Nugget Project: Parsing motives
An interesting development in the battle over the Nugget project are the assumptions being made by all sides as to the motives of others.
For instance, many of the opponents or those on the fence assume that Nugget President Steve Neighbors has something up his sleeve. Every time some unanswered question arises, people assume the worst, that this deal is only about enriching the Nugget. Perhaps this comes instinctive to Nevadans, after dealing with our share of casino owners/executives, from Steve Wynn to Bugsy Segal to Frank "Lefty" Rosenthal.
There is no hard evidence that Neighbors is trying to pull a fast one. But it might help matters if he could more fully explain the legal structure of the Mae Adams trust/foundation setup, and perhaps offer more concrete assurances that the money generated will actually go to helping the community.
On the other hand, I've heard a lot of proponent of this project brand anyone who questions it as "naysayers," or claiming they want to see the city fail, or don't understand the need for economic development. Certainly, there are some whose opposition comes from philosophical grounds, that raising taxes is always bad, that government shouldn't be involving itself in such things, etc. And no matter how good this project is, you'll never convince them.
But on the other hand, there are people who agree with the concept, but are questioning the project on substance, whether it's viable, if the planning is being done right, etc.
I've heard a lot of people joining this group after hearing last week that, according to project consultant Mark Lewis, a critical component for success will be getting three state agencies to sign on as tennants. One person I talked with on the committee, a person strongly in favor of economic development, told me this will not fly, not with the state facing a huge $3 billion hole in its budget. The project planners would have to find a way to save the state money with the move, or at least be cost-neutral. That will be a very hard task, considering the glut of office space in Carson City, and the motivation for landlords to negotiate lease rates to keep their current tennants.
Much of this distrust is fueled by the lack of answers to questions about the project, which will not be answered until sometime after a developer is selected, possibly in about two months.
In the meantime, I think there is a danger of this debate becoming the same sort of polarizing battle between the no-tax teabaggers and the free-spending socialists we see in Washington. That would be really sad to see. It could be that this project is approved while dismissing the very relevant questions about planning as just noise. Or, that the project is killed, along with the concept of government-supported economic development.
Hopefully this matter will be settled on the substance, not assumptions about motives. But as weeks drag on here without answers to the many questions people are asking about the Nugget project, call me skeptical. By the time a developer is picked and these questions answered, this could get ugly.