City of Las Vegas Soccer Stadium Subsidy Initiative (June 2015)

Not on Ballot
This measure was not put on an election ballot

Voting on Property
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local property Zoning and land use Property tax

A City of Las Vegas Soccer Stadium Subsidy Initiative ballot question, backed by the Parks Protection Committee, qualified for the ballot for Las Vegas voters in Clark County, Nevada, on June 2, 2015. A law nearly identical to the initiative was enacted directly by the city council, however, precluding the necessity of an election on the issue.

Proponents of this initiative partially achieved their goal before the measure was even officially scheduled for an election or voted on by the city council since Major League Soccer (MLS) officials announced their intention to abandon the proposed soccer franchise in Las Vegas until 2018 at the earliest, putting an end to plans for a new stadium. MLS Commissioner Don Garber cited uncertainty about when and if the plans for a stadium would actually move forward as the reason for the cancellation of the soccer franchise deal. The uncertainty was caused largely by this initiative effort against the stadium project.

Garber said, in a letter to the mayor, “Unfortunately, given the timing of our expansion rollout and the uncertainty as to when we might be able to move forward in Las Vegas, we are no longer considering Las Vegas as an expansion market until 2018."

This measure was designed prevent the city's subsidy of the proposed $200 million, 24,000-seat downtown soccer stadium for the team D.C. United. In a four-against-three vote, Mayor Carolyn Goodman broke a tied city council decision on December 17, 2014, in favor of a proposal for the city to contribute $25 million towards the stadium construction and $31.5 million for infrastructure — a total of $56.5 million. The deal would have also included the city providing the 13-acre stadium site at Symphony Park — valued at between $38 and $48 million — free of charge. The city would have also been responsible for financing a bond issue, requiring future interest payments. The city intended to divert hotel tax revenue used for city park projects to pay for the stadium costs.

The council members opposed to the stadium proposed a city-wide advisory question to see if voters were in favor of the project, but the four stadium supporters on the city council shot down this idea. Then, Council Member Bob Beers organized a signature petition campaign called the Parks Protection Committee to try to qualify this initiative for the ballot, giving voters a chance to prevent the soccer stadium subsidy.

As the petition effort went forward, city officials insisted on a higher signature requirement based on the voter turnout of last general municipal election, rather than simply the last election. Beers filed a lawsuit hoping to force the city to use the lower signature requirement. Clark County District Judge Jerry Wiese ruled in favor of petitioners, allowing the lower signature requirement. This put the submitted signature petition thousands of signatures above the minimum threshold to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

Ultimately, however, the city council enacted legislation to prevent the city from “contributing, investing or lending any of its revenue or assets … for a Major League Soccer (MLS) stadium in Symphony Park," which was essentially identical to the initiative. This move precluded the necessity of a vote on the issue.

Supporters of the citizen initiative were actually disappointed that voters would not get to express their opinion on the question. Those who agreed with the council decision to simply pass the law without a vote stressed the money taxpayers saved by avoiding an election. Early estimates showed that it would have cost just under $1 million to put the question alone before voters on the June ballot. If the initiative ended up sharing the ballot with a runoff city council election, the cost would have been significantly lower.

Rendering of proposed stadium; source: D.C. United

Text of measure

Petition text

The following text was circulated on the petition forms during signature collection:

“

The People of the City of Las Vegas do enact as follows: A new ordinance is added to the City of Las Vegas Charter that reads “The City of Las Vegas is hereby prohibited from contributing, investing or lending any of its revenue or assets, or those of its Redevelopment Agency, for a Major League Soccer (MLS) stadium in Symphony Park.”

”

Support

Council Member Bob Beers

Note: Those who opposed the city subsidy of the soccer stadium and supported the initiative to prevent it are referred to as "supporters" in this article.

Council Member Bob Beers organized the Parks Protection Committee campaign for the initiative to stop the stadium, using his website Beers 4 Nevada to house campaign information for the initiative.

The following members of the Las Vegas city council voted against the subsidy and were in favor of an advisory question:

• Council Member Bob Beers - Ward 2
• Council Member Stavros Anthony - Ward 4
• Council Member Lois Tarkanian - Ward 1

Council Member Stavros Anthony announced his bid for the position of mayor at the June 2 municipal election and made opposition to the downtown soccer stadium subsidy a cornerstone of his campaign.

MLS pull-out

Supporters gave the following responses to the MLS abandoning a Las Vegas soccer franchise until 2018 at the earliest:

Council Member Bob Beers said, "The letter doesn't say no, it says not now." He stressed that the initiative will still be put to the voters and that it is as important as ever since he expects more proposals for a publicly funded soccer stadium and other developments in the future. He said, "We need to have an authoritative statement by the voters."

Focusing on his bid for the office of mayor, Council Member Stavros Anthony said, "If Carolyn Goodman is elected mayor we could be talking about this again a year from now. If I'm elected mayor, I'm going to stop all discussions about a taxpayer funded stadium."

Opposition

Note: Those who supported the city subsidy of the soccer stadium and opposed the initiative to prevent it are referred to as "opponents" in this article.

D.C. United was the professional soccer team that was behind the proposed stadium project.

Rendering of proposed stadium; source: D.C. United

The following members of the Las Vegas city council voted to approve the subsidy and not allow an advisory question:

• Mayor Carolyn Goodman
• Council Member Bob Coffin - Ward 3
• Council Member Ricki Barlow - Ward 5
• Council Member Steve Ross - Ward 6

MLS pull-out

Opponents gave the following responses to the MLS abandoning a Las Vegas soccer franchise until 2018 at the earliest.

Mayor Goodman said, "It's a very, very disappointing time for us. I'm always smiling, but I'm not smiling today."

She also said, "I really knew this was the right thing for our city. With gaming all over the country how are we going to bring people to Las Vegas? We have to keep doing new things."

Mayoral election

See also: Las Vegas, Nevada municipal elections, 2015

Las Vegas voters were scheduled to decide a race for mayor on the same election day this initiative was designed to be on the ballot.

Council Member Stavros Anthony, an opponent of the soccer stadium deal, announced that he would be running for mayor and that he would make opposition to the city's subsidy of the proposed downtown soccer stadium a cornerstone of his campaign.

Anthony harshly criticized the deal that was designed to divert $56.5 million in tax dollars - plus interest on a $50 million bond issue - away from city parks to help pay for a new soccer stadium. He said, "If I'm mayor, I will make sure the money that is allocated for our parks is spent on our parks. People want city hall to pay attention to the voice of the people. If the residents of Las Vegas don't support something, I'm going to listen to them. If they want to vote on something, I'm going to listen them."

Goodman, the incumbent in the mayoral race, supports the stadium deal as a way to boost the tourism industry in the city. She said, "It's about investing in the community. We're in a critical time with gaming all over the country. We're not the lone ranger there anymore. We have to do everything we can to drive tourists downtown and to our six wards."

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in Nevada

On January 23, 2015, Beers and members of his Parks Protection Committee submitted 9,811 signatures for their petition to put an initiative preventing the soccer stadium deal on the ballot. This is just over the city's proposed requirement of 8,258 valid signatures, and, after the one or two-week investigation by the county elections office — and the inevitable invalidation of some signatures — Beers expected that the petition might fall a little short of the requirement. His fears were realized when, through a random sampling process, the county elections office determined that only 6,966 of the submitted signatures were valid. The petition, however, was thousands of valid signatures above the original requirement stated by the city clerk of 2,306. This was the requirement that Beers thinks the law demands — based on the voter turnout of the 2013 city primary rather than the 2011 general city election. In an effort to urge the city to accept the petition, Beers told his lawyers to file a writ of mandamus asking the courts to force the city to admit the petitioners met the smaller requirement. Beers hoped the threat of a lawsuit would urge the city to put the initiative before voters even with the final signature count falling short of the higher requirement. Ultimately, a lawsuit was filed, and the case was ruled in favor of Beers and initiative proponents.

Initiative supporters paid petition drive management company Organized Karma LLC to aid in the signature gathering process.

Signature requirement debate

At first Beers and his volunteers were told they needed only 2,306 signatures by a January 24 deadline, a number calculated from 15 percent of those who voted in the last city election. Only a couple weeks before the end of January, however, city officials told petitioners that the city clerk had erred by basing the signature requirement on a primary election instead of the city's last general election. The city attorney informed Beers and his supporters that the requirement was actually a minimum of 8,258 signatures by January 23, 2015, nearly quadrupling the already difficult task and giving the petitioners one day less to achieve it. After receiving this news, Beers said that the group was looking for a petition drive management contractor to supplement the work of the volunteers. A few days later the Parks Protection Committee paid Organized Karma LLC $20,000 to start collecting signatures in support of the initiative. On January 23, 2015, initiative supporters turned in 8,400 signatures, but they ultimately fell about 1,300 short of the higher threshold after signatures were investigated by the county elections office.

Section 4, Article 19

The debate over the signature requirement arose from Article 19, Section 4 of the Nevada Constitution, which states that a successful initiative petition must have valid signatures equal to 15 percent of those who voted in the “preceding general county or municipal election.” The city clerk originally interpreted this to mean that the signature requirement had to be based on a general election for a county initiative but could be based on any preceding city election, including a primary, for a city initiative. City officials later said that this clause:

"preceding general county or municipal election"

really means:

“preceding general county or general municipal election."

In a letter to the city, Beers responded, "In 1967, the Legislature specifically considered and rejected applying the percentage to the last city general election and made it the last city election [including primaries]."

Lawsuit

Status: Ruled in favor of the initiative petitioners, establishing the lower signature requirement. Appeal from the city was set for March.

Beers challenged the increased signature requirement figure in court, announcing his lawsuit on January 21 and putting the law firm Mueller, Hinds and Associates on retainer in preparation for the court case. His lawyers claimed that the law required calculation based on the last city election — not the last general city election as the city argued. Since Judge Jerry Wiese agreed with Beers that the voters should get their day at the ballot box, the court ruled on February 6, 2015, that the city must put the initiative on the ballot.

Before the lawsuit was filed, Beers said, “It’s entirely possible that a judge will say ‘(Jerbic), you’ve done this before, you need to follow the law.' I haven’t filed (a lawsuit) yet, but I think we would, because there’s a precedent here that’s important to everyone. The city needs to follow the law.” Beers continued, “I’ve had probably a dozen licensed attorneys look at it and agree with my interpretation of the statute. (The city) is a big institution and they have to follow the law.”

City attorneys argued both about the signature requirement and the scope of the initiative, claiming the initiative power could not be used to enact a charter amendment, but only a city ordinance. Judge Wiese, however, was unsympathetic to any of the city's arguments. After citing previous supreme court rulings, he concluded, “This court will not deprive the people of their rights to express their votes on the ballot."

Mayoral candidate Stavros Anthony approved of the decision and said the city was unlikely to appeal. Mayor Goodman, while a staunch supporter of the soccer stadium funding and an opponent of this initiative, backed up Anthony's story. She said the city was probably not going to appeal the decision because even the city officials that approved of the stadium subsidy wanted to hear the voters' opinion on the issue. Responding to the court decision, Goodman said, “I would want to go back and get an opinion from legal staff, but I really think it’s important to hear from the people. This is not about sales tax or property taxes, it’s about tourism and room taxes. … It’s about understanding what the public (stadium) funding is about.”

Following the judge's ruling in favor of petitioners, Major League Soccer officials announced the intention to abandon the proposed soccer franchise in Las Vegas until 2018 at the earliest and put an end to plans for the new soccer stadium. MLS officials cited uncertainty about when and if the project could actually go forward as the reason for the cancellation of the soccer deal. The uncertainty was largely due to this initiative against the project.

Appeal

Before the council voted to simply enact a nearly identical law, the city decided to appeal Judge Wiese's ruling in favor of the initiative after all, with court proceedings delayed until sometime in March 2015. Mayor Goodman said, “Down the road, as this (petition) moves forward with all of its intricacies, if you get to the end and there’s some little piece of it that’s wrong, you can’t appeal, it’s too late. If in fact this (ballot question) changes the charter, then it’s a field day for anybody. … The charter can only be changed by the Legislature.”

See also

• Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot
• Clark County, Nevada ballot measures
• June 2, 2015 ballot measures in Nevada
• Las Vegas, Nevada municipal elections, 2015

External links

Suggest a link

• Las Vegas City Elections website
• Beers 4 Nevada website, accessed January 20, 2015

Additional reading

• Las Vegas Review Jounral, "Anthony tries to tie up revenue for Vegas soccer stadium," March 4, 2015
• Las Vegas Review Journal, "Vegas council candidates eschew stadium, say other issues will sway voters," March 15, 2015
• Las Vegas Review Journal, "Las Vegas stadium subsidy opponents fear proposed zoning code change," February 11, 2015
• Las Vegas Sun, "Judge hears arguments on stadium funding initiative," February 4, 2015
• My News 3, "Judge rules in favor of soccer stadium foes; appeal expected," February 6, 2015
• Las Vegas Review Journal, "Clark County, Las Vegas clash over stadium parking garage taxation plan," February 1, 2015