How many car chase scenes go in a circle?
Just watched “Diamonds Are Forever,” the 1971 Bond film that was filmed partly in Las Vegas.
When the credits rolled credit was given to eight hotels — the Riviera, the Sands, the Dunes, the Landmark, the International, the Tropicana, the Mint and Circus Circus. Only two of those are still around. Several met their demise in much the same way as various sets in the film did — in explosions.
The Landmark also got credit in another movie:
Sheldon Adelson (R-J file photo)
Ronald Reagan said during a 1980 primary debate in New Hampshire, “I am paying for this microphone.”
Las Vegas Sands Chairman and CEO Sheldon Adelson is paying for his microphone, which happens to be a front-page printed news story in the Las Vegas newspaper today and the lede position of the paper’s website for the dissemination of his “statement” calling on fellow casino executive MGM Resorts International Chairman and CEO Jim Murren to support his proposed football stadium, apparently along with a big chunk of public funding. The current request stands at $750 million via room tax rate hikes.
The obligatory disclaimer at the end of the story reveals: “The Review-Journal is owned by the family of Las Vegas Sands Chairman and CEO Sheldon Adelson.”
The R-J dutifully reported this morning, “Murren declined to respond to Adelson’s comments Monday, but Murren is on record as favoring the stadium if less public money is contributed to the project.” The Adelson statement reportedly disputes what it describes as “Murren’s position” — that a convention center expansion is a “must-have” tourism addition, while a stadium would be merely “nice to have.”
The Oakland Raiders have expressed an interest in relocating to Las Vegas if a stadium is built.
But, as Mark Twain is incorrectly credited with saying, “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re misinformed,” only in this case you have to read two newspapers to be fully misinformed.
You see, delivered in the same bag on the driveway today is the Las Vegas Sun section, which happens to have a front-page story on how Murren views a number of topics, including the proposed stadium. The piece was actually posted online this past Friday, but not deemed worthy of print until today.
The article recounts:
Murren said that, as a football fan, he would love to see an NFL team in Las Vegas and that some level of public funding is appropriate. However, he said he doesn’t have enough information to be able to say what that level should be — the cost of the stadium, other infrastructure costs, how the capital will be pulled together, or what the burden is on the taxpayer.
“Without all that information it’s difficult to say I’m a big fan,” Murren said.
Plus, he said that he chafes at the suggestion that the public wouldn’t be paying for the stadium by virtue of tourists covering the room tax, since a significant chunk of the money goes toward education as well as other funds across the state.
The paper said Murren supports a special session of the state Legislature to approve a room tax hike to pay for the convention center expansion. He also was quoted as saying he does not want to raise the room tax so much that it becomes a disadvantage in competing with other cities for conventions.
In December, as Adelson was taking control of the newspaper, the R-J published an editorial explaining how his ownership might alter some of the newspaper’s long-standing editorial positions. It included this observation about the convention center expansion plans:
Mr. Adelson considers the convention authority, which is funded by room taxes and operates the Las Vegas Convention Center, a publicly subsidized competitor to his company’s Sands Expo and Convention Center. His company opposes the authority’s $2.3 billion convention center expansion plan. The Review-Journal supports it.
Potential change in position: Complete reversal.
Looks like the battle of the casino titans will be played out on the microphones each chooses.
Jim Murren (Sun file photo)
On Thursday the morning newspaper and VegasInc reported on polls conducted by MGM and the Sands on the topic of public support for a new stadium and/or a convention center. Today the Sun insert in the morning paper printed a version of the VegasInc story.
“Las Vegas Sands, which commissioned Washington-based Morning Consult for its poll, said 70 percent of Nevada voters support relocating an NFL team to the Las Vegas area, with 60 percent supporting construction of a retractable-roof stadium funded by room taxes,” reported the Review-Journal, which dutifully noted that it is owned by the family that owns the Sands.
VegasInc related:
Morning Consult said its poll found that 67 percent of Nevada voters backed relocating an NFL team to Las Vegas, and 62 percent supported building a “new retractable roof stadium for football and other events” in the area.
“There is majority support for a new stadium among men and women alike, across all age groups, and at all income levels,” the Morning Consult statement said. “Moreover, nearly six in 10 (55%) Nevadans are more likely to support building a new stadium if much of the funding comes from a room-tax paid by visitors.”
Indeed, a document posted at morningconsult.com shows:
But it also asked this question, which does not appear to be reported by either newspaper:
Today’s R-J, reporting on a committee meeting discussing tourism funding says the current stadium proposal is for $780 million in public funding and $420 million in private funding, “though Las Vegas Sands has said those numbers are not final and are likely to change.”
Sands rendering of Stadium posted on R-J website.
4TH ST8 