Where would they play in the interim?

It's about time - just move already. Good lesson for the other cities who want to stick their head in the sand on subsidies. A's are willing to move to a much smaller market to access them.

Now Oakland will get in line for an expansion team in 10 years and will promise all the things they won't give the A's.

Where would they play in the interim?

My understanding is that the lease at Coliseum runs through '24. It is my fond hope that Oakland slaps a lock on the place and forces them to be nomads or play outdoors in Vegas until their new palace is ready.

Obiter dictum:

I have mixed emotions about this, but right now the mix is 20% sad to see 'em go and 80% #### 'em, they're a third rate grifter organization.

I suppose it could be a last ditch ploy to get Oakland to move, as it is formally only an option to purchase land, but Oakland -- a city beset by many problems -- offered them subsidies, cash, and infrastructure worth 400MM, which is 398MM too much, and they still demanded double that. I will miss the sound of the radio team, one of the best in the business, and I will miss the joy of tailgating, and miss the daily rhythm of box scores over coffee, and all the other small joys of baseball, but #### those guys. They are rich men who poor-mouthed for years to try to get even richer on the taxpayers' dime.

Good lesson for the other cities who want to stick their head in the sand on subsidies.

You are a bad human being.

Good lesson for the other cities who want to stick their head in the sand on subsidies. A's are willing to move to a much smaller market to access them.

Is that a bad thing? Why not let some other city bankrupt itself. If people in Oakland want to attend a major league baseball game they shouldn't have too much trouble.

You are a bad human being.

Concur.

But the following statement is, sadly, spot on with its prescience:

Now Oakland will get in line for an expansion team in 10 years and will promise all the things they won't give the A's.

49 acres doesn't seem like a lot nowadays.

49 acres doesn't seem like a lot nowadays.

3 acres for the field, 8 for overpriced shopping, 10 for overpriced parking, 12 for shoehorn apartments and the remainder for owner's helopad, private zoo, and purple/green striped guava plantation which supplies the Vegas school districts lunchroom in perpetuity at ever increasing rates.

49 acres doesn't seem like a lot nowadays.

3 acres for the field, 8 for overpriced shopping, 10 for overpriced parking, 12 for shoehorn apartments and the remainder for owner's helopad, private zoo, and purple/green striped guava plantation which supplies the Vegas school districts lunchroom in perpetuity at ever increasing rates.

49 acres is almost exactly the area of 38 football fields - 2,188,800 square feet.

Yankee Stadium sits on 24 acres.

Charlie Finley would've done this ten years ago. The Swingin' A's... in Vegas!

I don't care where they play as long as the keep the name A's or Athletics.

#### corporate welfare and their bootlickers, some of whom we see here.

You'd think they keep the name after Phi, Kansas and Oakland. With two little kids this puts me in a weird spot of do I give up on the A's forever? I don't really want my two little boys to root for a loser Vegas franchise.

Does the Las Vegas AAA team move to Oakland? Are we going to see the Oakland Oaks return to the PCL?

From the Athletic:

"They tried to get a stadium built in San Jose, which was in the Giants’ territory. One can debate whether the Giants should’ve ceded that territory to the A’s due to the circumstances from which they got it, but that was never going to happen.

They tried to figure something out in the city of Fremont, and that fizzled.

They tried to get something going at the Laney College site in Oakland, until the college itself told the A’s to get lost.

Then they decided to dream big. In theory. The Howard Terminal plan was a panacea for A’s fans who’d long looked across the bay at what the Giants created. It was the promise of a waterfront ballpark with enough revenue-generating real estate properties to create a new world where the A’s would finally be able to become a big-market baseball team after collecting revenue checks for so long.

Kaval, who has been Fisher’s mouthpiece for years and went from plucky hero to distrusted by many over the past couple of years, promoted the Howard Terminal site in a way that made people believe it not only had a chance of happening but would be the future of urban baseball settings.

The pitfalls to this site, however, were numerous. Building in California is difficult enough without having to deal with lawsuits from port interests, toxic waste cleanup, and the need to build up the property to prepare for a rise in sea level. Then there were the necessary infrastructure improvements around the supposed stadium site, which for the A’s to agree to build there would’ve required new tax districts that the city of Oakland and Alameda County would’ve had to approve."

Objectivity is hard to come by but it's hard to argue they didn't try. And yes, if the public - private split was never going to be acceptable, then none of this would happen but it seems disingenuous to say they didn't try. Why would they sit on a losing proposition for years otherwise ?

You'd think they keep the name after Phi, Kansas and Oakland.

There is no reason to change the name. It's a great brand and it doesn't have any local ties (like the Texas Rangers or the Miami Marlins).

They wasted lots of money in the past 20+ years on failed attempts, I definitely think they tried. The existing coliseum site always made the most sense but that wouldn't have made them enough money, heck they even bought half of the land already.

The existing coliseum site always made the most sense but that wouldn't have made them enough money, heck they even bought half of the land already.

The Coliseum site always made the most sense and would have made them plenty of money. That park is surrounded by 100 acres of parking, half of which would have built much more housing and retail than HT and they'd still have a ton of parking next to a BART station.

It would have made Fisher billions. He just wanted more billions.

Don't let the door hit ya

I don't care where they play as long as the keep the name A's or Athletics.

I'd keep the name, but if they are aiming for an Oakland expansion team in a few years, it might be wise to change the name and keep the "A's" in limbo for them. Personally, I'd default to having relocating teams keep their name when they move (for historical continuity, quirkiness and pettiness) and let new teams pick a new name as part of their expansion fee. In general, give me the Utah Jazz and LA Lakers over the New Orleans Pelicans, etc.

No way Oakland gets an expansion team, too much red tape in the way of building a stadium.

Does the Las Vegas AAA team move to Oakland? Are we going to see the Oakland Oaks return to the PCL?

The Aviators have an excellent newish stadium. I expect them to stay in Somerlin.
The Golden Knights top minor league team is the Henderson Silver Knights.
Atlanta Braves AAA is in suburban Lawrenceville (and Low-A in close commute Rome.)
Atlanta Hawks G-League is nearish Hartzfield-Jackson.

#### corporate welfare\

Agree 100%. There should be no subsidies or tax breaks for individual corporations. It should be flat out illegal.

My hometown keeps losing football teams in much the same way but football subsidies compared to baseball is hard get behind. A handful of games each year (mostly on Sunday at noon). There's no city benefit. If I wanted one major league team it would be MLB. Then a tie with NHL/NBA - hockey in the north and east and basketball in the south and west. Then major league soccer and finally the NFL. I don't know what the average value of subsidies are in each sport but this is how I would value them if wearing a major/governor hat .

Lame duck seasons suck. 2004 for the Expos was ugly with just shy of 750k total (including games in PR which got 8-14k per game). In Montreal opening day got 30k, closing day 31k. This year, before the announcement, Oakland got 26.8k for opening day, in 2022 they got just 17k opening day on way to 787.9k total. I fully expect the A's to go below that this year, especially now. And if they play in Oakland in 2024 I suspect we'll see a few 'crowds' sub 1k. With the Giants across the bay why would anyone invest 2 cents in a team that just doesn't care and is leaving?

Horrible news, if completely expected. Sigh.

Now Oakland will get in line for an expansion team in 10 years and will promise all the things they won't give the A's.

There is no way in hell the Giants would vote for that.

I don't care where they play as long as the keep the name A's or Athletics.

The Las VegA's.

I'm glad to see them go, but I suspect they'll be in for a shock when they find out they can't water the field because Lake Meade has run dry.

Will they turn the Coliseum over to the resident wildlife?

I'm glad to see them go, but I suspect they'll be in for a shock when they find out they can't water the field because Lake Meade has run dry.

Isn't the entire West going dry?

It's sad, but the A's have always (except for those magical "Haas Years", always struggled in Oakland). They have never been able to create a stable broadcast network, despite very capable and beloved broadcasters, they haven't had good attendance essentially since the Giants built Pac Bell park, despite the Coliseum having excellent access (Freeway and BART) from across the Bay Area, and despite what people say, the Coliseum actually was a pretty good place to watch a ballgame. I will miss being able to go to games.

I expect a MLS franchise to land at the Coliseum, as well as something oddball like professional Lacrosse. If the NBA allows it, the adjacent arena would be a great place for a WNBA franchise as well, though the Warriors probably would want them to play in San Francisco.

Life will go on. Oakland will pursue it's own course. I expect the A's to eventually move to somewhere like Portland or Austin, as Las Vegas just will never have the population to support an MLB team long-term.

@32: More or less, but in this case it really matters -- Oakland has lots of sources for water, LV has one.

Will the possum relocate with the team?

Isn't the entire West going dry?

Except for the record snow and rainfall the last two winters. There's a big issue in that the rain/snow doesn't fall where it's needed. CA doesn't have enough reservoirs to store the Spring melt, so most of it washes out to sea, leaving them short of water in the summer.

For a temporary home in Vegas, the Raiders' stadium could probably fit a baseball diamond if need be, right? Even if it's cramped and lopsided, it'd beat a lame duck year in Oakland.

For a temporary home in Vegas, the Raiders' stadium could probably fit a baseball diamond if need be, right? Even if it's cramped and lopsided, it'd beat a lame duck year in Oakland.

It would hark back to the Coliseum days of one end zone in infield dirt

The A's played at Cashman Field before, couldn't they play there again?

Is there a timeline? Has MLB issued a statement at all?

To answer my own questions, Kaval says they can use the minor league field, they have a lease with Oakland through 2024, so sounds like they'll be gonzo after that. New stadium would open in 2027.

The pitfalls to this site, however, were numerous. Building in California is difficult enough without having to deal with lawsuits from port interests, toxic waste cleanup, and the need to build up the property to prepare for a rise in sea level. Then there were the necessary infrastructure improvements around the supposed stadium site, which for the A’s to agree to build there would’ve required new tax districts that the city of Oakland and Alameda County would’ve had to approve."

This last one is the biggest laugh of all. A's ownership was going to magnanimously pay for their own stadium, and all the state and surrounding municipalities had to do was pay for the multiple billions it would have cost to clean up the area, build the infrastructure -- freeways, power, plumbing, etc. -- to support a stadium, and then also take no taxes from team profits. What a deal!

The public/private "split" the A's have always targeted was ever and always "how much free money could we get from the city/county/state."

Why would they sit on a losing proposition for years otherwise ?

Because it wasn't a losing proposition, it was heavily underwritten by MLB. MLB even gave them extra money for a half-dozen years or so and then, when that money expired, the A's slashed payroll to keep their profit. Sure it's fair to say the A's "tried" -- tried repeatedly to get Oakland to give them huge subsidies then, as that wasn't working, tried playing the city off against Vegas and, now that hasn't worked, is going to try to get Vegas to give them huge subsidies.

But, somewhat contrary to some here, I don't hold that the A's owners have much in the way of civic obligation. As far as I know they've held up their end of any deals they've made, they can stick their franchise wherever they want.

Unless there's a done deal we don't know about yet, there's still a long way to go. An agreement to buy land ... under what conditions? Do they have an agreement where Vegas/Nevada is gonna rock up with $1B or so? Or is this just the start of that dance?

Unless there's a done deal we don't know about yet, there's still a long way to go. An agreement to buy land ... under what conditions? Do they have an agreement where Vegas/Nevada is gonna rock up with $1B or so? Or is this just the start of that dance?

Sources: Lombardo, lawmakers on board with planned $1 billion Las Vegas baseball stadium

According to sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the A’s will cover the costs for the 30,000-to-35,000-seat retractable-roof stadium to house the Major League Baseball franchise on a nearly 100-acre site near Tropicana Boulevard and Interstate 15. The A's would have to purchase the land from Red Rock Resorts.

A spokeswoman for the A's confirmed the deal to the Independent Wednesday evening, saying the team is buying 49 acres of the site. The stadium, along with other aspects of the development, would have a total cost of $1.5 billion.

The plan would be to pass a bill through the Legislature to create a funding mechanism, including a special taxation district covering the stadium site, which would allow for sales tax proceeds to be reinvested in the area, along with an allocation of transferable tax credits estimated to be worth around $500 million. Clark County would also have to sign off on a new taxing district.

My guess is it is approved in Nevada.

I'm glad to see them go, but I suspect they'll be in for a shock when they find out they can't water the field because Lake Meade has run dry.

When the water issue really comes to a head, the corporations are going to be fine, and will be in line ahead of the little guy. Corporate welfare is our national platform.

Much though I like baseball (obviously - I've been posting here for more than 20 years), MLB teams are parasites. Good for Oakland.

Ah, there it is. A nearly 100 acre site of which the A's get more than half as the payoff.

@46: The problem in LV is that without Lake Meade they almost literally have no water. Can't give preference to corporations if there just isn't any.

Lake Meade will probably re-fill this year thanks to the unusually heavy snowpack. But it's likely only a matter of time.

If this were a better world, the entire state of Florida would be under water and Las Vegas would run out of it.

Lake Meade will probably re-fill this year thanks to the unusually heavy snowpack. But it's likely only a matter of time.

By then the A's will have relocated again anyway!

Hey let's not overlook the real winner in all this. The In-N-Out burger just across to the east. That place is going to get a metric crapton of business. Also Jack in the Box across Tropicana to the south.

A textbook example in how not to do a stadium deal.

The team strung Oakland along for years, but always as the second option after the current flavor of the month. Then after multiple first choices fell through, they start lobbying for a huge waterfront deal that would disrupt the entire city -- all the while publicly flirting with Las Vegas.

I don't like huge public subsidies for stadiums, but if that's what you're going for, you've got to be a better partner than the A's. You can't let people go out on a limb and propose a huge deal then leave them hanging in pursuit of an even bigger deal.

Oakland has lost 3 sports teams in about 5 years:

Warriors
Raiders
A's

Let's look at the history:

The Warriors were bought by sharp operators with big pockets. The Coliseum Commission funded an $121 million renovation of the Oakland Arena that opened in 1997, including a large section of luxury suites that made the "cheap seats" quite far away (ask me how I know). Even so, the Warriors sold out practically every game (including 230 in a row), even in their "bad years", which lasted from 1997 to 2012 - though Steph Curry arrived in 2010, they made the playoffs only once in that time, until finally breaking through in 2013. Even so, even with significant fan support, a consistently sold-out arena that had been completely gutted and rebuilt (with luxury boxes) less than 15 years before, the Warriors announced they were moving to San Francisco to build their own waterfront arena sponsored by Chase Bank. There was probably nothing that could be done by the City of Oakland to keep the Warriors from leaving.

The Raiders were given a huge chunk of change by the Oakland Coliseum Commission as well as a significant rebuild of the Oakland Coliseum (that was detrimental to baseball) in 1996 to build "Mount Davis". However, the Raiders were terribly run by an aging and out-of-touch Al Davis and his, well, let's say, not very accomplished son Mark Davis, failing to make the playoffs and otherwise embarrassing themselves regularly. At the same time, the Raiders cultivated a crowd that, though passionate, was also quite intimidating to casual fans ("the Black Hole"), which probably contributed to their attendance issues. Since splitting for Los Angeles in the 1980's, only to return with their tail between their legs, the Raiders were always on the verge of splitting for greener pastures, which was apparent to anyone who was paying attention. Given the economics of a football team, with only 8-10 home games a season, it was probably only a matter of time that Las Vegas came calling.

The A's are a different story. It could be argued that the A's were always in third place in their treatment by Oakland City and the Coliseum Commission - whereas the Oakland Arena received a significant revamp in 1997 for the Warriors (that the Warriors did eventually pay for though they tried to get out of it) and the Coliseum received "Mount Davis" for Football in 1996, there were never any significant baseball-centric renovations to the Coliseum. It should be noted that the Coliseum itself, though pleasant enough, was plagued with a multi-purpose-style circular construction that left a significant portion of the spectators quite far from the field in comparison with baseball-only stadiums. It could be argued that the A's always played, in the hearts of the City and County officials, "third-fiddle" to the Raiders and the Warriors.

Still, after they both left, you would think that Oakland officials would be a bit more receptive to the A's. However, by this time the City of Oakland was dealing with significant internal crises, some caused by all the money that was spent trying to keep the Raiders and Warriors to no avail, some caused by issues such as the housing crisis and associated homelessness problem that has hit Oakland especially hard. In addition, it could be said that the A's ownership, starting with Lew Wolf and moving onto John Fisher, never seemed quite interested in running a baseball team. They had lost significant ground in the market to the Giants after the opening of Pac Bell Park, and never really could decide whether they wanted to tell everyone how bad their stadium was, or try to get people to come to the game. It was significant to me, having been to many games over the years, that the stadium operations really started to decline over the past 10+ years. What this meant was that, when the stadium had a big crowd, say for a playoff game, or a big series with the Giants, Red Sox, or Yankees, the stadium operations fell apart - it became impossible to do something like buy a hot dog or a beer without missing 2 or 3 innings, and many other things seemed to just not work. They could handle 12,000 fans, or 15,000 fans, but 20,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 fans was just beyond them - that meant those casual fans wouldn't come back, because they didn't have a good time. It seemed to me just piss-poor management. In addition, their broadcast situation, which was never good in the first place, was allowed to wither and die, to the point that they almost didn't have a broadcast radio station in 2019. It's also true that Northern California is perhaps just not good at supporting sports teams, for example Cal and Stanford have trouble filling their football stadiums - the culture is diverse and their are many, many activities that people can and do occupy themselves, and baseball itself is by no means seen as a hip thing to be a fan of.

That said, so many good moments at the Oakland Coliseum. So many. I don't really know how to feel. I am not sure who to be mad at. I am mostly just sad.

I was in the Castro for the 1997-1999 seasons of baseball and although an NL guy after one summer of misery both in Candlestick and getting to Candlestick, I started going to As games. I don't know if it's because I lived with Shea for so long or I just feel like the world is full of entitled whiners, but I never had an issue with the Oakland A's stadium. I loved the ease of getting there and how much friendlier everyone was than where the Giants were, it was 100% a better experience.

I will definitely miss it. All things must pass.

How do people here feel about baseball in Las Vegas?

I presume the argument for pro sports in Las Vegas includes:

- It is a fast-growing city, so even if you're afraid it is not a big enough market, it will continue to become a bigger market over the next X years. In the last ~30 years, Oakland's population has grown only about 15%, while Vegas has grown by 150%.

- The big thing, to me, is the tourist angle. Football is only 8 or 9 games at home a year, and people are nuts for football - you're going to be able to fill the stadium 8/9 times a year for that. But I could see baseball in Vegas being a great part of the tourist experience, especially if they build it right. If I was in Vegas for a conference or vacation, I'd want to go to a game while I was there. And between my wife and myself, we go to several conferences a year - and they are pretty much all in one of about eight cities/regions, Vegas being one of them.

I know it is super-hot in Vegas during the summer, but that actually makes the idea of going to a baseball game indoors for an afternoon on the weekend even more inviting. Zero tourists are rolling through Oakland - it has to be one of the three or five least-likely cities in MLB to see a game because you "happen to be in town that week" (though Cincinnati and Cleveland say hello).

- I imagine Vegas is a city of transplants - a lot of people from a lot of other places. That strikes me as a plus for getting fans to see their favorite teams from where they grew up.

I just think this is going to work out well for the A's, and that the NHL and NFL are probably very happy to be in the market. Heck, a potential ownership group that includes Lebron James has already made it known that they will have the billions lined up to buy the NBA expansion team coming to Vegas as soon as the league is ready to go to 32 teams. People want in on Vegas as a sports market.

It is a fast-growing city, so even if you're afraid it is not a big enough market, it will continue to become a bigger market over the next X years.

Unless the aforementioned Lake Meade situation makes them realize unfettered growth isn't sustainable.

the big thing, to me, is the tourist angle. Football is only 8 or 9 games at home a year, and people are nuts for football - you're going to be able to fill the stadium 8/9 times a year for that. But I could see baseball in Vegas being a great part of the tourist experience, especially if they build it right.

According to Mark Davis, the unfortunately coiffed owner of the Raiders, football in Vegas is a big part of the tourist experience, with visiting fans often outnumbering fans of the Silver and Black.

- It is a fast-growing city, so even if you're afraid it is not a big enough market, it will continue to become a bigger market over the next X years.

I think it's just as likely before I'm dead that it will fall a long way from grace due to lack of water.

I know it is super-hot in Vegas during the summer, but that actually makes the idea of going to a baseball game indoors for an afternoon on the weekend even more inviting

I've been told that anyone truly interested in baseball prefers to suck it up and sit out in the sunfield enjoying all 105°.

when they find out they can't water the field

Someone should start work on an artificial playing surface that doesn't need water to survive!

It could be argued that the A's always played, in the hearts of the City and County officials, "third-fiddle" to the Raiders and the Warriors.

It could also be argued that Oakland gave a big chunk of cash to keep the Warriors and the Raiders but they left anyway. Perhaps they learned their lesson.

Vegas is smaller than any market that currently has MLB, and has no region to draw eyeballs from for a RSN. The RSN that covers the Golden Knights already has contractual obligations with the Rockies IIRC, so it will be an issue getting an RSN going for the A's, and it will be far less lucrative than even a TV deal for the Royals, who at least have good-sized Midwestern towns nearby that air games. There is nothing around Vegas.

There is growth potential, but who knows if it is sustainable, and it seemed they were particularly sensitive to economic downturns - they were one of the hardest-hit cities in the 2008 crash. It is a city of transient residents who may stick with allegiances with other teams, plus they're banking on a lot of tourists, who will be cheering for the opponent. That seems like a difficult way to build a fanbase. OTOH, the Golden Knights have been well supported, and the city does seem eager for major pro sports. I think they'll do well initially, but whether it can be sustained probably depends a lot on how much ownership commits. If they win, they could draw fans, if they lose, it will be a ghost town as so many old casinos.

I think Nashville is a FAR more attractive market, but I get the allure of Vegas.

It's about time - just move already. Good lesson for the other cities who want to stick their head in the sand on subsidies. A's are willing to move to a much smaller market to access them.

It profite a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world -- but for the A's??

If this were a better world, the entire state of Florida would be under water and Las Vegas would run out of it.

So, it seems that Andy is optimistic about the future!

when they find out they can't water the field

They could always just cover it in cacti.

I presume the argument for pro sports in Las Vegas includes:

- It is a fast-growing city, so even if you're afraid it is not a big enough market, it will continue to become a bigger market over the next X years. In the last ~30 years, Oakland's population has grown only about 15%, while Vegas has grown by 150%.

According to this, there are 870k homes in the LV market. Double that to 1.75M homes, and that would be a bigger MLB market than only:

Milwaukee
Cincinnati
Kansas City
San Diego
Baltimore
Pittsburg
St Louis
Cleveland
Miami

That's one team with an extended history of success, one with a new owner who's spending like a drunken sailor (and flipping off all of the non-Cohen owners in the process), and a couple with spotty success. That list of teams includes 6 of the bottom 8 in MLB opening day payroll - the A's would make it 7 of 8. Importantly, that list includes 4 teams that at least claim perpetual "poverty". Even if LV were a normal market (one not made up almost entirely of people who recently lived somewhere else, and smack dab in the middle of nowhere), it would be tough to argue that it's a big enough market to support an MLB team.

As for Oakland? I have no personal skin in the game, but as a rule I would much rather they spend the hundreds of millions, or even 1+ billion, dollars on social services than giving it to a rich guy to help stroke his ego.

Of we look at population by MSAs, Vegas is 29, ahead of Cincinnati, KC, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and within 60K of Pittsburgh.

Miami is #9, San Diego # 17

I know Nashville is the bigger metro area but i feel like Memphis would be a better fit for a new baseball team. Nashville is a little too close to Atlanta amd Memphis is close enough to Texas, St. louis, Atlanta, and even KC to gave natural rivalries with all of them. Plus we Memphis the deep south area can truly call the team it's own

Las Vegas is a city whose existence is predicated on the vitality of the Colorado River and the two big reservoirs, Powell and Mead, for both power and water. Both of them are drying up.

Football kinda makes sense in Vegas, the Raiders have a national fan base, there are lots of non-stops to Vegas and the games are on the weekend. I think baseball will be an enormous failure in Vegas, plus is there any expectation that the owner will attempt to field a competitive team? Will Las Vegas cure cheap?

As pointed out above Oakland has lost three major sports teams in five years. I believe they also had an NHL team that moved to minnesota and an ABA team that decamped to DC plus the raiders left once before

What other city had a record like that?

So there's something just fundamentally wrong in Oakland (or as many here would say, it's a wonderful example of putting the people first ). Oakland must be a Mecca to live in I guess with all those tax dollars being funneled back into the safety net.

What other city had a record like that?

Yours? You lost NFL teams twice, an NBA team and an MLB team.

Las Vegas is a city whose existence is predicated on the vitality of the Colorado River and the two big reservoirs, Powell and Mead, for both power and water. Both of them are drying up.

Between the state of Nevada and the federal government, there's about a quarter billion dollars being spent in figuring out how to make desalinization a reality. The simple math is that there simply won't be possible to build and maintain enough desal plants for Vegas to maintain its growth at current declining water levels. Things may change in the next century, but there's a fair chance that by the end of the next century, Vegas just isn't there anymore.

I suspect the A's and Raiders will have moved by then.

Oakland must be a Mecca to live in I guess with all those tax dollars being funneled back into the safety net.

It's no St. Louis, winner of coveted Most Dangerous City In America Award.

Baltimore has lost a bunch of teams.

Of we look at population by MSAs, Vegas is 29, ahead of Cincinnati, KC, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and within 60K of Pittsburgh.

For an RSN, there are 5M people within 150 miles of Kansas City - cities like Wichita, Omaha, Springfield. There are 2.8M people within 150 miles of Vegas.

As a (ex) climate scientist, it’s fascinating to see how many people who think of themselves as educated have fallen for weird doomer rhetoric. There is zero - literally zero - chance that LV runs out of water and in fact it has tons of room to grow.

First off, most importantly, LV saw this coming and built an intake near the bottom of Lake Meade. So even if the lake falls to deadpool- ie, not enough water to power the plant at Hoover Dam - LV’s water supply is secure.

Second, residential use, properly managed, is insignificant. LV is recycling 90% of its water already, and will probably nudge that up closer to 95% as they increasingly limit lawn/pool use. Unless you blow up like a balloon, humans generally piss and #### out nearly all of the water they take in, minus sweat. LV’s use is not that meaningful compared to other uses of CO river water (see below).

Third, agricultural use, which is the HUGE consumptive use and almost assuredly not sustainable, is limited upstream of Vegas. There’s irrigation around Grand Junction CO and St. George UT, but mostly for fruit trees and generally usage is low. There will always be a sizeable lake at Lake Meade. Downstream in CA/AZ, agricultural use is larger and much less efficient. Those folks are the ones who are the most ######.

Fourth, and finally, the evidence for aridification of the west is limited. There’s no question the West goes through multidecadal wet/dry cycles, and that we’re in a dry one now, and the water use for the CO was drawn up during a wet period. So undoubtedly the status quo is not sustainable, but there’s a huge gap between “we shouldn’t be growing strawberries in the Sonoran with CO water” and “everything is drying out”. Regional precipitation modeling is devilishly hard; the long term precip trend in the west with 1-3C of warming is at best an educated guess. OTOH, it is almost certain that precipitation will become more unevenly distributed in a warmer climate, and that’s a huge issue in places like CA where they can’t store all the runoff in wet years; but it’s also one that Lake Meade and Lake Powell solve for fairly nicely.

So to sum up: yes it’s getting warmer, maybe it’s getting drier, but LV is fine and sustainable long term. I am a lot more worried about cities elsewhere in the west that mine 15,000 year old ground water, which is a less sustainable resource than the CO river.

So what happens to LV if the dam can't produce power and the region is put on extreme water rationing measures? The city certainly isn't going to grow and prosper.

For an RSN, there are 5M people within 150 miles of Kansas City - cities like Wichita, Omaha, Springfield. There are 2.8M people within 150 miles of Vegas.

The potential variable that makes Vegas more attractive a market than the traditional population numbers is that an enormous number of people who don't live within 150 miles of the market are constantly visiting within a five-mile radius of the stadium, and are there specifically to attend conferences and go on vacations designed to do lots of stuff at night and on the weekends.

I've been to Kansas City many, many times (in-laws live there), and I always enjoy it - but I have never been a part of an organization that had their conference or annual meeting there; I know of nobody who has taken a vacation there (maybe a day as part of a road trip, but not as the primary destination)...like most MLB cities, the lack of a constant influx of tourists looking to spend time and money is nothing compared to Vegas.

BTW: This is an argument for why Nashville would make a strong MLB city. It has become one of those eight or so cities on the national conference circuit, is also growing quickly, and is seeing significant growth in the radius around it, as well. It also has a constant influx of tourists and conference attendees, and has shown it can support NFL and NHL franchises (both stadia, by the way, are right downtown - a key to their success).

So what happens to LV if the dam can't produce power and the region is put on extreme water rationing measures? The city certainly isn't going to grow and prosper.

Not much? They’ve already restricted most consumptive water uses - large pools are prohibited, lawns are highly restricted, they’ve stopped putting grass in medians, etc. Most of the large visible water users - bellagio fountain, summerlin golf courses - are mining ground water under their property and are insensitive to colorado flows. If Hoover Dam stops making power, they’ll just build a power plant to replace it. Or they won’t need to, because Las Vegas sits smack in the middle of the best renewable resource in the country, a near infinite supply of sunshine and empty land to fill with solar projects.

Once you’ve got the tech for air conditioning, paradoxically, cities in the desert are if anything more sustainable than cities in cool, wet climates. Heating is easier tech - just burn things! - but is more energy intensive than cooling and also uses more fossil fuels per energy unit (though hopefully heat pumps will help mitigate this, if they can get the tech just a little bit better).

So you've discovered the one city in America that doesn't have to care about water and energy.

So you've discovered the one city in America that doesn't have to care about water and energy.

One of the advantages of living in the richest country in the worlds is that . . . we have the richest natural resources in the world. More or less, anywhere east of Houston/Tulsa/Lincoln has, for any reasonable purposes unlimited water. Big chunks of the east, especially in the upper midwest and east coast, get 35-50" of rain, nearly perfectly evenly distributed throughout the year. Very few places on earth get the amount of water the US gets, as consistently. There's no reason to expect that to change with climate warming (variance should increase modestly, but no more than everywhere else on earth; precipitation may also increase modestly as well. But these changes are basically immaterial).

Its why all these silly water restrictions crack me up - none of these new model toilets can flush a firm turd, and showering with a new head feels like getting tinkled on by Trump's Russian whores, all because some ####### out west built a city where there ain't no water? #### them, they can clog their toilets with a toddler's dumps. Give me back my 1965 ShitEater2000 that could flush down a dead python.

Of course there are places in the US that are highly, highly water constrained. Anywhere that mines groundwater for ordinary use is on borrowed time. Phoenix Should Not Exist. None of the cities on the Texas High Plains are sustainable, but the steak is good. Denver is a borderline case - it SHOULD be more water constrained than it is, but decades ago they built a sophisticated system that draws most of their water from lakes west of divide (in some cases, in the headwaters of the Colorado River, which is ironic). So Denver's residential water is robustly sourced and has ample capacity, but all the agriculture on the CO plains is groundwater mining and not sustainable.

Energy in the Sun Belt isn't infinite, not quite, but its pretty close. Energy in the US generally is very very cheap. We are blessed, we have tons of water for hydro, tons of sun for solar, tons of wind for wind, and so much coal that we're going to end up leaving most of it in the ground, because we're rich enough that we don't need it.

If you want to climate doomer, focus on the places where there is real risk, not theoretical horseshit Green Party Development Is Bad boogiemen. Citifield is on reclaimed land, at sea level. When sea level rises - and it will - that stadium is ######. So is Pac Bell - also built on reclaimed land at sea level. If the San Andreas doesn't come for it first, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet will finish the job. Nationals Park is explicitly forecast by the federal government to be underwater by 2100 or so. I wish it luck in its future endeavors.

Never forget that the best guesstimates for warming are around 2-3C. That's a lot of warming - it'll turn NYC into Charlotte. But also: I've been to Charlotte. It is not like the world comes to an end if NYC turns into Charlotte. What IS, by contrast, really scary, is sea level rise, which is almost certain with that amount of warming (IIRC sea levels during the warmest intervals of the Eemian were ~7M higher than modern). Even 2-3M of sea level rise - and we are on track for more - puts a whole lot of urbanized America underwater - or more accurately drags GDP with trillions of dollars of spend on flood protection systems that put Holland to shame.

I've been to Kansas City many, many times (in-laws live there), and I always enjoy it - but I have never been a part of an organization that had their conference or annual meeting there

interesting.

in the last 5 years I have attended conferences in:
Las Vegas
The Meadowlands
San Diego
San Francisco
Boston
Minneapolis
Chicago
Philadelphia

and before that:
Baltimore
Cleveland
Houston
Dallas
Miami
Milwaukee
Pittsburgh
Denver
Los Angeles
Washington, DC

looks like the only MLB cities I have never visited for any reason are Kansas City and St. Louis (because St. Louis Airport doesn't count and I stayed in the suburbs for a wedding).

.............

That's a lot of warming - it'll turn NYC into Charlotte. But also: I've been to Charlotte. It is not like the world comes to an end if NYC turns into Charlotte.

I've been to Charlotte a number of times, so I feel qualified to fight you to the death on that claim.

:)

That said, so many good moments at the Oakland Coliseum. So many. I don't really know how to feel. I am not sure who to be mad at. I am mostly just sad.

Thanks for writing this #54. Really sucks. I can tell you that when the Colts left Baltimore when I was a kid, and that definitely had some impact. I don't really care about football in any material way, which is probably good for me but I do think something was taken from me and others in my generation. I currently live in a city that lost the Supersonics, and that really sucks for my kids. From the outside, it seems like the A's didn't negotiate with the City in good faith, and that just sucks for the people. I would tend to agree that the days of corporate welfare should be over, though I think a reasonable public/private partnership can and should happen.

As for the City of Las Vegas getting a baseball team, relying on out of towners and aging transplants is, I suppose, a strategy. More likely this is a huge cash windfall for the owner of the A's, and at some point in the future, his family will sell the team for a massive profit and not care about the consequences of his actions. I think about how the Giants threatened to move to Tampa years ago, and how terrible of a move that would have been for that organization. I think you have to look at these moves from the perspective whether or not the move is good for the owner (it almost always is) and whether or not the move is good for the sport (I have less confidence in this).

But in the end, it sucks for Oakland and their fans.

LV has always gone through boom and bust cycles. But why would LV grow and prosper if the west is suffering hardships, major investments need to be made to produce energy, and water is an issue for the region? 1 million more people are going to head to LV under these circumstances? Why wouldn't residents leave?

Of course there are places in the US that are highly, highly water constrained. Anywhere that mines groundwater for ordinary use is on borrowed time. Phoenix Should Not Exist. None of the cities on the Texas High Plains are sustainable

But Vegas is good? Yeah, okay.

Even 2-3M of sea level rise - and we are on track for more - puts a whole lot of urbanized America underwater - or more accurately drags GDP with trillions of dollars of spend on flood protection systems that put Holland to shame.

On the other hand, we're not going to do anything about it until it's too late, so that's something. Boomers and GenX will die before that happens, so most of the world's climate deniers will go to their graves believing they were right all along.

I have been to Kansas City, perhaps unsurprisingly, on my way to a sport-literature conference: in Lawrence, KS. I've also been to Ottawa, KS for the Baseball in Literature and Culture conference. Though the entire attendance at these conferences might fill two rows of one ballpark section …

I have been to all the MLB metro areas except Seattle, Phoenix, Miami, and Milwaukee. Several for conferences, though I think the only one I have been just for a single conference was Toronto (in the dead of winter).

Las Vegas, though, never.

But Vegas is good? Yeah, okay.

Vegas is on a major river. That's a huge deal. City-in-desert-next-to-perennial-river is one of the fundamental modes of human development, and highly sustainable. Cairo has been kicking around for like 7000 years and counting. Xi'an is barely semi-arid, there's been a city there for about 4000 years.

The huge point - and one that no one seems to understand - is that cooling air is much more energy efficient than heating air. Once we invented air conditioning, the more sustainable cities became the ones in the hot deserts, and the less sustainable cities were the ones in colder climates. And, once air conditioning is rolled out, humans PREFER warmer climates, energy efficiency aside. They vote with their feet. Now that solar is coming online in a big way, the calculus in favor of desert cities has only increased - there's a huge supply of power outside the window, that GHG-free power runs the air conditioners, and it's quite efficient and desirable. I can't ####### stand the desert, so bad luck for me, but cities like Vegas are where the future is headed.

On the other hand, we're not going to do anything about it until it's too late

Eh, its dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. The cost of of a GHG-free energy portfolio is so huge that it's not like there's an option that doesn't kneecap the economy - you're merely picking between spreading out the pain over a long time or pushing it to the end but then its real bad. On an NPV basis, I suspect it's pretty close to a wash, but I certainly wouldn't want to be around in 2100 when we have to pay the piper. Our whole system - economy, social safety net, etc - is built around energy having a cost of X, when in reality it costs 1.5x when you take into account the externalities of GHG emissions, and there isn't the political will to face that fact, not here, not in China, not even in Europe, and certainly not in the Global South.

just for a single conference was Toronto (in the dead of winter).

MLA in Chicago is no picnic either.

The Las Vegas economic strategy has been brilliant.

even before it became clear that newer generations would tend to gamble less often, the casinos there broadened their appeal by becoming a mecca for foodies and for high-end shoppers (I think the market for hiking and other outdoor activities has remained stable as a secondary lure).

so a majority of casino revenue now comes from non-gambling sources.

I put it like this: young people still do the same irrational, overexuberant stuff in Vegas that they have always done from 10 pm to 6 am or so.

but where 30 years ago, afternoons and early evenings often included poker, blackjack, slots, and roulette, that is less in favor now.

the replacement? lavish, expensive all-you-can drink pool parties.

so maybe before you tended to make an average of $74.22 or whatever per visitor, with some spending 10x times that and a minority being lucky enough to actually come out ahead (for a day - there's always a tomorrow).

now, you settle for a stable revenue stream from most customers that still leaves you with as much money in the casino owner's pocket as before.

(yes, this is an oversimplification. but still.)

plenty of couples and groups of friends enjoy a long Vegas weekend without ever gambling at all.

now, I'm not much of a gambler, a foodie, or a shopper - so I only go there for business. but those 3 groups - some of which overlap - give you a shot with a wide swath of consumers.

Vegas is on a major river. That's a huge deal.

Yet even Nevada's own very optimistic state water management group estimates that the state will have to be twice as efficient as they are right now in order to accommodate Vegas' expected growth over the next decade. That's just for the next decade. What happens in the decade after that? or after that?

Eh, its dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

I guess it's all in how much you value the people who just aren't gonna make it because change costs money. To keep things the same, it'll cost this generation nothing. For future generations, it'll be a very different story.

Re 89. The vast majority of revenue for LV casinos come from people coming in getting a room and gambling just like it always has been. The vast majority of profits are from gambling and rooms. F&B is third in revenue but not as profitable as either gambling or rooms. Pretty much everything a hotel does besides giving you a bed to sleep in and a place to gamble is gravy for casinos.

Never forget that the best guesstimates for warming are around 2-3C.

Please let me know if I'm wrong but I seem to remember hearing that this figure is a global figure spanning the entire geography of the globe(which of course is 75% water) and the rise in temperature over the middle of the ocean is only going to be like 1C, but over parts of say Pakistan or the midwest of the USA is going to be like 4-5C(or any area a long way from a massively huge cooling ocean) and that's how that 2-3C average is reached.
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong as I'd really like to know.

Phoenix Should Not Exist.

A truer statement has never been posted before on Primer....

Please let me know if I'm wrong but I seem to remember hearing that this figure is a global figure spanning the entire geography of the globe(which of course is 75% water) and the rise in temperature over the middle of the ocean is only going to be like 1C, but over parts of say Pakistan or the midwest of the USA is going to be like 4-5C(or any area a long way from a massively huge cooling ocean) and that's how that 2-3C average is reached.
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong as I'd really like to know.

Like most climate related things this has a grain of scientific truth to it but has been exaggerated for effect. It's true that temp changes over the ocean are damped by the evaporation of all that water. But 2C of warming is not just daytime, summer highs. Its winter highs and, more importantly low temperatures. In a warmer world most modeling shows that a lot of the disproportionate warming on land comes at night in the form of warmer lows and warmer high temps in the cold season. So in a 2C warmer world globally, in most populated temperate land regions average summer highs are still only increasing by 2-3C. (Intuitively, this makes sense - the average summertime high in Raleigh is only 3C higher than Hartford, even though Raleigh is 6C warmer in terms of average temperature over the whole year.)

Also, most populated places have a maritime influence, because that correlates with a moderate climate and high precipitation. So even if there is some wonky #### happening in areas of extreme continentality (see e.g. the interior valleys of the NW US/BC during that horrid heatwave a couple of years ago, where temps reached 50C at 50 degrees of latitude), these are generally places with low population density and so the terrible heat would have comparatively low impact. But yes, I wouldn't want to be hanging out in the Pilbara in a warmer world, seems exquisitely unpleasant.

Re 89. The vast majority of revenue for LV casinos come from people coming in getting a room and gambling just like it always has been. The vast majority of profits are from gambling and rooms. F&B is third in revenue but not as profitable as either gambling or rooms.

agree that hotel room revenue is very important. but plenty of experts - and I don't mean shills for casinos or casino executives - seem to differ with your analysis. as with all accounting, it's complicated. I think we can agree on that. and not on "just like it has always been." Do you think the percentage of Las Vegas tourists who don't gamble is the same as it was 30 years ago?

Phoenix Should Not Exist.

I would argue that it has never existed, other than to be host to an airport and act as a bridge between Glendale and Scottsdale - the latter being where sentient beings actually visit (I like Scottsdale).

A belated add to my reaction to McCoy: I appreciate that you have expertise on this topic, particularly re F & B.

Re 94. Sure there are in all probability more non gamblers coming to LV than before but that's largely gravy. Used to be dad went to vegas for work or with the boys or mom and dad went for the weekend and they gambled and maybe saw a show. Now mom and dad goes with the kids and they gamble, see a show, and go do kids stuff some of which is free. But that's just how do we get people to come out here and gamble more often?

MLA in Chicago is no picnic either

Heh, that's exactly why I went to Toronto: 1993 MLA, IIRC. It was supposedly the coldest Boxing Day in the history of the city. I went out for a walk because heck, I grew up in the Midwest! and after a couple of blocks, oh holy hell, I can't take this a second longer and dashed back inside.

I was luckier with my couple of Chicago MLAs - just rainy and slushy. One of the colder MLAs I went to was in San Diego. I was like, why do people want to live in the dreadful climate of Southern California …

San Diego the year after Toronto (which I missed)? At least coming back from Czechia for it, I was delighted. One of the Chicago conventions in the 90s was cold enough that a buddy who's from Austin took a cab from the El to the hotel ... which was basically around the corner. Don't think he realized that, but didn't care.

My San Diego MLA was ~2004.

I haven't been to one in years. MLA moved to January so people could enjoy the holidays with their families. I liked going to MLA in December so I would not have to spend holidays with my family :-D

I would argue that it has never existed, other than to be host to an airport and act as a bridge between Glendale and Scottsdale - the latter being where sentient beings actually visit (I like Scottsdale).

THis has to be a parody. Phoenix has a burgeoning art and restaurant scene, all kinds of weird hipster stuff going on in a way not seen on the coasts and lots of basically pleasurable things. And what's happening in Mesa? Kind of bits of everything, like a wild blender of Americana and Mexicana.

Scottsdale doesn't so much suck as is completely fungible. Anything okay there you can find lots of other places with some money.And some of the bad of those places is magnified there pretty intensely.