D.C. suburbs trying to decide how to use transit to attract millenials

[NotInRHouse]

No...what I think is that the prime reason to go to Amsterdam for those under 35 is the weed and red light district. In terms of night life it's not better than the other major European cities.

And, I think for those not interested in that, of any age, it's not worth the stop versus the other main European cities. Prague is prettier, cheaper, cleaner, better food, still has all the canals, better night life too. But way fewer people speak English especially compared to Amsterdam.

It's like AC in that it needs a distinction from other similarly situated places.

And Amsterdam has not cracked down on the coffee shops as harshly as some other Dutch cities. They're not going to let that money walk. I'm not as sure about the red light district, but it was pretty much as I had seen advertised on 20/20 years ago, though they probably take a very hard line on human trafficking and definitely should.

 

[retired711]

If under 35-year olds go to Amsterdam only for the sex and the drugs, well, then the world is indeed going to hell in a handbasket. You yourself point out a big advantage to Amsterdam: virtually everyone (and almost everyone under 35) speaks English as well as an American. (The Dutch kids learn English from American TV.) There is plenty to do, it is easy to get around, and the neighborhoods are fun to walk. I can't compare Prague because I haven't been there. I do understand that there is plenty of night life in Prague, and I'm sure that's attractive.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
No...what I think is that the prime reason to go to Amsterdam for those under 35 is the weed and red light district. In terms of night life it's not better than the other major European cities.

Plenty of people under 35 travel for other reasons. Perhaps your perspective on some things is a bit too narrow.

 

[retired711]

In any case, I think there is no parallel between Amsterdam and Atlantic City. The latter is simply a hellhole with some big buildings. It would be very hard to control sex and drug trafficking in Atlantic City.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by Scarlet Pride:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
No...what I think is that the prime reason to go to Amsterdam for those under 35 is the weed and red light district. In terms of night life it's not better than the other major European cities.

Plenty of people under 35 travel for other reasons. Perhaps your perspective on some things is a bit too narrow.

That was a very polite response. LOL

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
In any case, I think there is no parallel between Amsterdam and Atlantic City. The latter is simply a hellhole with some big buildings. It would be very hard to control sex and drug trafficking in Atlantic City.

It still misses the main point. Prostitution is never going to be enough to support a city, and weed will be legal in enough places that AC won't have anything close to a monopoly with a decade of now.

So as I said - at best you give up the market for families (which is going to be growing alot as NIRHs large age cohort finally grows up and settles down) and people who just dont want to deal with the trashy aspects for what? Bachelor parties?

 

[NotInRHouse]

Certainly you can have both. Vegas has some family aspects.

Also, I do travel for other reasons but like I said in general I think other cities have more attractions (all the Cold War and WW2 history in Berlin, or way more historical sites in London).

I also speak a few other languages to varying degrees so I'm not huge on making English front and center, but it certainly is an issue considering with the exception of maybe Canada, most native English speakers don't know other languages. Prague is actually an interesting case because you will see lots of signs and menus in English but very few Czechs seem to speak it, versus say Brazil where you will be lucky to see some signs in Spanish never mind English outside of a handful of businesses directed at tourists.

 

[retired711]

only about 12% of Brazil's visitors come from the U.S. and England combined, so it's not surprising that there are few signs in English. The predominant number are from the rest of South America, especially Argentina; but I think there is some desire for Brazilian's identity not to be diluted.

tourism in Brazil

 

[NotInRHouse]

It would be well worth it for more of them to deal. Though I have to say, I speak some Portuguese and I think my friends would have had a rougher go without me. But I have been, and don't mind generally, going some place without many English speakers. If you know how to travel, you'll make do.

English tends to be more popular in countries where other Germanic languages are spoken because it's much easier for them to learn English (Dutch is the closest living language to English and German is not far behind). Also it seems to have an effect whether the country uses subtitling or dubbing. There also seems to be effect based on whether the country uses a "major" language- most Spanish speaking countries don't emphasize English as much, but Spanish is a heavily used language too with lots of its own media, music, movies etc. I found Egyptians to speak a lot of English, probably because of the British influence and the heavy dependence on tourism, despite Arabic also being a widely spoken language.

 

[Upstream]

CLP - English has become the defacto global language. So counting the number of US and UK visitors isn't really meaningful. Visitors to Brazil from Greece, Japan, Finland, or Thailand would rely on English to communicate.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[retired711]

There aren't many from those countries either. Your point is a good one, though.

 

[NotInRHouse]

That's true. When I was in Prague I saw a Spanish couple arguing with an train attendant, all in bad English. So many facepalms from both sides.

I went on a brewery tour in Iceland. There was my group, a group of Canadians, and a group of native Icelanders. The tour was all in English and any time the Icelanders had a question, they asked in English. And it was perfect, minimally accented English too. When you're in a heavily touristic place I guess you get used to it.

 

[Upstream]

NIRH -- not just tourist places, but also any place that relies on international business. So pretty much every major city in the world runs on English as either the primary or secondary language.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Certainly you can have both. Vegas has some family aspects.

Also, I do travel for other reasons but like I said in general I think other cities have more attractions (all the Cold War and WW2 history in Berlin, or way more historical sites in London).

I also speak a few other languages to varying degrees so I'm not huge on making English front and center, but it certainly is an issue considering with the exception of maybe Canada, most native English speakers don't know other languages. Prague is actually an interesting case because you will see lots of signs and menus in English but very few Czechs seem to speak it, versus say Brazil where you will be lucky to see some signs in Spanish never mind English outside of a handful of businesses directed at tourists.

Vegas has about as many family aspects as Disney has childless adult aspects. In other words, just enough to say that they have them.

But Vegas gets most of its business from adults. Always has. Always will. Its 1990s era attempt to become family friendly failed. Presumably because Vegas business found out the obvious - most people arent taking their kids to Vegas no matter how many kiddie rides and shows they open.

In theory you could have an East Coast Vegas. Theres room in America for multiple Disneys and SeaWorlds. But it couldn't be in AC. Too cold. Just like the West Coast Vegas isnt in Reno, despite Reno having a head start as a destination. It snows too much up there. Theres a reason Disney is in Southern California and Florida. There's a reason Sea World is in Orlando, San Diego, and San Antonio, but the one in Ohio is closed. There's a reason that the northern amusements parks are not Disney World, despite having a head start. Its very hard to run a tourist industry when you have no tourists for 4-6 months a year.

The Cezch thing is easy. There are lots of Brazilians. Not alot of Czechs. Czechoslovakia is also surrounded by many nations with multiple languages - so you either go with Czech, go with the international lingua franca (ENglish), or have signs with half a dozen languages on them.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I am not sure that I agree you need warm weather to have an east coast Vegas. Aside from pool parties, what are the Vegas activities that require the warmth?

Surely, you can't operate a roller coaster in snow.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
I am not sure that I agree you need warm weather to have an east coast Vegas. Aside from pool parties, what are the Vegas activities that require the warmth?

Surely, you can't operate a roller coaster in snow.

Many of the folks who go to Vegas are middle-aged and up. The *last* thing they want to do is to step out of the airport terminal into the cold.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Maybe I'm just a cold weather person, but that's neither here nor there to me with that kind of vacation. Plus the weather in Vegas is sometimes oppressively hot. If I wanted to go somewhere warm, I'd go to the islands.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Maybe I'm just a cold weather person, but that's neither here nor there to me with that kind of vacation. Plus the weather in Vegas is sometimes oppressively hot. If I wanted to go somewhere warm, I'd go to the islands.

You're fortunate enough to be young. Believe me, as you grow older, cold weather is likely to appeal to you less and less. In addition, remember that air conditioning counteracts oppressive heat unless one wants to be outside -- and almost all Vegas activities are indoors.

 

[Upstream]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Maybe I'm just a cold weather person, but that's neither here nor there to me with that kind of vacation. Plus the weather in Vegas is sometimes oppressively hot. If I wanted to go somewhere warm, I'd go to the islands.

You're fortunate enough to be young. Believe me, as you grow older, cold weather is likely to appeal to you less and less. In addition, remember that air conditioning counteracts oppressive heat unless one wants to be outside -- and almost all Vegas activities are indoors.

But that is why climate really doesn't have anything to do with whether people will travel to a Vegas-like attraction.

Sure, beach resorts and amusement parks (where people spend most of their times outdoors) are better suited to warm climates, where they can make money 12 months a year. But climate is somewhat irrelevant to city destinations. If temperature were the primary concern, December wouldn't be the peak tourist season in New York City.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by Upstream:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Maybe I'm just a cold weather person, but that's neither here nor there to me with that kind of vacation. Plus the weather in Vegas is sometimes oppressively hot. If I wanted to go somewhere warm, I'd go to the islands.

You're fortunate enough to be young. Believe me, as you grow older, cold weather is likely to appeal to you less and less. In addition, remember that air conditioning counteracts oppressive heat unless one wants to be outside -- and almost all Vegas activities are indoors.

But that is why climate really doesn't have anything to do with whether people will travel to a Vegas-like attraction.

Sure, beach resorts and amusement parks (where people spend most of their times outdoors) are better suited to warm climates, where they can make money 12 months a year. But climate is somewhat irrelevant to city destinations. If temperature were the primary concern, December wouldn't be the peak tourist season in New York City.

Do I need to remind you which city we are talking about here. AC is a beach resort. It would be monumentally stupid to decide that IT, on the beach, should be the place where you are going to put your east coast adults only resort city.

Cold weather makes it a bad convention city at a minimum.You might be able to get away with that in Chicago (centrally located, major business center), or NY(the business center of the country and a major entertainment center) or DC (the nations capital), but not at a place like Vegas, which only exists as a convention and entertainment center.

Secondly, if the East Coast wants a Vegas, its got one. Its called NYC. Except NYC long ago realized that catering to adults only was a bad idea. Hence they remade Times Square instead of doubling down on peep shows there. Very few people are going to pick the pleather Vegas/AC experience, when you can get something much closer to authentic in NYC. Oh - and NYC has underground transit to make the cold weather more tolerable.

But this is a moot argument. They tried the idea of an adult oriented paradise, and basically as soon as other options became available, people decided that they would go there instead. And what is left is a shit hole that no one wants to go to.

 

[Upstream]

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by Upstream:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Maybe I'm just a cold weather person, but that's neither here nor there to me with that kind of vacation. Plus the weather in Vegas is sometimes oppressively hot. If I wanted to go somewhere warm, I'd go to the islands.

You're fortunate enough to be young. Believe me, as you grow older, cold weather is likely to appeal to you less and less. In addition, remember that air conditioning counteracts oppressive heat unless one wants to be outside -- and almost all Vegas activities are indoors.

But that is why climate really doesn't have anything to do with whether people will travel to a Vegas-like attraction.

Sure, beach resorts and amusement parks (where people spend most of their times outdoors) are better suited to warm climates, where they can make money 12 months a year. But climate is somewhat irrelevant to city destinations. If temperature were the primary concern, December wouldn't be the peak tourist season in New York City.

Do I need to remind you which city we are talking about here. AC is a beach resort. It would be monumentally stupid to decide that IT, on the beach, should be the place where you are going to put your east coast adults only resort city.

Cold weather makes it a bad convention city at a minimum.You might be able to get away with that in Chicago (centrally located, major business center), or NY(the business center of the country and a major entertainment center) or DC (the nations capital), but not at a place like Vegas, which only exists as a convention and entertainment center.

Secondly, if the East Coast wants a Vegas, its got one. Its called NYC. Except NYC long ago realized that catering to adults only was a bad idea. Hence they remade Times Square instead of doubling down on peep shows there. Very few people are going to pick the pleather Vegas/AC experience, when you can get something much closer to authentic in NYC. Oh - and NYC has underground transit to make the cold weather more tolerable.

But this is a moot argument. They tried the idea of an adult oriented paradise, and basically as soon as other options became available, people decided that they would go there instead. And what is left is a shit hole that no one wants to go to.

Your last few paragraphs contain valid reasons why there is not an adult-themed resort city on the East Coast. But cold weather has nothing to do with it. (And while Atlantic City might not be ideal since it is first a beach resort, there is nothing stopping anyone from building a Vegas-type resort in the middle of Burlington County -- other than all your reasons explaining why no one wants it.)

 

[derleider]

Cold weather has something to do with it, if you want Vegas and not Reno. Because Vegas needs the convention business to be Vegas, and you dont get the year round convention business without warm weather.

I think people are missing the sheer scale of Vegas. You dont get that size if you dont have a year round supply of tourists, and basically no East Coast cold weather city outside of NYC has a year round supply of tourists. DC, Philly, Boston, Chicago, Baltimore - all drop off precipitously in the winter. NYC is an anomaly for cold weather cities, not the norm. For most people who aren't skiing, winter is not the time to visit somewhere cold.

But like you said - the are lots of reasons not to try to be Vegas. Cold weather just adds to the list.

 

[lawmatt78]

You could theoretically have another "Vegas" but it's unlikely. Vegas has had a massive head start, a mystique, and has already achieved a massive scale. Anyone copying Vegas will be seen as an imitator. And, as noted, NYC already has all of the entertainment you could want, short of gambling.

There's definitely a place for a high quality property like the Borgata - and for a few others, as well. But replacing some of the underperforming ones with other attractions is probably the way to go.

Long term, it probably should strive to be more like Ocean City, Myrtle Beach, etc. - with the added bonus of some gambling - rather than Vegas (very) Lite.

 

[Upstream]

Originally posted by derleider:
Cold weather has something to do with it, if you want Vegas and not Reno. Because Vegas needs the convention business to be Vegas, and you dont get the year round convention business without warm weather.

We are really off track on in this thread. But the data doesn't really support that you need warm weather for conventions. Below are the top 35 US cities in terms of convention booking. While warm-weather resorts are certainly well represented, so are northern cities (the only notable northern cities missing from the list are Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Portland, and Cincinatti).


Top 50 U.S. cities for conventions in 2013
1. Orlando
2. Chicago
3. Las Vegas
4. Atlanta
5. San Diego
6. New York
7. Washington
8. Dallas
9. Miami
10. Phoenix
11. San Francisco
12. New Orleans
13. Denver
14. Nashville
15. Scottsdale, Ariz.
16. San Antonio
17. Los Angeles
18. Boston
19. Houston
20. Austin
21. Philadelphia
22. Grapevine
23. Kissimmee, Fla.
24. Seattle
25. Baltimore
26. National Harbor, Md.
27. Indianapolis
28. Tampa
29. Rosemont, Ill.
30. Fort Worth
31. Minneapolis
32. Anaheim, Calif.
33. Charlotte
34. Arlington, Va.
35. St. Louis

 

[derleider]

I didnt say you need warm weather for conventions (or if I did, its clearly not what I meant). You need warm weather to have lots of conventions. Now thats not 100% true. If you are the nations actual capital, its business capital, or its most centrally located major city, you can get away with being cold and still attract people.

On a list of the TOP 50, several large northern cities dont even appear, getting beat out by places like National Harbor, MD or Grapevine, TX, which arent even cities - just convention centers in the burbs with a half a dozen hotels next door.

Seems to support me completely - weather matters. It matters even when you are going to spend most of your time indoors.

 

[virginiaru]

I'm a bit confused by the list. Arlington, VA is on the list (I live there) and has no convention center. Is the list done by hotel rooms sold for meetings? National Harbor does make sense as it has a very large convention center.

 

[Upstream]

Virginia -- it is convention attendance. While Arlington may not have a convention center, it has a lot of hotels with small convention capabilities. If you go by major convention centers only, northern cities are even more represented.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[NotInRHouse]

NYC has a lot of entertainment but it doesn't have as much "vice" type entertainment IMO compared to other world cities. I'm not one of those "it's too sanitized now" people but I do get a good laugh from all the tourists at Times Square thinking how New York they are being when actual people from the area avoid it like the plague.

I might suggest something like, NJ legalize marijuana on a Colorado based system, and have a small few blocks in AC be devoted to a red light district with safety regulations like Amsterdam has. There really is no minus at this point. It's briniging what's happening to light instead of keeping it dark where there is opportunity for exploitation.

That doesn't prevent having Myrtle Beach or OCMD type amenities, as Myrtle is known for strip clubs and OCMD does have a fairly significant party scene- and in both cases they are mostly concentrated in one area.

Right now AC is down to 8 casinos, and I think the only financially at risk one is Taj. Most of other ones are doing fine if not well. Then Stockton bought the Showboat (which Taj is disputing) and Revel's sale appears final. Only two other empties, and then some vacant land, so still some area to play with.

 

[virginiaru]

Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense as you can have meetings here while allowing attendees in their off time to explore the DC attractions and (if they chose) to be car free.

 

[derleider]

Yes - the minus is that AC will become known as Amsterdam East even if its just a small district, hampering it from becoming a relatively family friendly beach community - which is its only path forward.

OCMD does have a party scene - and in fact it drives away families and older people to a certain extent (literally just this week Ive had my parents say they are going to Rehobeth because they are getting too old for OC, and my neighbors saying they go to Cape May now because their kids arent old enough for OC). But its party scene is conventional - bars. its not based on prostitution, gambling, and weed, so like Seaside it doesnt drive away that many people. The place is huge of course.

Those other casinos will start to fail too. Overall revenue in March was down 12.5% from last March. Even within the remaining casinos the revenue from in person gambling is down year over year - despite having less local competition. Internet gambling will help stem the tide- but those casinos arent going to keep the money losing parts of the business going if they dont have to. And eventually I expect there to be a national push to legalize gambling just like their is with weed.

And rankly, if you are AC - which do you want as a tax base. Prostitutes and dope shops, or the fancy beach houses and hotels that you see everywhere else on the shore?

 

[Upstream]

Originally posted by derleider:


And rankly, if you are AC - which do you want as a tax base. Prostitutes and dope shops, or the fancy beach houses and hotels that you see everywhere else on the shore?

I don't want to speak on behalf of NIRH, but I would guess that he would prefer prostitutes and dope shops.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by virginiaru:
Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense as you can have meetings here while allowing attendees in their off time to explore the DC attractions and (if they chose) to be car free.

I would think that the proximity of the Pentagon might encourage conventions on military or quasi-military matters to be in Arlington. So too with the presence of the Arlington National Cemetery; that might attract veterans' groups. And, as Virginiaru says, Arlington is a terrific location if one wants to explore D.C. without a car (which, IMHO, is the only way to explore D.C. given the odd street arrangement in D.C. and the traffic.) I like D.C. and so I'd really be attracted to a convention there. (Instead, I'll be going to the Washington Convention Center in a couple of weeks: I bet that's a lot more expensive than Arlington. )

 

[NotInRHouse]

In terms of the tax health of the state of NJ, yeah, I would take the dope shops and hookers. The rest of the Jersey Shore is full of mansions and expensive property, including some of the towns right around AC, though they are cheap in comparison to fancier towns.

If you are looking to generate additional tax revenue NJ needs to get creative. I'm liberal but you need to draw some kind of line on taxing millionaires, and really, NJ's estate tax of $675,000 is the lowest in America and here that's practically middle class in many areas just for owning a home.

It seems to me that Colorado is making a pretty penny with less people never mind less people in a radius, they have weed tours like other areas have wine tours and a lot of touristy things associated with the change. NJ would be crazy not do change it, start in AC test it out. Test out the red light district. It's not going to unconvince people who have been going until now.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
In terms of the tax health of the state of NJ, yeah, I would take the dope shops and hookers. The rest of the Jersey Shore is full of mansions and expensive property, including some of the towns right around AC, though they are cheap in comparison to fancier towns.

If you are looking to generate additional tax revenue NJ needs to get creative. I'm liberal but you need to draw some kind of line on taxing millionaires, and really, NJ's estate tax of $675,000 is the lowest in America and here that's practically middle class in many areas just for owning a home.

It seems to me that Colorado is making a pretty penny with less people never mind less people in a radius, they have weed tours like other areas have wine tours and a lot of touristy things associated with the change. NJ would be crazy not do change it, start in AC test it out. Test out the red light district. It's not going to unconvince people who have been going until now.

The most upsetting thing about the New Jersey estate tax is that the rate is very high. 37% for the first $50,000 or so above the $675,000 exemption. The rate then goes down to 11% or so. In other words, New Jersey is determined to make sure that every state above the exemption pays a significant amount of tax. Transfers at death to spouses are exempt from the tax (as with the federal tax), but this doesn't help at the death of the surviving spouse. Basically, any surviving spouse should get the hell out of New Jersey.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
In terms of the tax health of the state of NJ, yeah, I would take the dope shops and hookers. The rest of the Jersey Shore is full of mansions and expensive property, including some of the towns right around AC, though they are cheap in comparison to fancier towns.

If you are looking to generate additional tax revenue NJ needs to get creative. I'm liberal but you need to draw some kind of line on taxing millionaires, and really, NJ's estate tax of $675,000 is the lowest in America and here that's practically middle class in many areas just for owning a home.

It seems to me that Colorado is making a pretty penny with less people never mind less people in a radius, they have weed tours like other areas have wine tours and a lot of touristy things associated with the change. NJ would be crazy not do change it, start in AC test it out. Test out the red light district. It's not going to unconvince people who have been going until now.

The most upsetting thing about the New Jersey estate tax is that the rate is very high. 37% for the first $50,000 or so above the $675,000 exemption. The rate then goes down to 11% or so. In other words, New Jersey is determined to make sure that every state above the exemption pays a significant amount of tax. Transfers at death to spouses are exempt from the tax (as with the federal tax), but this doesn't help at the death of the surviving spouse. Basically, any surviving spouse should get the hell out of New Jersey.

Well to be fair - she'll be dead when the tax hits.

As for dope and hookers - people dont need to be unconvinced. They are already being unconvinced in droves. They will continue to be unconvinced to come weed and hookers or not. Legacy costs are going to kill AC unless you can convince people to come, and really - weed tours and hookers just arent going to bring back all of those people who used to come.

This isnt about saving the states tax base. The answer to that one is simple - build casinos near people (i.e. Norther Jersey and Camden). Most casino revenue is slots, and most people will make their decision on slots play on proximity not the ability to see a show they have no interest in seeing. AC is not near people. This is about saving AC - its tax base and infrastructure, which due to the legacy costs of once having been a decent tourist draw, will be high.

Basically your suggestion is akin to this. Imagine Vail was the only place in Colorado that allowed legal weed usage for a couple of decades. As a result it moved away from skiing and started to cater to the weed crowd. Then the rest of the state legalized it and Vail inevitably lost business as people from Denver just stayed in Denver, but still had alot of infrastructure from formerly having been so popular. Would you suggest that the best course for Vail to recover would be to introduce hookers and legalize blow or start focusing on skiing again?

 

[NotInRHouse]

Vail is a wealthy area. Atlantic City is struggling...some would say dying. I think when you look at places that are really hurting, you need to think of out of the box solutions.

The issue with casinos over the rest of NJ is that PA has that- too many casinos is causing sinking profits there. Maybe one in Jersey City is just close enough to Manhattan to be different. But keep building more and we will be in the same boat.

And even if we have casinos acting as a raging success, which isn't really happening around us, NJ is still financially precarious. Our infrastructure is crumbling and we can't meet financial obligations.

Might as well do something that NY/PA/DE are not.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Vail is a wealthy area. Atlantic City is struggling...some would say dying. I think when you look at places that are really hurting, you need to think of out of the box solutions.

The issue with casinos over the rest of NJ is that PA has that- too many casinos is causing sinking profits there. Maybe one in Jersey City is just close enough to Manhattan to be different. But keep building more and we will be in the same boat.

And even if we have casinos acting as a raging success, which isn't really happening around us, NJ is still financially precarious. Our infrastructure is crumbling and we can't meet financial obligations.

Might as well do something that NY/PA/DE are not.

Vail would be dying in the example too is the point. They would have created an entire ecosystem around their weed monopoly and that would be over. You dont need out of the box solutions when the solution is obvious. In the Vail example the solution would be to go back to emphasizing skiing.

Basically you are saying - double down on vice, its worked so well - when it hasnt. AC is a shithole except its casinos. Pot shops and brothels might stem the tide for a while, but they will not reverse it. They would temporarily (even if no one else on the East Coast legalizes weed and hookers) slow down the death of AC's gambling sector, but they wouldnt stop it. And you certainly wont do enough business to replace the reduced value of the real estate.

But now again, you are trying to solve all of NJs problems with one little red light district. Thats nonsense of course. NJ is a big state and a $10 million boost is a drop in the bucket. But it would certainly ensure that AC would continue being a dying town.

If your contention is that NJ should legalize pot across the state, then sure. For a while it will have a monopoly and even after that it would get tax dollars from locals buying in state, just like it does from every other good for sale in the state.

As for extra casinos. No - they wont save the state either. Fundamental reforms, not gimmicks are needed for that. But they will keep more of that money in state, if you build them where people have to pass them in order to get out of state (i.e. near NYC and Philly) If private operators think its profitable then let them build them wherever they want - maybe with the caveat that they have to be a certain size so they can be regulated and taxed more efficiently (i.e. do you really want to deal with 5000 7/11s and bars with slot machines?) That would kill AC instantly for sure - but thats just a matter of timing. AC is going to die. Its at 1981 revenue levels adjusted for inflation and is still falling fast even with Internet gambling picking up steam.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I don't think you can really compare cities because even within NJ every city that has gentrified has a different story.

What I do about Vail is that it's definitely a spot for the affluent. What is a spot that used to be a vacation for poor people but not anymore? I don't know. The closest thing I can think of is Asbury- and gay people, maybe 2% of the general population, turned it around. So it might make sense to attract a small, interested crowd. And, nowhere in the US is there a real, safe, red light district, but Fire Island has been around for decades.

I don't think there is certainty any which way but I do think you may get investors for vice more quickly than high market real estate considering selling Revel has been a tooth pull

There is no one silver bullet for NJ, but legalized weed eventually all over would bring in a lot of revenue and reduce the cost of law enforcement and jail, two things we can really stand to shed cost on. You would get tourists from NYC and Philly interested. It makes a lot of sense. My guess is that could happen once Christie is gone if we get Fulop, no way with Sweeney.