Nevada Lawmaker La Rue Hatch Takes Swing At Athletics Stadium Subsidy Deal With Letter Monday
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
By Alan Snel, LVSportsBiz.com Publisher-Writer
Selena La Rue Hatch is one Nevada Assembly member who is not ready to throw in the towel over the state Legislature’s approval of Senate Bill 1, the law that designated $380 million in government assistance for a proposed Athletics’ $1.5 billion stadium on the Strip that is planned to open in 2028.
The teacher and state lawmaker posted this letter Monday outlining her case for supporting the “Schools Over Stadiums” campaign, the political movement working on plans of litigation and a statewide voter campaign in an effort to thwart the public aid of $380 million for an A’s stadium on the Tropicana hotel site.
LVSportsBiz.com caught up with the Democrat from Northwest Reno for our 5 Questions feature. Take a read.
*
LVSportsBiz.com: Many residents in Las Vegas either oppose the Athletics stadium subsidy or are indifferent, so why did so many Las Vegas area legislators vote for the A’s stadium subsidy?
Selena La Rue Hatch: I personally voted no on SB1, along with 23 of my colleagues from across the state. I can explain my no vote pretty easily – the math didn’t add up for Nevada taxpayers and an overwhelming number of my constituents reached out urging me to reject that so-called “deal.” I could not justify spending nearly 400 million dollars of taxpayer money while so many Nevadans are struggling. Even with the record setting budget we passed this last session, we will still have the largest class sizes in the nation, no universal pre-k, some of the worst mental health care in the country, and far too many members of our community sleeping on the streets. The idea of giving money that should be invested in our community to a California billionaire instead just didn’t sit right with me. It still doesn’t sit right with me.
Now I’ve explained my vote on this issue, but I don’t think I can speak for our fellow legislators to explain theirs. Every one had their reasons and I’m sure every one of us will be asked over and over again on the campaign trail to explain our vote to our constituents. As we should. It is our job as legislators both to represent our constituents in Carson, but also to answer to them when we come home.
*
LVSB: What do you think was the most misleading information presented during the Athletics stadium subsidy discussion during the three hearings in eight days in Carson City?
SLRH: This is a tough question to answer because there was such an avalanche of misleading information in those hearings. Some of the most egregious examples were in the so-called “economic analyses” that were presented to legislators. As I asked in the Assembly hearing, not one person presenting to us had any background in economics. And in fact, every economist questioned on the issue panned public investment in stadiums as a grift and warned Nevada legislators against investing in a project that would not only fail to spur economic development, but may in fact hurt local businesses.
During the hearing I read the following quote from economist J.C. Bradbury to Jeremy Aguero, the lead presenter on the A’s bill and asked for his response: “People will always say, ‘Oh, but this one is different.’ Every single stadium deal I’ve ever looked at the people who are supporting this say, ‘This one will be different.’ And when we look at it 15 to 20 years later, it’s exactly the same as they always are,” he said. “There’s always an excuse, and the reason is that there’s a lot of money to be made by getting this stadium funded. And so the owner is going to benefit tremendously.” The response from Aguero was essentially that those studies are accurate and stadiums fail in every other location, but Las Vegas is different. Study after study has shown that publicly financed stadiums do not boost local economies, but we were told to ignore the studies, ignore the economists, ignore the facts, and listen to the guy paid by the A’s and no one else. The same person who failed to register as a lobbyist and never disclosed on the record who was actually paying him to sell the stadium to our elected leaders.
I truly believe that the people of Nevada should have a say over how we spend their taxpayer dollars. All of the feedback I have received from my community has shown me that they don’t want this stadium and they are frustrated and angry that it’s going through anyway.
*
LVSB: Not only do educators oppose the stadium subsidy from a public policy standpoint and intellectual position, there seems to also be visceral opposition to the A’s stadium subsidy. What is the root of those visceral feelings?
SLRH: I think that people are frustrated for a couple of reasons. First, because they feel like they aren’t being heard. The overwhelming response to this proposal has been a negative one – just take a look at the public comment on the bills or ask any legislator how their inbox looked for the first half of June. Yet despite this outpouring of input from the public, many felt like their views were ignored. Second, Nevadans are tired of being at the top of every bad list and the bottom of every good one. We don’t want the largest class sizes, the worst mental health care, the highest eviction rates. So to see that we have an extra $400 million, which could be spent fixing any one of those issues, and chose to give it to California billionaire? That’s hard to swallow.
Even with the record setting budget we passed this last session, we will still have the largest class sizes in the nation, no universal pre-k, some of the worst mental health care in the country, and far too many members of our community sleeping on the streets. The idea of giving money that should be invested in our community to a California billionaire instead just didn’t sit right with me. It still doesn’t sit right with me.
*
LVSB: Have you formally looked into the legal strategy of reversing the stadium subsidy bill and what steps will need to be taken from a litigation standpoint?
SLRH: I am a teacher, not a lawyer, and therefore not working on the specific details of any case which could be brought. However, I truly believe that the people of Nevada should have a say over how we spend their taxpayer dollars. All of the feedback I have received from my community has shown me that they don’t want this stadium and they are frustrated and angry that it’s going through anyway. I want to give them the chance to make their voices heard and let them decide whether we give a massive amount of their money to a billionaire. That is why I support the Schools Over Stadiums initiative. They are pursuing all paths to stopping a taxpayer giveaway that our voters do not want, including a potential ballot initiative or referendum. It is time we get our priorities straight and no better way to do so than to consult with the people we are supposed to be representing.
We constantly talk about the need to diversify our economy so that we are not hit so hard every time there is an economic downturn across the country. Adding another tourism venue will not insulate our tourism based economy from future hits.
*
LVSB: If Las Vegas is so focused on an entertainment and sports economy, is there any hope to reverse the A’s stadium bill when the hotels, unions and chambers supported the bill here in the Las Vegas market?
SLRH: Las Vegas is already a major sports and entertainment destination. That will not change – whether we build a stadium for John Fisher or not. Which I believe is a critical point to remember. We constantly talk about the need to diversify our economy so that we are not hit so hard every time there is an economic downturn across the country. Adding another tourism venue will not insulate our tourism based economy from future hits. With that said, I truly believe in the power of a group of people coming together to change their community. Yes, there are many monied interests supporting this stadium, but the people as a whole do not. That counts for something. I truly believe if the people want to make their voices heard they will do so and they will demand that we reprioritize and start investing in our communtities in a meaningful way.
