You forgot what used to be there. Mindless landscaping. It's from back in the day when it had a very convenient parking lot out front. The flea market is probably no worse looking than what used to be there.

It's not supposed to be as much of a draw as it is a revenue source. A moving sidewalk that is never working is not a revenue source at all. All it does is piss people off. Not sure how one can advocate adding more of these things when they are always broken.

I was referring to other properties, not Ballys, with respect to appearance. Not sure what you mean by mindless landscaping, but I'd rather look at some tropical plants and trees, a couple of waterfalls, etc. than another bunch of crappy retail shops. But maybe that's just me.

They (the Bally's moving sidewalks) were frequently broken probably because they cut corners on maintenance, or turned it off. I understand they're looking for more revenue, but are they getting it? How long does one of those shops stay open before throwing in the towel? Clearly they're discouraging revenue from gambling.

And it's been my experience that the moving sidewalks in airports usually work. Perhaps part of the problem is kids hitting the emergency stop for kicks, where those so inclined don't have access or would be afraid to do so in an airport.

Also, we older folks welcome the rest for our legs after walking the large distances between properties on the strip.

I wonder what Venetian's excuse is. To me it's a huge blemish on the Venetian that every time I go by those walking sidewalks they are not on. It makes Venetian look like a 2nd rate property. They'd be better not to have them at all.

Based on Trooper's videos it looks like that area is quite packed these days so I wouldn't worry too much about those shops/restaurants/Starbucks. It's a prime location really.

Caesars has needed to move their focus away from gambling in order to become a profitable company again.

When I was there last year, I think many of the shops were closed, but that could be because they weren't rented yet. There weren't many people walking towards Bally's, with most of the foot traffic walking up/down the strip and at the elevators and escalators. And you're right, it may me the most prime intersection in the city, and the most crowded of the four corners. But is Bally's drawing them in?

Yea, MGM too. But I'm not sure why those two companies bought up most of the casinos in Vegas if they'd really rather have resorts that reduce gambling to an amenity, rather than a property that revolves around gambling. Just go build resorts somewhere else, for Pete's sake, and leave the gambling joints to those who want to gamble.

I think I was born 25 years too late for what I want, lol.

They seem to be pretty well filled in now, with two anchor restaurants - Wahlburgers and Giordano's. To some degree, Bally's doesn't care that much if people go from there to the casino. Standard retail agreements call for the landlord to make a percentage of the tenant's gross.

Why don't you gather up everyone who feels the same way and buy up a gambling joint to take away all of MGM's business?

Back to trolling again, I see.

It's no more ridiculous than your suggestion. Few people go to Vegas primarily to gamble anymore because they no longer have to. The businesses have adapted to the changing climate.

To be fair, it is indeed a facetious statement. Not quite trolling, but definitely more than sarcastic.

A lot of people act like casinos are somehow properties of the residents of Las Vegas, and the primary purpose of the casinos is to provide poker income for local pros and schools for local residents.

In fact, the primary purpose of the casinos is to make money for a bunch of suits in a New York City boardroom. If there were a way for them to ban poker pros or stop paying taxes, they would in a heartbeat. And if instituting grinder-unfriendly jackpots and shifting business to low-taxed streams of revenue benefits their bottom line, they will.

The question of why people don't band together and buy a casino isn't rhetorical - I think going through the analysis of why you wouldn't answers the question of why MGM doesn't. When you ask yourself if you'd run a casino advertising the lowest raked games, you'll answer why the corporate fatcats don't want to either.

And if you have done the analysis and conclude MGM is making a material mistake, go Bill Ackman on their asses - short the **** out of their stock, then go public with your accusations and watch MGM's stock plummet. (Ackman took a $1 BILLION short position on Herbalife and then took to the airwaves.)

lol terrible example. Ackman has literally lost billions on that trade. He's lost billions more on other horrible trades in recent years. JCP and VRX most notably.

Good job at watching Betting on Zero though.

I was going to let whoever took my suggestion seriously find out that tidbit themselves.

That some of the properties with almost empty casinos and a long walk from the strip could use a moving sidewalk to encourage pedestrians into them is hardly ridiculous. Ultimately there may be better use of the real estate, but it can certainly be part of the conservation. And it's obvious that properties like the Bellagio, Caesars and Aria don't need them. It's also possible to do more than one thing with the space, such as a moving sidewalk to a shopping area, and another moving sidewalk into the casino on the other side of the shopping area, etc.

As far as we who lament some of changes that have happened in Vegas over the past couple of decades, just because we do this doesn't mean we don't understand why some of these changes happen or that they aren't for the best. But we've been around long enough to know that many decisions are foolhardy and made by people who are desperately looking for ways to increase their profits or cover up for previous bad decisions. Many decisions are not thought out well and are just a shot in the dark. Moreover, the tourist is punished by having to foot the bill for all these changes, good or bad (Airport taxes, rental car taxes, hotel taxes, sports arenas, sales taxes, expensive rooms, resort fees, parking fees, mostly expensive food choices, 6/5 blackjack, 00 roulette, lower slot payouts, paying more for normal sized airplane seats, luggage fees, and on and on and on). It seems like the moment you leave the house headed to Vegas someone has a vacuum in your wallet until you get home. What's next, an entry fee to enter the casino or tolls on the pedestrian bridges (damn, I just gave some idiot an idea!)?

Intermission (I need a moment to catch my breath) . . .

Vegas used to be a sanctuary city where one could engage in activities not permitted elsewhere. It's in a horrid location but overcame that with its liberal ways and cheap living and food. Now it's becoming castles build on sand propped up mostly with hype. Now they're getting a football and hockey team and it won't be long before those people force an elimination or restriction on sports wagering. It won't be long before it's just another city with overpriced amenities and the public will ask itself why it's flying across the country or ocean to visit just another city that's also in a desert when there are better and cheaper alternatives closer by.

Old guy rant over.

The referred to post was a troll because Calli wasn't part of that conversation and jumped in with the sarcastic remark. If he had been participating and was frustrated with where the conversation was going and posted that, it would have just been impolite. That, and also because the comment about building resorts somewhere else was made tongue-in-cheek. I thought that was obvious. All is forgiven, you crazy kids.

Why do you say that like it's unusual? You think the people selling $50 sweatshirts at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco are concerned about tourists' welfare? That the big Christmas tree in Rockerfeller Plaza is a tribute to the spirit of Christmas? That Vegas in the 90s wasn't also a giant vacuum?

If by "won't be long" you mean 10 years ago, I agree with you. Why do you think the suits are so desperate?

They found something people will fly cross country for - a $200 Britney show and $400 dinners. The other option is to start abandoning the desert and moving elsewhere.

Such as the decision to have moving sidewalks outside.

Tourists should be paying all these fees regardless of whether casinos make mistakes or not. DUCY?

Yes because back when people came to Vegas just to gamble, money was just flowing into their wallets from the casinos.

You pretty much just made the case for why it's so important that they move away from being a gambling destination and towards being more of a resort destination party town. Gambling is permitted virtually everywhere else now and if Vegas had kept doing what it always did it would be extinct. The casinos have made major changes in order to remain solvent and these changes have ensured that Vegas continues to be a one of a kind destination unlike anywhere else in the world.

im waiting for CET to offer $1/night rooms + $150 resort fee.

think about all the taxes they could save.

Yea, like ebay sellers used to be able to charge $1 and $20 shipping and only pay fees on the $1. Ebay obviously changed that and started charging 10% on the sale price and shipping.

Everyone is trying to make a buck, but it's at record heights now. The Vegas of the nineties had cheap food options and decently priced rooms, no resort or parking fees, etc.

The suits are desperate because the went too far into debt trying to outdo the other guy. Did Harrah's and MGM need to buy so many casinos for their bottom line? Have they done a good job in reinventing themselves to compensate for that and the increase in gambling options elsewhere? To the former I say no, to the latter yes. But the former made the latter necessary. Is it sustainable? I don't think so at the high level it's at.

I'm not concerned about $200 Brittany shows or $400 dinners. There is always room for that. It's the $50 for a meh buffet or $35 for breakfast that's the problem. I've splurged for a show or an upscale dinner on occasion, but paying through the nose for survival meals is an issue with me and others.

in nevada, resort fees are taxed.

The expense for moving sidewalks is chump change for them. It's the large expenses like buying additional properties that's the problem.

Most who live in Vegas moved there because of the jobs caused by the tourists visiting. But the point is that all these fees and taxes are way more than they should be.

No, the casinos made plenty off gambling, but I don't understand what your point is there.

I don't have a problem with most of the changes, just that it's becoming exclusively that.

A popular sushi place in my area charges at 16% service charge on all orders. That's taxed as well. So with sales tax going up to 10% in two weeks, it'll be a 17.6% surcharge when you add in the tax.... oh did I mention you still have to pay sales tax as well? At least tipping isn't allowed.

That's because there were far fewer gambling places in the 90s. People flew out to gamble and smoke weed and find hookers. Now we have casinos everywhere and weed everywhere and Craigslist everywhere. The slot machines used to subsidize rooms and food and parking and now they're not.

Food was never cheap in Vegas. It was just subsidized.

I couldn't believe how many open parking spots there were at Caesars yesterday. Usually, the roof is packed with cars. It was 2/3 empty.

I noticed that a couple weeks ago. I bet Forum Shops are feeling the pinch. People are not going to pay to spend money in stores and restaurants.