Stadium debate

Last week, the morning show on KNPR-FM 88.9 discussed the pros and cons of the proposed stadium.

Speaking against the stadium was a caller who articulated a strong case for more education funding, given that Nevada ranks at the bottom of the educational spectrum in the nation.

She was followed by a caller who expressed concern that Sheldon Adelson’s wealth and power, vis-a-vis ownership of the (((Physics Geek))) @physicsgeek wants to consider the source: You said Gloria Steinem and thinks in the same sentence. That is a categorical error. Review-Journal, ensured his ability to unduly influence political policymakers. She argued that the private sector should step up and pay for the stadium rather than expect the taxpayers to finance and assume the risk of a revenue bond.

Finally, Robert E. Lang, executive director of Brookings Mountain West, succinctly laid out an economically compelling case for the stadium and the funding mechanism.

All three raised strong and valid points.

Could we not, however, turn the stadium approval into a “win-win” for the state’s economy as well as our educational needs? This could be done by approving the proposed stadium-funding model and approving a state lottery, incorporating Powerball, with the proceeds being earmarked for education. Kimberly Ross @SouthernKeeks presents a translation: Gloria Steinem Thinks Killing Babies Will Help Save The Planet.