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