The physical stadium itself would cost $1.3 billion and Sheldon Adelson's minions have been trotting out renderings of a transparent-roofed edifice – not unlike the new Minnesota Vikings stadium in Minneapolis, we presume. As many as nine sites have been mooted for the facility. The earliest, dubbed "Tropicana 42," sat on 42 acres of vacant land that UNLV owns along Tropicana Avenue. The idea quickly ran into opposition from McCarran International Airport (whose northerly glide path is disconcertingly close to Tropicana 42). The fatal blow, however, was struck by Southwest Airlines, which threatened to reduce its number of flights into Las Vegas rather than have its pilots fly past a football stadium to land their planes.
Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman offered up Cashman Field (soon to be evacuated by the Las Vegas 51s baseball team) but found little interest. Steve Wynn dropped his Paradise Park proposal – at least temporarily – to volunteer his Wynn Las Vegas Golf Club as potential acreage, and even the Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Authority got into the act, nominating the former Riviera site as stadium land.
In a move that might have finally injected some juice into the ailing north Strip, MGM Resorts International suggested it would sacrifice its $15 million Rock In Rio festival grounds in order to put a stadium at Sahara Avenue and Las Vegas Boulevard. And, playing what seemed like the trump card at the time, Station Casinos put forward 100-plus acres of land it owns under and around Days Inn at Wild Wild West, an area Station has long hankered to redevelop. It would have been on the right (i.e., non-airport) side of Tropicana, too.
However, in recent weeks, consideration has boiled down to two sites south of Mandalay Bay. One is the Bali Hai golf course. Another, just a bit further north, would sit just south of Mandalay Bay. (Of all the big casino operators in Las Vegas, MGM stands to benefit the most from proximity to a stadium.) All other locations have faded down the stretch and stadium developers have inked a purchase-and-sale agreement for the Russell Road site, the one closest to Mandalay Bay.
Although it isn't footing the bill for a football stadium, Las Vegas Sands is hardly standing idly by. Already its über-lobbyist, Andy Abboud, is calling lawmakers, sometimes buttonholing them as much as three times daily. There are a few dissenting voices, such as Clark County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani (whose constituents include Adelson's casinos). "There are lots of people who love sports. I love sports. But there has never been a public-private partnership that has built a stadium that has been a good investment for the public," she told the R-J.
Other stadium detractors argue that, rather than increasing the amount of money spent in Las Vegas, the stadium will merely compete for dollars already being left here. Temple University professor of economics Michael Leeds told the Las Vegas Sun -- which has been more skeptical of the project than the Adelson-owned R-J -- "If you buy dinner at the stadium instead of at the casino, then we’re just taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another."
Also, by Goldstein's own admission, no other private investors have come forward. In the stadium's defense, its backers project $335 million a year in added economic impact. That might be a conservative estimate. University of Michigan Center for Sport & Policy Director Mark Rosentraub crunched the numbers on behalf of UNLV and concluded that, at minimum, 15 events would generate nearly $665 million in economic impact. That includes construction investment and spending stadium visitors did elsewhere in the community. Tax revenue would be $45.6 million.
Rosentraub told the Sun, "You’re not paying for the stadium, but you’re getting all the tax revenue … There are a lot of deals that are not very good. This one works. There are no losers." (Hotel customers might beg to differ.) Any profits from the stadium itself are expected to be "minimal," according to Committee Chairman Steve Hill. However significant they are, they would be split 50-50 between the public sector and the developers, through a complicated formula.
Whichever way the issue is resolved, it promises to be a contentious process. We're sorry about the room-tax increase but it looks, for the moment, like tourists are going to get soaked yet again.
