buffalobillsfootball Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Sorry, mean no disrepect but the new Mayor of Buffalo has to go. This guy doesn't have a clue. Yeah, Buffalo will survive without the Bills - but it will be one miserable place. Brown Says Buffalo Can Survive Without Bills Link Apr 10, 2006 - The Mayor of Buffalo is now weighing in on the future of the Buffalo Bills. This comes one day after Bills owner Ralph Wilson said he can't guarantee the team will stay in Western New York. Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown says he will offer his assistance to the Bills anyway he can. Brown does not want to see the team go, but did say Buffalo would survive if the team picked up and left. Wilson believes the new NFL collective bargaining agreement will hamper small market teams and jeopardizes the long term viability of the Bills in Western New York. Brown has a vision for a new downtown stadium, but wouldn't elaborate if that would come to life soon or help the Bills stay in the area. Email this loser at: pculter@city-buffalo.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeLuca1967 Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Sorry, mean no disrepect but the new Mayor of Buffalo has to go. This guy doesn't have a clue. Yeah, Buffalo will survive without the Bills - but it will be one miserable place. Brown Says Buffalo Can Survive Without Bills Link Apr 10, 2006 - The Mayor of Buffalo is now weighing in on the future of the Buffalo Bills. This comes one day after Bills owner Ralph Wilson said he can't guarantee the team will stay in Western New York. Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown says he will offer his assistance to the Bills anyway he can. Brown does not want to see the team go, but did say Buffalo would survive if the team picked up and left. Wilson believes the new NFL collective bargaining agreement will hamper small market teams and jeopardizes the long term viability of the Bills in Western New York. Brown has a vision for a new downtown stadium, but wouldn't elaborate if that would come to life soon or help the Bills stay in the area. Email this loser at: pculter@city-buffalo.com 658579[/snapback] You are right. A good Mayor would be saying the City is doomed and we should sell out to the NFL and toss every available dollar to the Bills. It's time to wake up. The Bills leaving is the least of our problems. The City needs to increase jobs, test scores ans public safety. Then maybe worry about any professional sports teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throwbackbilly Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 The Bills were certainly good enough for Brown to rip off their logo for his campaign signs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 He must goooooooo!!!.....The Bills should stay in Buffalo...Nuff Said!!!!...This guy should atleast make an effort! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I think it'd be better if the voters in Buffalo left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeLuca1967 Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 He must goooooooo!!!.....The Bills should stay in Buffalo...Nuff Said!!!!...This guy should atleast make an effort! 658607[/snapback] What effort? Really. What should he do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Sorry, mean no disrepect but the new Mayor of Buffalo has to go. This guy doesn't have a clue. Yeah, Buffalo will survive without the Bills - but it will be one miserable place. Brown Says Buffalo Can Survive Without Bills Link Apr 10, 2006 - The Mayor of Buffalo is now weighing in on the future of the Buffalo Bills. This comes one day after Bills owner Ralph Wilson said he can't guarantee the team will stay in Western New York. Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown says he will offer his assistance to the Bills anyway he can. Brown does not want to see the team go, but did say Buffalo would survive if the team picked up and left. Wilson believes the new NFL collective bargaining agreement will hamper small market teams and jeopardizes the long term viability of the Bills in Western New York. Brown has a vision for a new downtown stadium, but wouldn't elaborate if that would come to life soon or help the Bills stay in the area. Email this loser at: pculter@city-buffalo.com 658579[/snapback] What more can he say than what I highlighted in bold. He is the mayor of a city that is under control board rule. What exactly is it that you want him to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeLuca1967 Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 What more can he say than what I highlighted in bold. He is the mayor of a city that is under control board rule. What exactly is it that you want him to do? 658642[/snapback] Great avatar. I wonder how many of the people on these boards live in the City. It drives me nuts when people from other cities or those who live outside the City think they have a clue on how things are here. What Mayor Brown said is 100% true. The City will go on when (not if) the Bills leave. The problems goes well beyond the CBA. Even with a great CBA for the Bills it would still be hard to keep the team in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Great avatar. I wonder how many of the people on these boards live in the City. It drives me nuts when people from other cities or those who live outside the City think they have a clue on how things are here. What Mayor Brown said is 100% true. The City will go on when (not if) the Bills leave. The problems goes well beyond the CBA. Even with a great CBA for the Bills it would still be hard to keep the team in Buffalo. 658645[/snapback] The control board will keep running the city and all will be well, in spite of the efforts of local politicians to line their own pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I think Buffalo would also survive with a new mayor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Sounds like Buffalo has enough basic problems with employment and finance and restructuring. The Mayor is simply pointing out that the (GASP!!) the Buffalo Bills aren't all that big a problem in the greater scope of things. Sounds like a sharp guy to me. I love the Bills...but it isn't a charity. If they can't pull in the revenue in Buffalo they will move somewhere else. All the whining in the world won't change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Whats all this talk about Buffalo needing jobs???? I thought the people of Buffalo all could afford to pay an extra $10-15 or more for Bills tickets and would continue to do so just to save the team. What the mayor said is true, the City will continue to live (on life supprt as it has been recently) What do you want him to say, Buffalo will be doomed without an NFL team and its the only thing keeping it alive? The city will feel a big hit if the Bills leave, but its not going to crumble and cease to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Chipper Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 the guy is a joke. He has no business being mayor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I think it'd be better if the voters in Buffalo left. 658629[/snapback] They're working on it. From 1990 to 2000, the population of city residents aged 18-34 declined by 26,771 or 26% (the entire metro area lost 73,734 residents 18-34 year olds, a 23% decline). A few more decades and it will be a ghost town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I think it'd be better if the voters in Buffalo left. 658629[/snapback] They have been, which is part of the problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 They have been, which is part of the problem! 658910[/snapback] And, there are about a dozen really good reasons for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I wonder how many of the people on these boards live in the City. It drives me nuts when people from other cities or those who live outside the City think they have a clue on how things are here. 658645[/snapback] Guilty as charged! I often feel a sense of guilt that I get so upset about the idea of the Bills leaving town, yet I left there almost 20 years ago. I do make it home for a game every season, pretty much. This past season, I went back for a wedding, and unfortunately (or fortunately) couldn't work a game in. I have an immediate family of 10, 5 of which still reside in Buffalo. You know, silly as it sounds, I would move back in a second, if it ensured the Bills staying in Buffalo... I think AD is on to something though. All of my life, I have heard people B word and moan about the local politicos, but for years, they still voted the same people in election after election. I suppose this kind of thing goes on most places, but you would think it was predicated on some track record of success. Maybe there is just not enough candidates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 They're working on it. From 1990 to 2000, the population of city residents aged 18-34 declined by 26,771 or 26% (the entire metro area lost 73,734 residents 18-34 year olds, a 23% decline). A few more decades and it will be a ghost town. 658905[/snapback] Not unique to Buffalo. Hamilton County (Cincinnati) OH leads the nation's counties in rate of population decline. Same 'ol story: Dependent/ignorant population increases. Politicans want their votes, so property tax levies are put forth for free services. Those who don't pay property taxes pass them. People who pay property taxes leave. Remaining population claims the police pick on them. Politicians attack the police for more votes. Violence and murder rises (20 murders last month in Cincy). Police are blamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 (the entire metro area lost 73,734 residents 18-34 year olds, a 23% decline). 658905[/snapback] I'm number 43, 914. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROSCOE P. COE TRAIN Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Jimmy Griffin is back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc707270 Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 the guy is a joke. He has no business being mayor. 658860[/snapback] Wow, and your intelligent reasoning for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm@ub Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Wow, and your intelligent reasoning for this? 659590[/snapback] Well, if he lives near the city he's probably recently received a parking ticket like so many countless others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEEDFREDJACKSONNOW Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 The control board will keep running the city and all will be well, in spite of the efforts of local politicians to line their own pockets. 658665[/snapback] I live in the city. His comment about the Bills not being here is pretty obvious, much like the grass is green and the sky blue. But he didn't have to say what he did, too defeatist. Kinda sounds like Wade a few years ago, counting the Bills out of the playoffs too soon....And didn't RW fire him for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc707270 Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I live in the city. His comment about the Bills not being here is pretty obvious, much like the grass is green and the sky blue. But he didn't have to say what he did, too defeatist. Kinda sounds like Wade a few years ago, counting the Bills out of the playoffs too soon....And didn't RW fire him for that? 659603[/snapback] I can't see that the mayor was being a defeatist by stating his optimism for the citysurviving the departure of it's beloved bills. While I would be angry, I think the city needs to worry about other things that it does have control over (which ain't much). No use in keeping a mercedes in the driveway and living under a leaky roof. Although I don't know if the bills could actually be compared to a mercedes at this point and the city sure has more than a leak in the roof! Oh, I no longer live in the city so just my outside once lived in buffalo opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonabb Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 They're working on it. From 1990 to 2000, the population of city residents aged 18-34 declined by 26,771 or 26% (the entire metro area lost 73,734 residents 18-34 year olds, a 23% decline). A few more decades and it will be a ghost town. 658905[/snapback] Ahhhh... I love incorrect Census analysis! Unfortunately, you can't truly judge population loss with that simple analysis. I understand the intent, it's the methodolody that's wrong. Basically, comparing the same population range for two different time periods will always result in a change, obviousl, because you're actually analyzing two entirely different populations. The key is to account for the 10-year period in which you're using as the time of change to analyze the same population. Basically, if you want to show population loss of the most important demographic in any area (18-34 year olds), you have to use the previous Census data and their age 10 years earlier, ie, if you're looking at that population in 2000, you need to check that population in 1990, which isn't 18-34, it's 8-24. That's how you show how we're losing that demographic. Unfortunately, the Census has a real issue stanardizing it's age ranges from Census to Census, at least from 1990 to 2000. But we can make a good enough analysis for this exercise. The 1990 population of 8-24 year olds was 86,271, but unfortunately based on age ranges, that included 7-year olds, due to the way age groups were broken down differently in each Census. In 2000, when that population was then 18-34, it numbered 75,176. If we just conservatively then divided the total population of 7-9 in 1990 by 3 (the number if ages), we'd get around 4333 7-year-olds. Subtracting that from 86,271, we'd get an adjusted population of 81,938. Subtract the 2000 number from that and the difference of 6,762, or 7.8% loss of that population, not the 26% used in the above analysis. Sure that 26% does have significance (in simplest terms, it's showing that we've lost significant numbers of child bearing people in the past, which then can be parlaying into this analysis showing loss of this population), but it's not the right number to show actual loss of a single population because it's analyzing two different groups of people. As you can tell, I hate misinformation and misleading analyses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper13 Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Well, the new Mayor of Buffalo is pretty much nothing more than a figurehead. Someone is pulling his strings. The control board runs things. I wonder who watches the control board? If nothing else the guy is a big flop-flopper. First he envisioned a "New Waterfront Stadium" for the Buffalo Bills and then he says "We will survive if they leave". First he was all for the new Downtown Casino and yesterday he said he is not so sure it's a good idea. I think he is clueless just like the last Mayor and pretty much every politician in WNY- heck every politician everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Same 'ol story: Dependent/ignorant population increases. Politicans want their votes, so property tax levies are put forth for free services. 658940[/snapback] I've seen this happen in a few places myself. It's a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdelma Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 City and area won''t survive. The mayor is a moron!. Turn the lights off. It will be a ghost town kinda like Love Canal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleTheWagons Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Basically, comparing the same population range for two different time periods will always result in a change, obviousl, because you're actually analyzing two entirely different populations. The key is to account for the 10-year period in which you're using as the time of change to analyze the same population. 659754[/snapback] It appears to me that you're trying to track specific individuals rather than the demographic. It's irrelevant that specific people have moved into or out of the population (18-34). It doesn't matter if Bob moved away or turned 35, if he's not replaced by somebody moving to the city or turning 18 the population in that age group declines. I guess I don't understand why you want to use specific people to account for the same population over time. If the population is defined as 18-34, individuals will move into and out of the population every day, but that's totally irrelevant for the businesses targeting the demographic. Everybody who is 40 was once 18-34 but they're no longer important to marketers targeting the younger crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts