Mayor Hardberger and Tom Benson want the San Antonio Saints

[TheWriter]

The burden of proof rests on you.

Whatever you say little girl.

You want so bad to spin something. So bad. :lol

[TheWriter]

BTW, I also found that $94K number to be eye-raisingly high. I'd really be interested in the distribution of income for the entire San Antonio metropolitan area vs. that of Austin.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_7240.htm

[Marcus Bryant]

Whatever you say little girl.

You want so bad to spin something. So bad. :lol


You stated a figure that you have no backing for whatsoever. That's not 'spin' that's reality.

Damn, either you really are that stupid or else you're desperate.

Probably both.

[TheWriter]

You stated a figure that you have no backing for whatsoever. That's not 'spin' that's reality.

Damn, either you really are that stupid or else you're desperate.

Probably both.

That's you being PMS'd over the fact you have nothing to spin. I get you.

You're an envious, bitter, 20 something who has nothing better to do in life than try ways to make a city you don't live in look bad.

I get it.

Move on.

[TheWriter]

The thing is, I could easily make up every number I throw at you. But I don't. For every number I've thrown at you in this thread and others, I've provided links.

Now think about this, within just 5 miles, 240,000 people work.

Out of those 240,000, how many do you think live within one mile?

To you, probably 4 people. Right?

[Vashner]

Just give LA and SA expansion teams... and fix the roof on the Superdome..

The steel structure is fine. Put in some new generators and some friggin water and mre's (in storage) and then you won't have same situation again.

[TheWriter]

The steel structure is fine. Put in some new generators and some friggin water and mre's (in storage) and then you won't have same situation again.

So you've been inside the Superdome?

[Marcus Bryant]

So you can't participate in this discussion unless you make shit up.

Understood.

[TheWriter]

So you can't participate in this discussion unless you make shit up.

Understood.

I've made nothing up.

You seem to crave something to spin.

How about this, in San Antonio, there are over 30,000 people who make almost an average of $55,000 a year.

There are almost 33,000 people who make an average almost $78,000 a year.

I just love throwing numbers out.

[Marcus Bryant]

Provide a source and then perhaps someone in here will believe you.

[j-6]

This was a good thread five pages ago. Pity.

[Vashner]

Pity pity pity (Sen Byrd soundbyte)

[TheWriter]

Provide a source and then perhaps someone in here will believe you.

Nah, I don't feel like it.

[Marcus Bryant]

This was a good thread five pages ago. Pity.

Apologies to all for taking Buddy's Holly seriously.

[TheWriter]

Here you go Poser...

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_7240.htm

[Rescueone]

I've made nothing up.

You seem to crave something to spin.

How about this, in San Antonio, there are over 30,000 people who make almost an average of $55,000 a year.

There are almost 33,000 people who make an average almost $78,000 a year.

I just love throwing numbers out.


Hey,

I'm one of those 30,000 and as a household over the $78,000 per year, and we live in the 78250 area.

[j-6]

Apologies to all for taking Buddy's Holly seriously.

From an educational POV, this thread was a good lesson from one of the participants on how to completely blow one end of an argument and resort to name calling, which is astonishing even way out here in this fucked-up part of the internets.

I just spent the last few minutes reading through this thing again and the collapse I'm referencing was even sadder than it was in real time.

[2centsworth]

Why not spend a little trying to lure firms with actual jobs to the state? How about spending a little more on roads in the Dallas, Houston, SA and Austin metro areas?

The economic development argument for stadiums is a bit weak, to say the least.
Where's your evidence?

[Rescueone]

If you're including all that for Buffalo, a CMSA with San Antonio would be near 4 million as of right now. Not to mention the RGV with another 2 million.


cool! We can do this!

[Marcus Bryant]

Where's your evidence?

evidence (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf)

[ChumpDumper]

This was a good thread five pages ago. Pity.Sorry I left.
:drunk

[Kori Ellis]

even Salt Lake City are better markets than San Antonio.

What?

Salt Lake City is ridiculously small.

[goliath]

Just a couple thoughts:

1. I dont understand all the public backlash talk. I have friends and relatives all over the US and none of them look down on SA or the Saints over the situation. Its more along the "its unfortunate but the NFL is a business" type reaction. Most people Ive talked to seem more outraged that $$ would go to a new stadium or team subsidies than repairing infrastructure, businesses, homes, ect. The US is a MTV type culture. After something immediatly happens, people move on. I think the backlash looter talk will be like the "new Americas Team" talk after Katrina. If Benson announced the move immediatly there would be a backlash but I dont think there will be a bad one now (outside of Miss and LA). Plus I doubt the average Packer or Colt fan is going to stop watching, buying merchandise, ect over this.

2. I think it will pass an owners vote. Sure Jerry (and possibly McNair) will be against it. But Jacksonville and San Diego wont vote to block it and have the Saints move to Los Angeles. They wont want to give up the market in case they move. The Skins owner will probably ok it to piss off Jerry. Plus I dont see many other owners telling Benson you not only cant play where you want, we're going to make you play in a city with a questionable future and fan base and in a situation where you will probably lose $$$ for the foreseeable future. Plus would the average owner rather have the Saints move to Los Ang and get nothing (or a minimal relocation fee) or put an expansion team there and get a billion $$$s in expansion fees.

3. If it is blocked, Benson could probably win in a court of law. The NFL couldnt keep Benson in NO based on the situation (or probably even charge him a relocation fee). If Davis could win based on the "its my team I can do what I want" arguement, Im sure Benson could with his situation.

4. I think Bensons silence says alot. He has 4 games in Lous with slow ticket sales. A vote of confidence surely would help ticket sales. Hell, saying we will look at all options would probably help. But you have the mayor saying Benson wants to move, ect, ect in the paper the last week and all Benson has is "no comment" or "ill comment after the season". Today he even fired the one vocal voice of support for the team staying in NO.

I think Benson envokes the destruction clause the end of Nov. Tags spins it by saying Benson had to to keep his options open, Benson has no comment.
Benson announces the team is relocating because NO isnt viable due to Katrina either after the season or maybe at the Lions game. Owners approve the move and Tags slaps Benson with a high relocation fee (which gets held up in court for a couple of years and which Benson eventually wins). Benson signs a short term lease with the Dome (maybe 5-6 years) to get the fan base set then after that moves for a new stadium. Just IMHO

[ShoogarBear]

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_7240.htm

Interesting, although not exactly what I was looking for. What I wanted is the number of households in each income range.

However, there is one important piece of data you can extract from this:



Employment Median Hourly Mean Hourly Mean Annual
San Antonio 721,620 $11.87 $15.66 $32,570
Austin/San Marcos 681,240 $14.38 $18.47 $38,410


Austin/San Marcos only has 40K less number of people employed than all of SA, and in terms of total annual salary actually has a HIGHER total income even with fewer people ($23.5 billion/year for SA vs. $26.1 billion/year for Austin).

So I would argue this strengths my point that inclusion of Austin is necessary.

[gameFACE]

If the San Diego continues to have difficulty in getting a stadium deal together there is a chance they could relocate to LA. If that happens then there is the possibility of the Saints relocating here as the SA Saints. Otherwise it would be temporary.

The best stadium solution would be to renovate the Alamodome but it would need serious structural modifications if it's to acommodate the corporate suites needed. Because of the cost involved it will be a hard sell to taxpayers.

[TheWriter]

Interesting, although not exactly what I was looking for. What I wanted is the number of households in each income range.

However, there is one important piece of data you can extract from this:



Employment Median Hourly Mean Hourly Mean Annual
San Antonio 721,620 $11.87 $15.66 $32,570
Austin/San Marcos 681,240 $14.38 $18.47 $38,410


Austin/San Marcos only has 40K less number of people employed than all of SA, and in terms of total annual salary actually has a HIGHER total income even with fewer people ($23.5 billion/year for SA vs. $26.1 billion/year for Austin).

So I would argue this strengths my point that inclusion of Austin is necessary.

Shoogar, those are actually very midleading numbers for San Antonio.

The MSA for this website does not include 4 of the 8 counties that make up MSA San Antonio.

Here's what they have:

San Antonio, TX MSA
o Bexar County
o Comal County
o Guadalupe County
o Wilson County

They're missing Atascosa County (42,969), Bandera County (19,754), Kendall County (27,214), and Medina County (42,269).

[TheWriter]

Shoogar, those are actually very midleading numbers for San Antonio.

The MSA for this website does not include 4 of the 8 counties that make up MSA San Antonio.

Here's what they have:

San Antonio, TX MSA
o Bexar County
o Comal County
o Guadalupe County
o Wilson County

They're missing Atascosa County (42,969), Bandera County (19,754), Kendall County (27,214), and Medina County (42,269).

As of last count there's are over 800,000 jobs in MSA San Antonio.

[TheWriter]

Imagine had Hardberger not won but instead... oh... uh... eh... :pctoss

[2centsworth]

evidence (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf)

Read your evidence and Kudos in actually having something to support your claims. However, as big of a fan of the Cato Institue as I am I still have a few disagreements with the study.

First, The economic Impact in the first two case studies , though low as a % of the estate economy , are large in absolute numbers ar($102-$120mm) and growing I assume.

Secondly, economic impact in most of these studies neglect Goodwill and publicity. Look at any corporate balance sheet and Goodwill is a resellable asset! Also, any company would die for the constant publicty sports franchises produce for their cities.

Then Lastly, the study subtracts from the economic benefit lost opportunity cost. This too is a faulty argument because no one has a crystal ball when it comes to investments. To criticize a profitable investment because you think you could have done better elsewhere can be foolish, especially when it comes to government which has a track record of throwing money away and not making profitable investments.


Again, I would like to see a cost benefit analysis specifically for Saints project before making any conclusions.

[goliath]

If Garza was mayor he would be using the Saints attendence to show that SA could support a MLS team

[Marcus Bryant]

Read your evidence and Kudos in actually having something to support your claims. However, as big of a fan of the Cato Institue as I am I still have a few disagreements with the study.

First, The economic Impact in the first two case studies , though low as a % of the estate economy , are large in absolute numbers ar($102-$120mm) and growing I assume.

The point was that relative to local area income and tax collections those benefits were quite small, if the benefits even materialized.



Secondly, economic impact in most of these studies neglect Goodwill and publicity. Look at any corporate balance sheet and Goodwill is a resellable asset! Also, any company would die for the constant publicty sports franchises produce for their cities.

How does a city trade goodwill? Sure, the value of that would presumably materialize in some form, such as a greater number of visitors to the city, a greater number of individuals seeking to live there and driving up property values which then would flow back to the public coffers, a greater number of firms seeking to relocate to the city, etc...

That was the point of the models they developed to test the significance of the sports franchises in explaining the variation in per capita income.

What they found was no significant impact of a pro franchise on per capita income growth and a significant and negative impact on the level of real per cap income.




Then Lastly, the study subtracts from the economic benefit lost opportunity cost. This too is a faulty argument because no one has a crystal ball when it comes to investments. To criticize a profitable investment because you think you could have done better elsewhere can be foolish, especially when it comes to government which has a track record of throwing money away and not making profitable investments.

If you assign uncertainty to the opportunity foregone, you also have to apply it to the activity undertaken.




Again, I would like to see a cost benefit analysis specifically for Saints project before making any conclusions.

The basic problem is, as the authors describe, that you are assuming the relationships between income and output stay constant, as well as the assumption that you don't have the substitution going on in spending by households and that those who are the first/second recipients of the expenditures on games will spend that money locally. People undoubtedly would change their spending habits in response to the location of a team in SA. When a pro athlete buys X number of homes in vacation spots around the world instead of in the local market, that kills the impact of those expenditures (his salary).

[2centsworth]

If you assign uncertainty to the opportunity foregone, you also have to apply it to the activity undertaken.
Yes, but the activity undertaken is proven unlike the opportunity foregone.


How does a city trade goodwill? Sure, the value of that would presumably materialize in some form, such as a greater number of visitors to the city, a greater number of individuals seeking to live there and driving up property values which then would flow back to the public coffers, a greater number of firms seeking to relocate to the city, etc...
Bingo!


One last item, this city is much different than Jacksonville and Baltimore because of our number one Industry- Tourism. The constant publicity would surely impact us much differently than it would most other cities. Again, I would like to see the numbers specifically for this market. Who knows the proposal they bring to the table could be the worst deal ever.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes, but the activity undertaken is proven unlike the opportunity foregone.

Not at the start. That's how I understood the authors' argument.




Bingo!


The authors put that to the test with their models.




One last item, this city is much different than Jacksonville and Baltimore because of our number one Industry- Tourism. The constant publicity would surely impact us much differently than it would most other cities. Again, I would like to see the numbers specifically for this market. Who knows the proposal they bring to the table could be the worst deal ever.

Then you have a tremendous expenditure made to generate job growth in a low wage sector. That also does not account for the impact of the substitution households in the area would make with respect to their 'entertainment dollars' as well as the fact that the output multiplier on a sports team is going to be fairly low as a lot of the income earned by the players is spent out of market.

Again, it seems as though the basic argument is that a majority (or a vocal minority) want a team in a city because they like that given sport. So the community benefits because that desire is fulfilled and it has some non-pecuniary value for people.

The authors examined it in the right manner. Any positive, significant impact of a local area being home to a pro team would've been picked up in their regressions.

[2centsworth]

Not at the start. That's how I understood the authors' argument.




The authors put that to the test with their models.




Then you have a tremendous expenditure made to generate job growth in a low wage sector. That also does not account for the impact of the substitution households in the area would make with respect to their 'entertainment dollars' as well as the fact that the output multiplier on a sports team is going to be fairly low as a lot of the income earned by the players is spent out of market.

Again, it seems as though the basic argument is that a majority (or a vocal minority) want a team in a city because they like that given sport. So the community benefits because that desire is fulfilled and it has some non-pecuniary value for people.

The authors examined it in the right manner. Any positive, significant impact of a local area being home to a pro team would've been picked up in their regressions.
Not to say I didn't respect you before, but I have a new found respect for you MB. I'll take a closer look at the study and get back with you.