More Ground Zero/West Side Stadium talk

[duey]

Now this guy has got it right!

 

http://wcbs880.com/topstories/local_story_140111702.html

 

Silver: Ground Zero Before West Side Stadium

Assembly Speaker Cool to 'Longshot' Olympic Bid

 

 

May 20, 2005 11:05 am US/Eastern

NEW YORK (WCBS) One of the three New York lawmakers who holds the fate of the West Side Stadium -- and quite possibly New York's 2012 Olympic hopes -- in his hands said this morning that he'd rather focus on rebuilding ground zero.

 

"No other building project can take a higher priority," Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said of ground zero. He said he's willing to offer assurances to Olympic officials that New York will have an Olympic venue but he's not willing to sign off on the West Side stadium deal.

 

To hear Paul Murnane's complete report, click on the audio link above.

 

Also on Friday, the Daily News reported that the chairman of the U.S. Olympic Committee warned lawmakers that New York City would lose any chance to host the 2012 Summer Olympics if a plan for the West Side Stadium is not approved.

 

"The (International Olympic Committee) has made it clear that without full approval of the proposed Olympic stadium before the IOC vote, New York's bid will not be successful,'' Peter Ueberroth said in a May 5 letter, the newspaper said.

 

The letter was sent to Silver and New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno. Ueberroth warned them that failure to approve the proposed stadium on Manhattan's far West Side "would grievously damage New York's Olympic bid and America's Olympic movement.''

 

New York, Madrid, Moscow, London and Paris are the finalists in the competition to host the 2012 summer Olympics. The IOC has scheduled a July 6 vote.

 

The stadium, which is also to be home of the New York Jets football team, is a centerpiece of New York's bid and has the backing of Gov. George Pataki and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But it is strongly opposed by some local groups.

 

A key vote on the stadium plan is set for next week. The state Public Authorities Control Board -- which has three members, representing Pataki, Bruno and Silver -- was to have voted on the proposal Wednesday. But it postponed the vote until next Wednesday instead when legislative leaders made it clear they weren't ready to commit $300 million to the project.

 

The News, citing an unidentified source, said Ueberroth wrote the letter in part because Silver and Bruno publicly questioned the need to approve the stadium before the IOC vote in July.

 

The News said Silver and Bruno both denied accusations that they were endangering the city's bid.

 

Bruno's spokesman, John McArdle, said the Republican senator is committed to building "whatever we need'' if New York wins the bid.

[Dr. Fong]

Why not do both? I'd love nothing more than to see the 2012 Olympics in NYC with a rebuilt twin towers the centerpiece. Light the Olympic flame on top of one of them.

[ndmanley]

Now this guy has got it right!

 

http://wcbs880.com/topstories/local_story_140111702.html

 

Silver: Ground Zero Before West Side Stadium

Assembly Speaker Cool to 'Longshot' Olympic Bid

May 20, 2005 11:05 am US/Eastern

NEW YORK (WCBS) One of the three New York lawmakers who holds the fate of the West Side Stadium -- and quite possibly New York's 2012 Olympic hopes -- in his hands said this morning that he'd rather focus on rebuilding ground zero.

 

"No other building project can take a higher priority," Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said of ground zero. He said he's willing to offer assurances to Olympic officials that New York will have an Olympic venue but he's not willing to sign off on the West Side stadium deal.

 

To hear Paul Murnane's complete report, click on the audio link above.

 

Also on Friday, the Daily News reported that the chairman of the U.S. Olympic Committee warned lawmakers that New York City would lose any chance to host the 2012 Summer Olympics if a plan for the West Side Stadium is not approved.

 

"The (International Olympic Committee) has made it clear that without full approval of the proposed Olympic stadium before the IOC vote, New York's bid will not be successful,'' Peter Ueberroth said in a May 5 letter, the newspaper said.

 

The letter was sent to Silver and New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno. Ueberroth warned them that failure to approve the proposed stadium on Manhattan's far West Side "would grievously damage New York's Olympic bid and America's Olympic movement.''

 

New York, Madrid, Moscow, London and Paris are the finalists in the competition to host the 2012 summer Olympics. The IOC has scheduled a July 6 vote.

 

The stadium, which is also to be home of the New York Jets football team, is a centerpiece of New York's bid and has the backing of Gov. George Pataki and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But it is strongly opposed by some local groups.

 

A key vote on the stadium plan is set for next week. The state Public Authorities Control Board -- which has three members, representing Pataki, Bruno and Silver -- was to have voted on the proposal Wednesday. But it postponed the vote until next Wednesday instead when legislative leaders made it clear they weren't ready to commit $300 million to the project.

 

The News, citing an unidentified source, said Ueberroth wrote the letter in part because Silver and Bruno publicly questioned the need to approve the stadium before the IOC vote in July.

 

The News said Silver and Bruno both denied accusations that they were endangering the city's bid.

 

Bruno's spokesman, John McArdle, said the Republican senator is committed to building "whatever we need'' if New York wins the bid.

341091[/snapback]

 

Maybe on this issue Silver is right. However, he is a downstate jag off, who has stuck it to WNY many times.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Why don't we let NJ build the Jests a new stadium? Rather see them waste their tax money than ours.

[Chalkie Gerzowski]

Maybe on this issue Silver is right.  However, he is a downstate jag off, who has stuck it to WNY many times.

341103[/snapback]

 

 

Silver is Larry Fine to Pataki's Moe and Joe Bruno's Curly.

 

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

Why not do both?  I'd love nothing more than to see the 2012 Olympics in NYC with a rebuilt twin towers the centerpiece.  Light the Olympic flame on top of one of them.

341100[/snapback]

 

You don't necessarily do both because there is the concern that people will (or do right now) perceive that we do not have enough money to do everything and that if NYS spends big bucks on two projects downstate, it will spend no money upstate.

 

Generally, most people by far live downstate (NYC is the state's biggest city at 8+ million folks in the metro area depending upon how you define the metro area, it's second largest city is Buffalo with 275K+ thousand folks or so) so money should stay at home with the lionshare of taxpayers. However, as a WNY resident in an area perceived to have a bad economy (it does compared to NYC, it does not compared to most other places in the world) there needs to be a clear allocation and spending by NYS here to match any commitment to invest in these two ideas.

 

The political reality is given that NYC and its suburbs in LI, Westchester, etc tend to be split on many issue. WNY even though the population is relatively small compared to NYC, we hold a balance of power poltically important here.

 

As a WNY'er I will not support either deal or certainly both without the clearest possible appropriate companion investment by NYS in WNY. If I have to support something downstate (which reasonably I should, I prefer backing a Ground Zero memorial first and a sports stadium second by far..

[Sound_n_Fury]

Silver's only motivation is to make Pataki's life miserable (not that George is helping his own cause much).

 

If the Gov was moving ahead strongly on Ground Zero redevelopment, 'ol Sheldon would be giving him grief about not supporting a new West Side stadium.

[BRH]

Silver's only motivation is to make Pataki's life miserable (not that George is helping his own cause much). 

 

If the Gov was moving ahead strongly on Ground Zero redevelopment, 'ol Sheldon would be giving him grief about not supporting a new West Side stadium.

341251[/snapback]

There's some truth to that (especially your first sentence), but supporting GZ redevelopment plays a hell of a lot better with the voters than supporting a bigass stadium for the city's second-favorite football team.

 

Shelly sees a political opening and takes it. Pataki would have done the same. A pox on both their houses I say.

[JDG]

I great way of comparing the size of cities is by Nielsen media markets.

 

1. New York - 7.3 million

 

46. Buffalo - 651,970

 

55. Albany/Schenectady/Troy - 555,640

 

75. Rochester - 396,880

 

77. Syracuse - 395,400

 

154. Binghamton - 141,350

 

166. Utica - 106,690

 

173. Emira/Corning - 98,270

 

175. Watertown - 94,390

 

 

 

Its also worth considering, that this places Buffalo behind such places as Los Angeles, Portland, Sacramento, Orlando, Hartford, Raleigh-Durham, Greenville-Asheville, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo, West Palm Beach, Birmingham, Norfolk, Memphis, and Oklahoma City. And Louisville, at 637,680 is nipping at our heals. In a League that is financed by TV dollars, the Bills are simply a backwater that any sane League would love to be rid of. Or to put it another way, if the Bills did not exist, Buffalo would not even be on the very long list of expansion cities.

 

JDG

[Dr. Fong]

As a WNY'er I will not support either deal or certainly both without the clearest possible appropriate companion investment by NYS in WNY. If I have to support something downstate (which reasonably I should, I prefer backing a Ground Zero memorial first and a sports stadium second by far..

341208[/snapback]

 

Good response. I guess I'm dreaming, but I feel like as far as the WTC goes there should be some federal contribution to get that thing going. But that's not likely.

 

One thing that I think would solve some of the problems of upstate New York vs. NYC would be to make NYC and Long Island a special district like D.C. Not its own state, but a special district with Congressional representation. I wouldn't extend the same representation to D.C. since that was set up to not have this representation and I have nothing, but contempt for the pro-D.C. statehood folks as a result.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

On the other hand, Silver and his cronies are still sticking it to you NYS taxpayers (as they do every year):

 

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story...sdate=5/19/2005

[Sound_n_Fury]

I great way of comparing the size of cities is by Nielsen media markets.

 

1. New York - 7.3 million

 

46. Buffalo - 651,970

 

55. Albany/Schenectady/Troy - 555,640

 

75. Rochester - 396,880

 

77. Syracuse - 395,400

 

154. Binghamton - 141,350

 

166. Utica - 106,690

 

173. Emira/Corning - 98,270

 

175. Watertown - 94,390

Its also worth considering, that this places Buffalo behind such places as Los Angeles, Portland, Sacramento, Orlando, Hartford, Raleigh-Durham, Greenville-Asheville, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo, West Palm Beach, Birmingham, Norfolk, Memphis, and Oklahoma City.    And Louisville, at 637,680 is nipping at our heals.  In a League that is financed by TV dollars, the Bills are simply a backwater that any sane League would love to be rid of.  Or to put it another way, if the Bills did not exist, Buffalo would not even be on the very long list of expansion cities.

 

JDG

341394[/snapback]

 

 

Bupkis. Buffalo's the 46th largest media market in the U.S. In a 32-team league, that means only 15 markets have more households:

 

1. Los Angeles......5,431,140 (failed home to two NFL teams)

2. Sacramento......1,315,030 (part of the 49ers marketing region)

3. Orlando............1,303,150 (not a football town)

4. Portland............1,086,900 (Go Ducks!)

5. Harford.............1,017,530 (part of Patriot nation)

6. Raleigh................966,720 (Panthers marketing territory)

7. Columbus............867,490 (Browns and Bengels territory)

8. Greenville............813,210 (Gamecocks rule!)

9. Salt Lake City......800,000 (Mormons could care less about NFL)

10. San Antonio.........748,950 (a possible relocation threat, but Cowboys territory)

11. West Palm Beach..729,010 (Dolfins territory)

12. Birmingham..........717,300 (who cares)

13. Norfolk.................707,750 (Redskins country)

14. Memphis...............658,250 (Titans marketing territory)

15. Oklahoma City......655,250 (Kansas City territory)

 

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/metered_markets.html

 

With the exception of LA, Portland and San Antonio (and maybe Louisville someday, but they didn't distinguish themselves with their XFL attendance), no city on this list has a better claim to having an NFL team than Buffalo. Throw in the 2.5 million household in the Toronto/Hamilton market that also get the TV signal from Buffalo and the Bills region looks even more attractive.

 

New Orleans (675,760 households, 46th) is only slightly larger than Buffalo and Jacksonville (613,000, 52nd) is smaller, BTW. Green Bay, of course, is the classic small market anomally.

 

As you say, TV revenue/ratings are the largest driver of the NFL's operating model. But ticket and merchandise sales are also important and the Bills do quite well nationally in these areas.

 

Ralph's research on small market TV viewership is also interesting. Households in smaller markets (like Buffalo) tend to watch more Sunday and Monday night NFL games than those in large market, both on a relative and absolute basis.

 

Here are the Top-10 Local Market Household Ratings (For all Super Bowl games since 1999)

 

1. Kansas City - 49%

2. Denver - 48.2%

3. Washington DC - 47%

4. Tampa-St. Petersburg - 46.9%

5. Atlanta - 46.7%

5. Dallas-Ft. Worth - 46.7%

7. Buffalo - 46.6%

7. New Orleans - 46.6%

9. Jacksonville - 46.5%

10. Pittsburgh - 45.9%

28. Boston (Manchester) - 43.3%

29. Philadelphia - 43%

 

http://www.spectramarketing.com/news/p_2005_superbowl.jsp

 

You're right, WNY would never get an expansion team today, if the Bills had never existed. We're just not a high-profile ("sexy") enough market. However, I don't feel the NFL has any problem keeping a team here, given the strong support year-after-year from fans within a 200 mile radius of RWS and all the former WNY-ers around the country.