puts it in the coffers for the semi-corrupt legislatures to raid for other causes that seem more important at the time.
    ________________________________

    The point in the 1st post is that LV could also seek to pass this same hotel tax for roads, health care, infrastructure, etc. So, while this proposed tax isn’t being proposed for that reason there is a legit question as to why it isn’t being proposed to do those things. Why pass such a tax to fund a stadium? If the folks renting hotel rooms are willing to pay that extra tax (I don’t know what the elasticity is for taxes/rates, but I can’t imagine there is much room left before demand starts dropping rapidly) then why shouldn’t LV use that money for a “better” purpose like roads, schools, public health.

    I’m indifferent because I don’t stay in LV often so I don’t much care. When I do come to games, I can probably just fly in and out the day of.

  22. pacificdan says:
    Jul 28, 2016 12:07 PM
    Ya, especially when you consider that the proposal is NOT a taxpayer funded stadium, but funded by a tourist tax instead.
    __
    Wait, did you just say something funded by a tourist tax is NOT taxpayer funded?? I don’t think you know what some of those words mean. If you pay a tax, either as a tourist or a citizen of a town/city/county/state you are a taxPAYER.
    *******************************************
    Based on your logic, EVERYONE is a taxpayer, Mark Davis included.

    Stick to what you do best up there and stay out of the business discussions.

  23. Based on your logic, EVERYONE is a taxpayer, Mark Davis included.

    Stick to what you do best up there and stay out of the business discussions.
    _
    Yes, exactly, and when you take the money from a pool of taxpayers and then pay for a private asset, it becomes… wait for it, taxpayer funded.

    And what I do “up here” is manage a business so by default, I have to be involved in “business discussions” every single work day.

  24. There’s also the misconception that levels of tourism will increase, or at least remain flat, as new levels of taxation are added to the cost of hotels, etc. That’s not necessarily true. And … it’s still corporate welfare. It’s still the middle class funding a stadium for a billionaire. Makes zero sense. That’s trickle-on, not trickle-down.

    It used to be that people went to Vegas because it was cheap. The casinos made their money off of gambling. Now it’s expensive, and this tax would make it worse.

    Vegas was better when it was run by the mob.

  25. There are very few, if any, taxpayers that will say, “Yes, raise my taxes for the billionaires to make more money and not spend it.”

    With that being said, there isn’t a politician in this nation that will do anything that the voters that voted them in would like. They do stuff for their own pocketbooks.

    So Vegas, you don’t want to pay for this stadium, then you will have to move out. Because your lawmakers will most likely allow taxpayer money to fund the stadium.

    Unless there is a rich casino owner that wants to fund/own it themselves!!

  26. It is my understanding that Nevada residents don’t pay any state income tax and a very low property tax. This is to make up for the low income many Nevada residents have. The hotel tax helps Nevada pay for a lot of services such as the police in schools. It is also my understanding that the Las Vegas Convention Center is competing with the stadium for the same hotel tax money. Studies have already shown that a refurbished Convention Center will make the city of Las Vegas lots and lots of money. But so far there’s no study to show at the stadium will make money.

  27. The guy who is pushing this has a net worth of $24billion, yet he wants public tax $$ that should be used for schools, police roads etc.. You can only go to the tax well so many times so use the $$ for the public and not some Billionaires Welfare fund!!

  28. Nevada lawmakers need to get a move on and approve a stadium deal. With Mark Davis committing $500 million and Sheldon Adelson being on board, there is PLENTY of money to get this done. Steve Wynn also supports the project. It is about time Las Vegas gets an NFL team. They won’t be dumb and put it to a referendum like San Diego is doing. David Beckham and UNLV should contribute to the stadium too. The entertainment capital of the world needs a modernized football stadium, nit just for the Raiders, but other forms of entertainment too.

    Hopefully 2016 is the Raiders last season in Oakland. Oakland is zippo to offer in terms of stadium financing. Forget about Ronnie Lott’s group. Mark Davis isn’t giving up part of his beloved team.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.