Freedom of the blog

I'll be wrapping up my recent Vegas vacation trip report in the near future. (The final installment is not that exciting.) But this can't wait. 

As somebody who has worked as a newspaper reporter for far too long, you would think I would have a firm grasp upon what freedom of speech/freedom of the press permits, and what it doesn't. 

But I don't. 

I don't spend a lot of my free time following freedom of speech/information cases related to the media. I'm not exercising my rights to public data often enough, in part because I could work 75 hours a week and not run out of things to do. I do a little of almost everything as a newspaper reporter in 2020, and waging battles for public data is just not something I can afford to do very often. And I'm smart enough not to get my newspaper into legal trouble over anything I report.

Therefore I'm not in a position to comment upon the outcome of the legal battle between the Sahara casino/hotel and Vital Vegas, the most popular blog in Sin City, as best I can tell. But I will anyway.

For the record: I have read the blog for years, I have blogged in response to topics its author, Scott Roeben, has written, I have met Scott more than once and I have been fortunate enough to have him as a guest on my non-Vegas podcast. 

Scott has garnered plenty of followers over the years, and developed an anti-fan club over the years, as well. Some joined the club in 2020, others flash membership cards dating back several years. 

I watch the barbs and insults, the comments and the criticism -- from both sides -- without getting in the middle of it. I don't have enough time to pursue my passions in this world, (thanks to that damn journalism career, which ain't much of a passion at this point in my life,) and therefore I don't have a lot of time to defend or criticize Scott's tweets, be they brilliant or cringeworthy. I'm not above criticizing, but sometimes you need to leave that to others. 

All that said, I have casually followed the legal battle between Scott and the Sahara. If you're reading this, you probably know that not so long ago, around the end of July, Scott shared a rumor that Sahara was looking to shut the place down due to the lack of foot traffic in the casino and hotel. That resulted in the Sahara seeking legal relief from the claim. 

I seem to recall that the rumor claimed Sahara might shut down in September. The original post is no longer available via the blog, and I'm not going to search for a bootleg copy, so I can't review the original claims Scott made. 

Those claims were attributed to a trusted source. Some will refute Scott has any of those, but he knows a lot of people who work in the industry, and his blog is well known as a source of inside information, from sources that he protects. Again, some will refute that. 

At the end of the day, Vital Vegas is a blog. It's not a comprehensive news source. The blog posts run the gamut from industry rumors and inside information to reviews of local restaurants and attractions to features on interesting shows and attractions that aren't always found in the tourist publications. (Look up his blog post on the Wheel of Misfortune if you need an example.) 

His blog's website suggests it's a source of news, tips, deals and WTF, although I don't recall any Vital Vegas deals being floated to his readership. (I'm always looking for a deal when I'm planning a trip to Vegas.)

The internet has spawned plenty of questions, and lawsuits, about what is legal and what's not when it comes to disseminating information. Anyone with a computer and internet access can create a blog, or post a rumor, via many platforms. 

I'm not surprised that the Sahara's claims against Scott were in vain. I'm no legal expert, but I didn't expect Sahara to prevail. Like Scott, I'm of the belief that their defamation claim was an intimidation tactic, a tactic that may well have worked against many bloggers who don't have the willingness, courage or financial wherewithal to stand up to such a claim. The Sahara lawsuit obviously failed, thanks in large part to Nevada's anti-SLAPP law that protects folks like Scott. 

The end result of this moment in legal history leaves me with two thoughts. 

One: How credible are Scott's sources? I have always assumed he has well placed sources that he can trust. His rumor mongering doesn't always pan out, but why should it? 

If you hear a rumor that your employer is thinking about reducing the vacation accrual schedule of its employees, but doesn't, does that make the rumor false? If you're not part of upper management meetings, how would you know if the honchos are or aren't considering it? 

Should your co-worker, who is sleeping with one of the bosses, even be sharing that information with you? No, of course not. And by sharing it, all s/he did was worry you about not earning that fourth week of vacation next year. 

Was there any truth to the Sahara rumor? Unlikely any of us will ever know. And Sahara's lawsuit, or continued business operations, doesn't indicate one way or another that there wasn't strong consideration to pulling the plug at the property. 

I have no reason to dismiss Scott's sources, or his trust in them. Yes, he floats rumors about property sales and other business dealings that don't pan out, but I have to believe Scott's source regarding Sahara was a legitimate source. Scott has pretty much pimped Sahara, and its SLS predecessor, whenever he could, and I don't recall him ripping the joint very often. Perhaps he mocked that goofy statue that once stood outside SLS, but other than that, I only seem to remember him promoting the restaurants he enjoyed, or reporting on the demise of restaurants and businesses that didn't survive during the failed SLS experiment. 

It seems unlikely that he'd open the door to the wrath of Sahara, or people on Twitter, by tweeting and blogging a rumor about Sahara's demise from a lousy source. Perhaps to you that's a play within Scott's range, but it seems unlikely to me. Given the fact all his eggs are in the Vital Vegas basket these days, it seems like being a source of bad information is the obvious play to avoid right now. 

Two: The fault I have with what happened is that he didn't follow one of the golden rules of journalism, even if he's just a blogger. (Remember, he is a source of news, according to his website. Although in fairness, he's a source of WTF, too.)

I remember being told this many times, and following the rule, during my collegiate days of journalism school: Always have two sources. 

At some point, I learned that you could get away with a one-source story, in some circumstances. I recently wrote about a new recreation area that was created within a national wildlife refuge. It's a simple feature story, and not meant to be heavy on details. I spoke to a representative of the wildlife refuge. Only one. And that was all I needed. I didn't need to ask the same questions to another government employee, although I'm sure you can argue that I should have. The reality is that I just don't have the time to do it, and in my judgment, it wasn't necessary for this story. 

You can argue that a blog site and Twitter account sharing news and rumors doesn't need a second source. And Jehovah knows Scott enjoys being the first to titillate the masses with a juicy tidbit, but in this case I think there should have been some sort of attempt at reaching out to Sahara for the standard denial. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. 

Legally Scott was free to share the rumor without the standard, corporate denial, as the lawsuit proved. But given that his blog has a substantial following and his information spreads like wildfire across Facebook and Twitter, the rumor reasonably had the potential to create a sense of panic among those who are connected to Sahara, either by employment or room reservations. Floating the rumor doesn't accomplish a whole hell of a lot, other than rile up the masses, so it would have seemed like something to treat as news, rather than WTF, in my uneducated opinion. 

Many people hate Vital Vegas, (at least 10 that I am aware of,) and will continue to do so. More power to them. I tend to ignore the things that don't interest me, and pause for those that do. Whatever the future holds for Scott's blog, podcast and Twitter handle of the same name, I hope that the end results are better for this recent ordeal. I do wish that for him. 

A Tape Face franchise?

I couldn't help but share thoughts on a fresh new blog post by the fine folks at Vital Vegas. (It's one guy!)

I posted most of my comments below on Scott's blog, but I'll replicate them here, with one addendum and a few clarifications. Most important, if you want the commentary below about Vegas headliner Tape Face to make any sense, read Scott's fresh, new and exciting blog post first. It's right here: Vital Vegas hyperlink

Here's my three cents, two I shared on his blog, and one I added:

When Bon Jovi comes to Vegas and plays a concert, you’re not getting the band that recorded “Slippery When Wet.” Richie Sambora ain’t in the band.

People come and go in bands. That’s the nature of bands. But typically it’s well known. Nobody is fooled into thinking they’re seeing Sambora on guitar in 2019.

KISS is a more interesting band. They switched out guys in the 80s and 90s, then reunited the original band in the latter half of the 90s, and are back to mixing and matching. Of course, for the last 15+ years they’ve had different musicians playing the roles of the Space Man and the Cat, two of the four costumed musicians from the 70s. It’s all very public.

And it offended some longtime, hard core KISS fans. The original KISS members doubled as characters, but a lot of fans didn’t like that they hired replacements rather than bring in new characters in the early 2000s, as they did in the early 80s before KISS was “unmasked.”

It seems shady to sell the persona of Ace Frehley and Peter Criss in the 2000s, but KISS has enough fans that they’ve kept making money. Some people claimed they no longer wanted to support the entity, but plenty of people don’t seem to care, so KISS continues printing money, and Tape Face is taking a page from Gene Simmons’ playbook.

For what little I know, I agree: Tape Face has been known as, and associated with, one person. I don’t know the history, but I’m guessing there were others who helped “Sam,” the actor/comedian behind the tape, develop his act. But it was his act, I’m guessing, not the act of an ensemble who took turns doing the shtick. To suddenly franchise it out seems insulting to the fans.

While it shouldn’t be trusted, there’s no suggestion I saw to indicate that Tape Face is a brand, according to Sam’s Wikipedia page. I’m going to guess the paint is still drying on the branding. Awfully convenient, all of a sudden, that his longtime character is a brand, don’tcha think?

It’d be one thing if Tape was retiring, and his son was following in his footsteps, and he handed off the character to his son. But to simply train another performer seems fraudulent, unless you’re selling it as Tape Face, Too, and making it clear who you’re getting on stage.

I would be pissed if I paid to see Carrot Top and showed up to find out that another guy with curly red hair is telling the jokes that night, and pretending to be Carrot Top.

The Tape Face corporation may be noting Sam has a protege via social media, but it sounds like the corporation is trying to monetize the shtick with its own franchise employees and not be forthcoming about it. That’s dirty business, no matter how you justify it.

Reminds me of the odd story of how there were two comedians selling the comedy of Gallagher, the odd comedian who got big laughs for smashing produce with a sledgehammer. This paragraph tells a bit about the bizarre dueling Gallaghers: Gallagher Two hyperlink

Virtual Las Vegas: What a strange world it is

Here's a little exercise I like to challenge people with occasionally: When did you first learn about the Internet?

I knew of the Internet back in the 1980s, although I don't think anyone referred to it as the Internet. But I knew that through the power of a computer, telephone and acoustic coupler, you could connect to the world in a way I never dreamed of. And I certainly never dreamed of buying comic books (I collected them) through a computer, and having them delivered to my door, without ever leaving the house. Needless to say, there's a lot of things I never imagined using a computer to do. And here I am, doing a variety of things every week that I never would have believed were possible 25 years ago.

A photo of an acoustic coupler. I don't remember where I lifted it, but I found it via Google. This was how we did the Internet in the 1980s, before anyone knew what the Internet was.

I don't know when I learned of the Internet that we know and love today. I do know that I had dabbled with it prior to May 1997, when I left a desolate, Canadian-like community for my triumphant return to the big city. I had used email and accessed websites through a community college computer system, but those opportunities were few and far between. Cellphones were a luxury at that time, I would never have imagined I'd not only come to rely upon one, but that it would essentially become a computer.

But to this day I don't remember when I first understood the concept of the modern Internet. I would assume it was at some point during 1996.

Moral of the story: This powerful tool I use daily, many times per day, was non-existent in my world 25 years ago.

My first trip to Las Vegas occurred in January 1997. At that point it never occurred to me that I might want to seek information about Sin City via the Internet, which I had limited access to. Who knows what I might have found in late 1996. Not a hell of a lot, I'd bet.

I've been reflecting upon how my world, and my relationship with Vegas, has changed as a result of the Internet. A recent change in my online world signaled the time to finally put a few of those thoughts into words.

I have used Vegas message forums for a long time. The message forum was my first introduction to the world of Vegas chatting, and I believe it's still the best. But message forums are not as popular as they once were. I have been a member of a few Vegas forums over the years, and continue to use one to this day.

Part of the reason forums have lost their luster -- perhaps the main reason -- is Facebook. Today we have Facebook groups that bring people together when they have a shared interest. There are plenty of Vegas groups, big and small, available through Facebook. I belong to a handful, but I don't actively use most of them.

I find Facebook groups are less effective ways to share information, but I get why they're popular. Facebook is, if you believe online statistics, the third most popular website on the planet, behind Google and YouTube. A website that exists primarily for the purpose of personal communication, and is open to the masses, is the perfect place for Vegas enthusiasts to connect and chat. You have a question about Vegas that you need an answer to? You join a Vegas group and you have hundreds or thousands of people available to answer. And you're already on Facebook anyway, posting pictures of your cute kids. Could it be any easier?

The drawback to Facebook groups is that you don't have categories of discussions. Go to a Vegas forum and you might find sections dedicated to the strip, downtown, off-strip casinos, gambling strategy, transportation and bargains. You can search for topics by keyword on Facebook, but Facebook's groups are not highly organized. That's why a Vegas message forum is still an important resource for me after more than 15 years.

One of the great things about the Internet is that it has opened up so many opportunities for those of use who use a computer. I had no idea in 1997 that I'd go to Vegas more than 40 times during the next 25 years of my life. And I certainly didn't dream that I'd be one of many voices in the online world sharing thoughts about a popular vacation destination. Yet here I am.

And I'm not even a blip on the radar. There are folks who do far more interesting, far more compelling work than I do. If you're reading this, then chances are you are familiar with Vital Vegas and Vegas Unfiltered.

Vital Vegas provides inside scoop like nobody can. I've been reading it for years, and rarely does a day go by without me checking it for new content. Vegas Unfiltered provides interesting content that's hard to find anywhere else these days. Both of the blogs are one-man operations, and the authors are well connected, but their websites don't exist to generate income, as best I can tell. I've been fortunate enough to meet the authors of both of these blogs during my visits to Vegas. I never imagined meeting total strangers when I first visited Vegas in 1997. And thanks to the Internet I've been reading the writing of two people I'd have otherwise never met. How cool is that?

The users of Facebook groups and message forums like to organize social gatherings, and that makes total sense. When you communicate with a group of people for an extended period of time, it seems like a natural thing to want to meet the faces behind the screen name. I don't make it a priority to meet up with groups of strangers, but I've done it occasionally.

On Halloween morning, 2011, I met up with a small group of message forum users at the El Cortez. I don't remember much about that group, other than our de facto leader that day was a gentleman named Dewey. Dewey is one of those guys who contributes a lot, is well liked and finds his way to Vegas now and again. Or at least he did until recently.

I have appreciated everything Dewey has offered to the online world, either through the message forum or through his own blog writing, and I've managed to keep in touch with him. We may only trade messages a couple of times per year, but that has been going on for more than seven years. And we did manage to meet up again a few years after that first meeting, when another Halloween trip overlapped. Dewey is that cool guy in high school that everybody wanted to be friends with, and I am lucky enough to be able to brag that Dewey is a friend of mine.

For my Halloween 2016 trip I was staying at The Plaza. That hotel just happened to be the home base of a couple of people from the Facebook group Everything Las Vegas. I was actively using the group at the time, and despite my aversion to mixing and mingling with a group of relative strangers, I stopped into their early evening social gathering for 30 minutes. I was able to meet a few of the group's leaders and regular members, people I recognized by name and face. It was a nice perk of being a part of that group. I hope I get to enjoy another such gathering some day, even if nobody remembers me more than two years later.

There are great resources online, and great people behind them, usually. After an hour of reminiscing, I'll close for now and plan to continue my online reflections in a second chapter about Virtual Las Vegas. Despite the fact it takes me weeks to put thoughts together, I'll bend over backwards to keep it from being six weeks before I finish what I've started.

Life downtown was much different circa April 2016

I vaguely remember that night in April 2016, and it wasn't much different than tonight.

It's January 2019. I'm sitting in the same spot I was nearly three years ago. I can't promise, but in late April of 2016 there likely wasn't much snow on the ground outside my Minnesota home. And here I am in the dead of winter nearly three years later, and there are scant traces of snow. It has been a weird winter here in the cold north.

It was a weeknight in 2016 when I was sitting at the computer, later than I should have been, and reading breaking news from the Vital Vegas blog about the sale of downtown properties to the brothers Stevens. I wrote an instant response to that late evening blog post, much to the surprise of the blog's author. (I'll take praise anywhere I can get it.) And, as I'm wont to do, I provided a copy editing recommendation. (That's something only us writers understand.)

It has been nearly three years since news broke that we were losing a couple of tiny grind joints, a dying-on-the-vine casino and a dingy strip club. (That's what everyone tells me. I am proud to say I never saw the interior for myself.) Nearly three years later I'm typing on the same laptop computer about the future of downtown, and sitting in the same seat.

I can pretend to have Vegas insight, but I'm just speculating, along with everyone else. Yet there's one thing I'm confident of, the brothers Stevens are going to hit a home run if they follow through with the plans they've announced earlier this evening.

I'm still unclear why the name makes sense, but the former site of the Las Vegas Club, and other adjacent businesses, will be a new casino resort known as Circa. New rooms, new amenities and lots of uncheap booze will soon occupy the vacant lot at the west end of downtown Vegas. It's probably not for me, but I like it nonetheless.

The basic concept of the new project surprises no one.

You don't build a new property to cater to low rollers, and you don't build a new property downtown that replicates everything already offered in the business district. Therefore you end up with the plans unveiled earlier this evening, a new resort named Circa.

Nothing about this announcement surprises me. As I noted, you don't build a new resort and hope to attract low rollers with simple, cheap rooms and sparse amenities. Given downtown casinos don't have the luxury of grandiose features that their strip counterparts do, building anew allows the brothers Stevens to design a sports book that is unmatched downtown. (It will be the largest anywhere, allegedly.)  I've never sensed that sports books are the most lucrative element of the casino, but they generate a lot of traffic, and one of the keys to success is getting people in the door. Circa will accomplish that.

The elaborate sports book doesn't appeal to me, as I'm not one to spend hours in an area dedicated to wagering on sports. I make an occasional sports bet when I'm in Vegas, but it's a tiny part of my Vegas vacation.

Other major amenities planned for Circa include an elaborate pool and a spa. I suspect both of these will be smashing successes as well.

Neither element is a surprise. It has been known that the elaborate, multi-tiered pool area Circa promises has been on the Stevens radar all along. And why not? I've never understood the appeal of a "day club," but plenty of strip casinos market the hell out of the concept, and the people who favor such an atmosphere are willing to pay plenty for the privilege.

The strip casinos wouldn't bother with turning their pools into day clubs if they didn't generate meaningful cash. Although I've never experienced the preciousness of a day club, I know people drop a lot of cash for the privilege of enjoying a manufactured party in a pool. The concept wouldn't have appealed to me 20 years ago, and surprisingly doesn't appeal to me now. But I sense plenty of people who like the downtown vibe are interested in turning their afternoon in the sun into a raucous, lustful party. And the brothers Stevens are wisely banking on it. When people are willing to pay approximately $180 per case of beer at a fancy pool on the strip, I'd try to get a piece of that action, too.

There's no question the pool scene downtown is lackluster. This brings an element of the strip to downtown Vegas. I don't expect thousands to follow, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a healthy crowd dropping fat stacks of greenbacks on expensive handcrafted cocktails served by the pool. You can't put a price on that!

Like pools, spas are a foreign concept downtown. I get it, most of us who stay downtown aren't looking for the fanciest amenities, and there would be far more options buried within the bowels of the Plaza or the upstairs floors of  El Cortez if the demand was there. (Instead we get Happy Feet on level 2 of ElCo.) But you can't attract a high-end crowd to find its way to your high-end resort if there's nothing for them to dump all that discretionary cash that lines their pockets. A top-notch spa will garner plenty of fans, even if the Golden Nugget is already catering to that clientele.

My biggest disappointment is that I didn't hear anything about a fancy or exclusive showroom. I know we have a few showrooms in Vegas, and they're not exactly hotbeds of entertainment. Nobody seems to have the space to dedicate to a major production the way the strip properties to, and the downtown crowd doesn't seem to be particularly hungry for anything more than a free movie stage. So I can't say I'm not surprised that a major showroom is not part of the announcement. There are places for such shows, and Circa clearly isn't one of them.

So how successful will Circa be? It's no secret Vegas has been taking it on the chin in recent years. Increased resort fees, parking fees on the strip, high-buck bottled domestic beers at fancy casinos less favorable gambling conditions are not helping the city's image. And Circa is not the only project in development at the moment.

But for all the disappointment Vegas delivers with each passing year, nothing is replacing it. People may choose to gamble closer to home more often. And they may choose to visit other cities. But few places are cheap to visit, and for all the ways online commerce has changed the world we live in, virtual vacations are not a thing. People need to go somewhere to enjoy life, whatever the cost. Vegas still delivers incredible value. And for those who can afford more than value when they travel, (perhaps that will be me some day,) Vegas still holds a lot of appeal, despite its sins.

Circa won't be a license to print money, but plenty of people have plenty of cash to spend, as Vegas proves year after year. And there's enough of those folks willing to spend it downtown, I'm certain. Every hotel has high-end accommodations, but only the Golden Nugget markets that vibe from top to bottom. I don't think the addition of Circa is going to oversaturate that market. And the brothers Stevens are wisely positioned to pounce on that.

Nothing is foolproof, or impervious to the woes of our economy, but Circa is the downtown opportunity that nobody has jumped on, until now.

The politics of a Vegas haunted house

There were rumors that the annual haunted attraction "Fright Dome" was not coming back to the amusement park at Circus Circus this year. There were a few tidbits to suggest all was not kosher in the world of amusement park death, and some of those came from the fine folks at the Vital Vegas blog. (It's one guy.)

Now Vital Vegas has some interesting inside scoop on how the relationship between the dirty Circus and the folks that run Fright Dome have broken down. The company running Fright Dome, a horror attraction run seasonally within the amusement park by a company called Egan Productions, also runs an escape room based upon the "Saw" horror movies. It's unclear why the seemingly lackluster performance of the escape room, which does not seem to be tied to the Circus Circus property or corporate parent MGM, has ended the business relationship between the dirty Circus and Egan Productions. But it has something to do with money, naturally. It always does. (UPDATE:
The Vital Vegas blog post has been amended to offer an explanation for how the business relationship between the entities has deteriorated.)

My guess, and it's purely a guess, is that there's some sort of business arrangement that requires some sort of up-front payment by Egan Productions. Rent, if you will. The dirty Circus can't be giving Egan Productions use of the amusement park space for free. I suspect Egan rents its space, brings in its sets and props, pays the employees and collects on the back end, meaning they get a cut of admissions sold during the haunt season. If Egan is hemorrhaging cash right now, they might not be in a position to make payments up front for their 2018 rent, and at a certain point they get the boot. 

A couple of things in the Vital Vegas blog piqued my interest. 

One tidbit that the fine folks at Vital Vegas reported is that "Circus Circus expressed it would run its own haunted house." 

That wouldn't surprise me. I have had a seasonal job for most of the past 12 years at the corporate owned amusement park in the Minneapolis area, which started its own haunted attraction in 2006. (I work building security these days, but I was once an actor. Boy do I have stories, and I've written plenty of them for a different blog.) While I don't study the amusement park industry, I'm well aware that our corporate parent runs haunted attractions at its parks around the country, as do some of the other heavy hitters in the amusement park industry. With all the parks in the haunt business, it wouldn't surprise me if MGM decides it wants to invest in its amusement park and run its own operation in the future. That won't happen this year, but it could definitely happen in 2019. 

MGM could have pulled the plug at the end of any contract period, or simply non-renewed its lease with Egan Productions, I imagine. Perhaps the wheels were already in motion. Perhaps MGM is working on plans to cut out Egan and run its own show, and the demise of Fright Dome is simply an unplanned hiccup. 

It makes plenty of sense. If the corporate penny pinchers at MGM, who never stop finding a way to make an extra $5, realize that they're making a certain amount of money per season at Fright Dome, and surmise they could make more than that by cutting out the production company, then of course they'll do that. Although, this assumes they want to invest in ownership of their haunted attraction. It will take hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop attractions that work within the confines of their amusement park. Yes, it will cost a lot of money to design several attractions that people will pay big money to see. I'm no expert, but that's not exactly a trade secret. 

Will we see a new haunted attraction at the dirty Circus in the future? I could see why MGM would say yes, and I could see why MGM would say no. I don't know how lucrative the Fright Dome deal is, and that will likely influence the eventual decision. If I had to wager $5, my hunch is that they'll try to develop their own. 

It sounds like Vital Vegas has insight into the financials of their business agreement. He often has Vegas insight. I, ironically, don't. 

For the record, I've never been to Fright Dome, and that's by design. You can't trust any one online review, but I've ready more than a couple of reviews that suggested over the past several years that the attraction is so popular that the lines are too long to get through all of the haunted attractions during any one admission without paying for the "fast pass" upgrade that plops you into a faster moving line. The "fast pass" seems to be a marketing strategy that amusement parks embrace, and why not? We live in a country where not all men and women are financially equal, and with that, some places will cater to those with more dollars to part with. Not a new phenomena. 

But given that Fright Dome has a reputation of being overrun by obnoxious teens, and the fact that I h have worked at an amusement park overrun with obnoxious teens every October, seeing the Vegas version of that held limited appeal. Yeah, I've had mild curiosity, but not enough to spend a night of my Vegas Halloween trip at the dirty Circus. (I've been in Vegas five of the past seven years on Halloween night.)

When Vital Vegas notes that "Fright Dome at Adventuredome was considered the premier Halloween haunted house in Las Vegas," I'm not sure I agree. 

It depends upon how you define premier. It's the most noteworthy for tourists, as it's on the strip, and it draws big crowds to the amusement park. If you base the statement upon which puts the most asses on the property, I'm sure Fright Dome wins.

But given my experience and observations during the past seven years, anyone who critiques the quality of the production and the originality of the show would tell you that Freakling Bros., a locally-owned haunted attraction, is the premier attraction in the Vegas area. It just doesn't do the volume that Fright Dome does, for a variety of reasons. Do a little Googling and you'll soon find out that it gets plenty of raves from all corners of the haunt industry. And I echo those sentiments. I've written about it, too, both for this blog and for my aforementioned blog. 

Either way, the demise of a haunted attraction at the dirty Circus has been extra interesting for me to read about, even if I had no intention of visiting it. It will be interesting to watch what happens in 2019. The dirty Circus might return with a new haunted attraction, and I wouldn't rule out Egan Productions finding a new place to try selling its product in the Vegas area. 

My #VegasHalloween itinerary

For the fifth time in seven years I will spend Halloween night in Las Vegas. (Three weeks from now Halloween will be over.) Damn, I wish I was having as much fun on Halloween night when I was in my 20s.

I have a lot of plans for my visit to Sin City, and not all of them will come to fruition, I know. Here's a rough list of things I plan to do during my time in The Meadows.

Halloween fun: I haven't been to Las Vegas Haunts since 2011. I plan to see their show again, as they do a nice job. They have two mazes, one is a hotel, one is an asylum. During a recent conversation I had about their attraction, I came to realize that they should have redesigned their haunted hotel to pay homage to the Riviera after its closing two years ago.

 I also plan to stop by the Freakling Bros. Triology of Terror when I get to town, as I have a thank you gift for them, given the hospitality they showed my group last year.

Halloween night will be spent downtown. Yes I will have a costume. No, I won't be the "Macho Man" Randy Savage again this year.

Lunch with a friend: It turns out two friends will be in Vegas during my trip. Rachel will be arriving the same day I do, and will be staying at Luxor. Karla will arrive after Halloween and will be staying at Mandalay Bay. Since I'm staying at Tahiti Village, south of the strip, it should be easy to meet up with them on the sound end of the strip for lunch. Karla will be there for all of 48 hours, so there's a decent chance she won't have time to meet for lunch, but you never know. There's something magical about seeing friends in Vegas when your trips coincide.

Magic: There's one show on my itinerary for this trip, and that's Xavier Mortimer's Magical Dream. It comes recommended by the folks at Vital Vegas. (It's one guy.)

Art: My girlfriend was not with me last Halloween, but she was intrigued by Seven Magic Mountains, so we'll probably take a road trip south to visit the site, and use it as an excuse to have lunch at Steak 'n Shake. There's only one in Vegas, and it's at South Point. I love that place, and I can't get it in Minnesota.

I'm also planning to visit the Wheel of Misfortune. A peculiar art installation in the desert which I didn't know anything about until I read about it at Vital Vegas.

My trip will include visits to plenty of my usual properties. I'll play cards at the Orleans at least one night, I'll eat cheap food at Ellis Island a couple of times (with coupons) and I'll spend a few hours, at least once at the Pinball Hall of Fame. When I'm in Vegas, it's the one thing I must do. Hard to believe I've never finished my blog post about it.

Paid parking in Vegas: Where are the apples?

I’m like many others, I don’t like paying for something that has been free for decades, especially when there’s no meaningful reason for charging the fee.

Therefore, I’m irked by the idea that casinos along the Vegas strip are charging for parking. I think the MGM conglomerate initially tried to sell the idea that paid parking would offset all sorts of improvements to their parking ramps, etc., but I’m not buying it. It’s simply a cash grab that many people will tolerate, as far as I’m concerned.

The fine folks at the Vital Vegas blog (it's still one guy) pointed out today that paid parking is now in effect at the Cosmopolitan. Everybody else along the strip is in on it, so it's only natural that Cosmo is, too. I'd argue the folks running the Cosmo need to be at this point, otherwise their parking is going to be overrun with cheapskates like me, if it wasn’t already.

Scott, the CEO, editor, reporter and photographer of Vital Vegas, points out that paying for parking is the norm in major cities across the United States. He's right. But his logic is a bit flawed. Here's how:

He wrote, “While parking fees are annoying, they are becoming the norm in Las Vegas, just as they are in other cities.”

I would expect to pay for parking when I go to Harrah's in downtown New Orleans. I would expect to pay for parking if I were to go to one of the downtown St. Louis casinos. I’ve been to both, but I didn’t have a vehicle in my possession during those visits.

I expect to pay for parking in downtown New York. I expect to pay for parking in downtown Chicago. I expect to pay for parking when I go to a Pirates or Steelers game across one of the three rivers in downtown Pittsburgh. I even expect to pay for parking when I go to downtown Toledo, Ohio, for a Mudhens game.

There’s usually adequate parking to accommodate those parking in a major downtown, but it comes at a premium. Downtown New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh and many others cities were first developed as the central business district for a trade area, long before people were driving cars, which it seems like about 80 percent of adults do these days. (That’s a wild guess.) I suspect these downtowns weren't developed with the anticipation of thousands of cars flooding in and out of them every day. Ask Mrs. O'Leary, whose cow kicked over a lantern and started the great Chicago fire of 1871 (allegedly), what a car is. She's tell you it is part of a train.

Downtown New Orleans and downtown St. Louis were established long before they had major casinos, so I expect to pay for parking. A free parking ramp for a downtown casino would a nightmare, without a doubt.

When I go to a Native American-owned casino in Wisconsin, I park for free. Even the one near downtown Milwaukee had free parking the last time I visited years ago. (And it still does.)

Casinos in major downtown areas will need to charge for parking. Free parking in a major downtown, with or without a casino, is hard to come by most days. Casinos built in the middle of nowhere, such as casinos I’ve been to in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and North Dakota, do not. They’re casinos built away from major downtown districts. When I shop at a suburban Target store, I don’t pay for parking. When I gamble at an outlying casino in the Midwest, I don’t pay for parking.

So how does this apply to Vegas? The casinos on the strip aren’t in a downtown district. Granted, they weren’t nearly as big when they first sprouted up along a desert highway in the 1950s, but they managed to expand and provide parking for decades without much of a problem. Nothing about that has changed in the past two years.

Yes, real estate around the properties is far more expensive, and harder to come by, but there wasn’t exactly a shortage of parking when the fees were instituted, despite the fact millions of people visit the strip each year.

It may be the norm to pay for parking in a downtown district, but applying that logic to the strip casinos, which developed and redeveloped without difficulty thanks to the fact they aren’t in downtown Vegas, is flawed.

Yes, there’s a cost of maintaining the parking ramps, and providing minimal cleaning and security within them. Target stores can maintain their parking lots without charging a fee. Same goes for my grocery store. I’m not convinced the casinos are unable to do so.

Scott makes a good point about parking. We pay for it elsewhere, why let it ruin our trip to Vegas? I agree. And it doesn’t affect me much, as I spend so little time on the strip these days. Fortunately, the casinos I stay at, either off strip or downtown, provide free parking or validated parking for me as a hotel guest. (I typically rent a car in Vegas.)

But his comparison of paying for parking in Chicago versus paying for parking on the Vegas strip is not apples to apples. There’s evidence that people are staying away from strip properties because of the parking fees, but in the end that will wash away, much like the outrage and boycott of casinos that charged “resort fees.”

Whatever fees a casino charges, we need to add it all together and compare it to other cities. Is the cost of a weekend in Vegas a good value for a person driving in from California when the room rate, resort fee and parking fee are added together? Probably when compared to downtown San Francisco.

But we shouldn’t normalize these fees simply because they exist in some other form elsewhere around the country. 

Neil Sedaka, naughty nurses and Tropicana

I really didn't envision using my blog as a vehicle to comment on Vegas podcasts, but I had a few thoughts about topics inspired by the latest episode of the Vital Vegas Podcast.

The host gushes over Neil Sedaka, who he interviewed. I'm not that much younger than the host, but young enough not to remember how big of a presence Sedaka had in the world of popular music. I know the name, I know he's a big deal, but I don't know much about his music, his career or anything else.

I learned a bit thanks to the podcast, and it was entertaining to listen to the host's interview.

I don't consume any Vegas podcast religiously, but there are a few I listen to with great regularity, and what sets the VVP apart is that the host includes interviews periodically. The interviews are with entertainers, like Sedaka, and Vegas movers and shakers, some of whom are otherwise anonymous to tourists like me. Most of the interviews have been worth the time to listen, even if I didn't think it was a person I was interested in hearing from. I'm not that interested in learning about Sedaka or his career, but I gave it a listen earlier tonight and was entertained.

Kudos to the host for giving me something unique, and highly valuable, via the podcast.

The host also discussed the awkward circumstances surrounding the short-lived existence of a Heart Attack Grill on the Vegas strip. I'll assume you know HAG is a gimmicky, high-calorie burger restaurant downtown. For less than two months it opened a second location on the strip, in a sports bar that once bore the name of Pete Rose.

The host had an explanation for why the HAG was gone within two months. Allegedly the lease was on a month-to-month basis, leaving the building's ownership the ability to sell off the property the restaurant is a part of -- and swiftly kick out its tenants -- for redevelopment by an eager buyer.

That's plausible. And allegedly the HAG ownership wanted to invest more into its leased space, but was unwilling to do so without some sort of lease that extended beyond one month. That makes sense.

What didn't make sense to me, and wasn't addressed by the host, was why HAG moved into the space in the first place.

If you are serious about a restaurant on the strip, and you want to invest in the space you're going to lease, then you don't move in without negotiating a lease agreement prior to occupancy. The former Pete Rose sports bar was already equipped to run a bar/restaurant, so it was probably easier to open HAG there than it would have been in other places. But it's hard to believe a restaurant proprietor would take over such a space on a whim, hoping to get what s/he wants after the fact.

I don't doubt the ownership wanted to invest in the property, and the ownership wanted a longer lease term than 30 days, but I'm skeptical that the lack of a long-term lease was the reason HAG pulled out in less than 60 days.

I suspect the real reason was that, by most online reports, HAG had a tepid reception on the strip. If an established business was failing to drive a lot of traffic through its new doors upon its arrival, (even if it was relying upon word of mouth for advertising,) it was easier to pull out quickly, given its investment into the space was likely minimal by most restaurant standards.

I'm quite certain that if HAG was doing gangbuster business in its first six weeks, the month-to-month lease wouldn't have been enough of an issue to quickly shutter the breastaurant.

Choose to believe what you will. I continue to believe it was a cheap, easy way to try to duplicate the downtown HAG success on the strip, and with early returns as soft as they were, the ownership cut its losses.

One might only have needed to look at how lackluster the Pete Rose experiment was to guess that naughty nurses serving mediocre food wasn't going to set the strip on fire.

Lastly, the host talked about a variety of new show offerings coming to Tropicana, a casino with a great location on the south end of the strip, but one that seems to enjoy "also ran" status.

I was contemplating this today during a discussion thread online about how the big two, Caesars and MGM, are monopolizing the strip and stifling the concept of competition. It's not quite that simple, but that's the general overview of the strip casinos these days.

Tropicana is not part of a strip conglomerate, but it is part of some sort of hotel group. Being the only strip casino in the corporation's portfolio, Tropicana should be operated like a loose cannon. Decisions don't need to be weighed in relation to several properties, and with plenty of people continuing to express dissatisfaction with the big two and their bloodsucking ways, the Tropicana should be selling its old school vibe and offering many of the things Vegas gamblers love about Vegas of yesteryear.

Old school sells downtown, and using that approach, while positioning the property as the only one of that kind on the south end of the strip, certainly couldn't hurt the Trop's bottom line. There's a real appetite for vintage Vegas on the strip, and it's pretty hard to find these days.

It's unlikely that formula would result in record profits for Tropicana, but I suspect it would be well received.

Is Derek Stevens the worst thing to happen to Las Vegas?

Last week I was minding my own business late one evening when vitalvegas.com broke the news that the brothers Stevens were buying three small properties under the canopy of the Fremont Street Experience. I had better things to do, yet I stopped everything I was doing to type my reaction to the news.

The Stevens brothers own The D and Golden Gate, two very different casino/hotel properties in downtown Las Vegas. Last year they purchased the fledgling Vegas Club, a dying casino that had been all but gutted. The hotel towers had been shuttered for a couple of years and the retail and dining portions of the building were vacant at the time of the purchase. With the Stevens brothers purchasing the Vegas Club it was time to nail that coffin shut. We collectively await the future of the property. Given their past success, expectations for Vegas Club are high, and rightfully so. The lads know what they're doing.

Although I periodically hear references to Derek and Greg Stevens, it's Derek that's the face of the operation. Derek is pictured in D promotions, he is known to hang out and mingle with D customers and he doesn't shy away from the media. As I type this I'm listening to him talk about his latest acquisitions on the Vital Vegas podcast.

As the podcast reiterates, Derek is not a faceless Fremont Street casino owner. I think that's pretty cool. Most casinos are owned by corporations, and their customers are unable to put a face or name to the casino's ownership. The only other 2016 casino mogul who comes to mind off the top of my head is Steve Wynn. (I don't think Sheldon Adelson has that much street cred.)

But being the name and the face of a casino, or a group of casinos, comes at a price.

The internet reaction to last week's acquisition news was hot and heavy. The Stevens brothers purchased two small casino properties last week, as well as the only strip club in downtown Las Vegas, Glitter Gulch. The businesses they purchased are adjacent to Golden Gate and the former Vegas Club properties. (There's a souvenir shop sandwiched between the acquisitions on the Vegas Club side of Fremont, people have noted.)

There wasn't much excitement about the acquisitions, as it doesn't appear that anybody was rooting for either casino to shut down. But that's the plan for all three businesses.

On the Golden Gate side is La Bayou, which is best known for its cheap gut-rot daiquiris. On the Vegas Club side is Mermaids, which is known for its cheap eats, including odd deep-fried foods.

Both casinos are small slot machine rooms, there are no table games. The loss of the gaming along Fremont Street isn't a big deal. There are thousands of machines to choose from up and down Fremont.

While I said there wasn't much excitement regarding the acquisition news, that doesn't mean everybody was sad to learn of the impending closing of the businesses. Plenty of people couldn't care less that two colorful, quirky casinos are closing down. The gaming, daiquiris and deep-fried Twinkies offered by the properties are of no appeal to plenty of people, so the loss of the game rooms doesn't affect them at all. And plenty of people said so via Facebook discussions, Vital Vegas comments and news report comments.

There is a faction of Vegas fanatics that welcomes anything the Stevens brothers do with any property downtown, as they are confident that properties under their thumb will be put to higher and better uses.

I wrote within an hour of the news breaking that I was saddened by the loss of the small, quirky properties that help give Fremont Street its colorful character. Even though I am confident the Stevens brothers will hit another home run, that doesn't stop me from being sad.

And I'm not the only one. Plenty of people proclaimed that their downtown Vegas experience is being ruined.

It seems that there are two things people love about the small game rooms. Some people love them because the complimentary cocktails for gamblers come fast and furious. If you sit down at a machine and insert $20 you'll receive more than your share of drinks in short order, I've read.

Others really love the cheap, low-fat snacks served at Mermaids. There are cheap eats to be had downtown, but the grub at Mermaids is about as cheap as it comes.

Yeah, people are bummed out about the impending closures for a few reasons. Some accept it as part of the inevitable change that defines Vegas. Others, however, are convinced that Derek Stevens, specifically, is the spawn of Satan. Perhaps the brothers are twins. Derek is clearly the evil twin, therefore Greg by definition must be the good one.

Derek is a bloodthirsty throwback to the days of mob rule, aiming to drive up prices along Fremont Street at all costs, and bleed every dollar he can out of its tourists. He is single-handedly ruining downtown Las Vegas by trying to win a real life game of Monopoly. He's ruining downtown, absolutely destroying it, some have proclaimed.

Those folks are probably right.

You have to believe that buying a major casino like The D, formerly Fitzgeralds, and pouring cash into its upgrade, renovation and rebranding was driven by a desire to bleed and/or drive away those who have enjoyed downtown during the past decade.

And we all know that when you invest in a property you should never invest in its improvement. The goal should be to squeeze every drop out of the oranges you have purchased, allowing the property to deteriorate, then sell it for less than you paid years earlier.

Sarcasm aside, I've stayed at The D. I'm not a high roller, yet I have stayed there a couple of times. The property is in good shape and the rates have been very reasonable. And that's before taking advantage of offers I've received as a member of the casino's players club. It has been a couple of years since I last stayed there, so perhaps the deals of the past are now ghosts, but I've found The D to be an inviting property, and not one designed to siphon cash out of my pocket. You get what you pay for, and more.

Nobody wants to be the low-rent, rundown casino on the block. But those are the casinos that are ripe for the picking, and if you have a healthy checkbook when you buy them, you can invest in a much more prosperous future, should you so desire. The Stevens boys clearly set out to do so when they make a purchase, and that doesn't make them public enemy No. 1 in my book.

Do the brothers need to purchase ancillary properties such as Mermaids and La Bayou to succeed? No, they don't, but they're in a position to do so, and if the loss of those colorful, goofy game rooms is the price visitors pay for the success the Stevens brothers have reaped, that's the way it goes. Fremont Street will not be ruined for everyone as a result of the acquisitions, only for those who proclaim it via the internet.

I'm saddened by the loss of the last of the small game rooms on Fremont Street, but I'm expecting bigger and better things to come from their demise. Derek Stevens is catching a lot of bricks from plenty of people, but I'll toss a bouquet his direction. He's investing in downtown rather than maintaining the status quo. And he is far from monopolizing the casino scene along Fremont Street. He couldn't ruin downtown if he tried, despite what the naysayers will tell you.

And despite all those who bemoan his negative effects upon downtown, I have yet to read one comment bemoaning the loss of Glitter Gulch. Every comment from anyone who has ever visited that strip club oozes with regret.

Congratulations Derek, you did OK.

Can we have a jazz funeral for La Bayou?

It's not quite as big of a deal as the closing of Riviera, or even the Las Vegas Club, yet somehow it feels like it to me.

I hadn't planned to take a four-month sabattical from this blog – and I have no shortage of ideas I'd like to write about – but here I am, shortly before 1 a.m. here in Minnesota typing my first entry in months, and it's about the closing of three insignificant properties under the canopy of the Fremont Street Experience.

I just stumbled upon the news moments ago, courtesy of Vital Vegas, one of my regular go-to sources for Vegas information. Within the past hour the Vital Vegas guru, who by day works for the Fremont Street Experience, reported that Derek Stevens, the face of The D and Golden Gate casinos, has purchased three downtown businesses, and presumably the property upon which they sit. Stevens and his brother, who seems to shun the limelight, are the owners of Mermaids and La Bayou, two slots only game rooms, and Glitter Gulch, the downtown strip club.

As Vital Vegas nicely explains, these businesses – which I presume have been under the same ownership prior to Stevens' purchase – are strategically beneficial to the growing Stevens empire. La Bayou is adjacent to Golden Gate, the smaller casino owned by the brothers Stevens, and Mermaids and Glitter Gulch are next to the shuttered Las Vegas Club, which the Stevens own and plan to redevelop.

The Stevens boys run excellent casinos, and their acquisition of the sickly Vegas Club ensures they'll turn the tired old property into a successful downtown hotspot when all is said and done. The acquisition of the small casinos and the strip club will help them grow the Golden Gate and presumably create a much larger frontage for the new Vegas Club development.

And yet I'm saddened by this.

There was nothing extraordinary about La Bayou or Mermaids. I'm pretty sure both have been re-imagined since my first visit downtown more than 19 years ago. La Bayou is smaller than some of the gift shops on Fremont Street, and I don't go there to gamble. But it has a fun, colorful theme and sells all those fancy daiquiris that people covet when in New Orleans.

Mermaids has a larger gaming floor, comparable to the larger gift shops on Fremont, and its quirky draw is its weird, cheap food.

Years ago I could find all sorts of odd, cheap eats along the strip. The days of the half-pound hot dog and cheap strawberry shortcake seem to be over. Mermaids offered a few wacky, relatively cheap eats that were fun to indulge in when you were in Vegas. And I enjoyed its colorful facade.

According to Vital Vegas, it is expected both of those game rooms, and the strip club, will be out of business in about two months.

I've wondered why there's a strip club on Fremont, and only one. I suspect that its existence is a result of some quirky legal manuever in the past that grandfathered it in, but I've never asked. I won't miss it, but I always appreciated the "Golden Goose" and "Glitter Gulch" neon signs above the building.

Change is constant in Vegas, and I've seen plenty of it in the Fremont area over the years. A lot of it has been for the better, no doubt. But losing a few unique, small businesses saddens me. I liked the colorful diversity of those little businesses. Yeah, there are a million slot machines in the greater Vegas area, and plenty downtown, but when the property acquired by the Stevens' is absorbed by their larger holdings, we'll likely never see cute little game rooms juxtaposed with big downtown casinos ever again.

We bemoan the loss of local, independent, mom-and-pop businesses in towns across America. When Walmart moves into an area, there's a certain amount of dread that comes with it, because the mighty retailer will put nails in the coffins of at least a few local businesses.

Nobody would compare the Stevens to the Waltons, but the Stevens empire is having a similar affect upon the Fremont district, even if the Stevens are building Targets instead of Walmarts.

The three shuttering businesses may not evoke the same emotion as the Riviera's closing did a year ago, but their existence were the last connections we had to the smaller, simpler casinos of yesteryear.