Stadium looks like another boondoggle

I’ve read three articles in the past few days all touting the benefits that would accrue to Las Vegas if only we had a new 60,000-seat special events stadium as part of UNLV. And the stadium would only cost $800 million to $900 million – a mere pittance – when you consider how much it would do for our second-tier university and for the hospitality industry.
Funny how these fluff pieces appeared just prior to the opening of the legislative session, considering that those promoting the stadium will require a “special taxing district” to make it all happen. Of course, that’s a euphemism for using OPM (other people’s money) to build it.

Let’s look at UNLV first. If there is $800 million to $900 million to spend, is the best use of the money to build a stadium? Clemson and Auburn are shining examples of second-tier colleges that are really professional football teams, with teaching a very distant priority. Is this what we want UNLV to become? Does anyone think that a major investment in a fancy stadium will improve the quality of teaching or the national educational ranking of UNLV? I certainly don’t. But putting $800 million to $900 million into recruiting nationally ranked faculty, recruiting the best and the brightest students from Nevada and elsewhere to matriculate here and developing new programs that are relevant to retaining talented students in Nevada after graduation might be a wiser investment. It might move UNLV from a second-tier university to a first-tier university (think Harvard, Stanford and Michigan).

As for the hospitality industry, if the industry believes that a stadium will be beneficial to its businesses and to the community at large, it will raise and spend the money to build it. None of the major properties has yet committed to whether – and how much – money they will contribute to this project.

So at this point, the cheerleaders and facilitators of the stadium are using a study from their own paid lobbyist touting how much economic return and educational benefit we can expect to reap. It’s the Las Vegas Monorail all over again. It also sounds like we are being asked to buy a very expensive pig in a very expensive poke.

HENRY SOLOWAY

LAS VEGAS

Education first

To the editor:

Congratulations to UNLV for wanting to build a new home stadium with super amenities for the football team that will also be a “Mega Event Center” for the university.

The official UNLV mission statement says: “The University of Nevada, Las Vegas is a research institution committed to rigorous educational programs and the highest standards of a liberal education. We produce accomplished graduates who are well-prepared to enter the workforce or to continue their education in graduate and professional programs.”

If the Board of Regents and UNLV President Neal Smatresk want to raise money for something, why don’t they raise it for the medical school (which would really help Southern Nevada) or at least something that will help educate Las Vegans and adhere to the university’s mission statement – not just entertain them in the “Mega Event Center”

Steve Witzel

Las Vegas

Bad driving as sport

To the editor:

I read that Las Vegas police and the Office of Traffic Safety can’t understand why traffic fatalities in Clark County were up 45 percent in 2012 (Jan. 9 Review-Journal). Really? What they should be asking is why they remained low for so long. Las Vegas drivers are maniacs.

Running red lights is the city’s major-league sport. Anyone who uses a freeway, parkway or the Beltway had better exceed the speed limit by at least 10 to 20 mph, or they will see many dirty looks and obscene gestures. Cutting the other driver off is a routine traffic maneuver, and two to three inches of clearance on any side of the vehicle is more than acceptable. Merging drivers have never seen the “every other car” rule in action. In Las Vegas, the rule is to get as close to the car in front of you as possible so no one else can enter the lane.

If the city of Las Vegas put to use the many traffic cameras, which cost the city a great deal, the city could solve the budget deficit. The opposition says it is a violation of privacy. Nonsense. It is a violation of their right to try to run red lights and get away with it. There would be a significantly smaller number of accidents and injuries if these cameras were put to use. After one or two tickets, I think the offenders would at least think twice before running red lights.

I have driven in downtown Mexico City, Hong Kong and Tokyo, and it wasn’t as scary as driving in Las Vegas.

Linda Simon

Las Vegas

Arming teachers

To the editor:

The perpetrators of the past two mass shootings were not stupid. They picked targets where they knew no one would be armed. The Denver-area shooter picked a movie theater that was marked “No Guns Allowed.” There were theaters closer to his home that allowed concealed-carry weapons holders to enter. Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, like most schools, is a no-gun zone.

The answer is not armed guards at schools but allowing any teacher who wishes to obtain a CCW to carry a gun into the classroom. The possibility that one or more teachers might be armed is a deterrent to this type of crime. The Clark County School District police do a great job, but they can’t be everywhere.

Personally, I’d prefer to die like a bull in the ring instead of a steer in a slaughterhouse. In the bullring you have a chance.

Art Gisi

Las Vegas