JRTexas55

The Cactus Leaguer Posted Yesterday, 06:48 PM:There is no leveraging going on here, unless you consider "Get the stadium deal done by 2009 or we'll consider moving to Portland (assuming they elect a less hostile mayor by then)!" to be leverage. Keep in mind the construction period 2 yr maybe? the longer the wait to build the escalation cost will increase the $100MM, therefore build sooner the better. I do disagree with your no leverage theory.

I don't doubt for a minute that Portland could support a baseball team. :arms Word of warning don't be Naive, honestly like I was, to think the Marlins are seriously considering any other market. IT'S ALL ABOUT LEVEAGE THE SA CARD DIDN'T WORK, SO NOW THE MARLINS ARE WORKING ON THE NEXT. :whistle Since reading the Portland article where it reads that Portland was contacted by Marlins, I lost all respect for the organization. My fellow San Antonias may not agree with me, but the Marlins should stay in SF, and I for one would no longer support a move to SA. I?m not saying I don?t want MLB, not just the Marlins. Your words have to mean something. Wouldn?t want any sport organization in SA that speaks from both side of their mouth. I?m upset with the double-cross, I can?t even image what you Marlins fans have been going through all these years. :banghead Let?s not get in stats; we?re already been through that.

:fyou The Marlins are for sure playing a dirty game of leveage. Marlins though they could drag SA out, but it backfire. Marlins leverage went out the window when SA called them out. Now it's play the Portland card. Can you believe all those excuse crap about SA. Some of you ask when will the MLB stepped in, well they just did! CREDITBILITY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually was expecting a complete goodby. Sound like it just put more pressure on SF to complete the deal or else.

JRTexas55 Posted Today, 05:02 PM Sorry about the post above, slip of the fingers will re-post later. The avg SA/Austin inc is $46,000 that equal to $58,000 Miami-Dade.

fyatuk Posted Today, 04:21 PM Average income: Miami itself is a few thousand less than SA (can't find MSA stats, obviously Miami's would increase more than SA's when taking MSA into account). You aren't talking doubling though. You are talking about 1.3x or so most likely. However, costs of living in Miami are about 1.5 times higher from what I saw. The equivalent income is $58,356.58. It will take a 26.86% increase to maintain your standard of living. Product San Antonio TX Miami-Dade County FL Difference HOME PRICE $228,247.50 $432,190.00 $203,942.50 PAYMENT+ INTEREST $1,022.86 $1,962.98 $940.12 APT RENT $956.00 $1,104.00 $148.00 TOTAL ENERGY $151.59 $170.98 $19.39 LIPITOR $111.25 $121.62 $10.37 PART ELECTRICAL $92.84 $0.00 $92.84 DOCTOR VISIT $82.00 $106.00 $24.00 OPTOMETRIST $77.50 $65.00 $12.50 DENTIST VISIT $70.33 $88.40 $18.07 OTHER ENERGY $58.75 $0.00 $58.75 WOMENS SLACKS $41.99 $24.49 $17.50 BEAUTY SALON $39.80 $45.00 $5.20 VET SERVICES $38.01 $38.30 $0.29 WASHER REPAIR $34.99 $52.75 $17.76 MENS SHIRT $31.33 $24.66 $6.67 BOYS JEAN $19.99 $18.87 $1.12 NEWSPAPER $17.33 $15.30 $2.03 PHONE $17.26 $23.55 $6.29 HAIR CUT $12.15 $9.80 $2.35 DRY CLEANING $8.98 $11.50 $2.52 PIZZA $8.89 $9.99 $1.10 MOVIE $7.83 $9.30 $1.47 BEER $7.47 $7.46 $0.01 T BONE STEAK $7.02 $9.87 $2.85 TIRE BALANCE $6.30 $9.87 $3.57 WINE $5.32 $6.08 $0.76 IBUPROFEN $5.30 $6.12 $0.82 BOWLING $3.77 $4.82 $1.05 CASCADE $3.66 $4.28 $0.62 CRISCO $3.23 $3.99 $0.76 PARMESAN CHEESE $2.95 $3.05 $0.10 COFFEE $2.87 $2.80 $0.07 2-PC CHICKEN $2.71 $2.61 $0.10 GASOLINE $2.69 $2.86 $0.17 HAMBURGER SANDWICH $2.66 $2.36 $0.30 CEREAL $2.61 $3.54 $0.93 ORANGE JUICE $2.55 $2.50 $0.05 GROUND BEEF $2.39 $2.79 $0.40 SAUSAGE $2.37 $2.94 $0.57 POTATOES $2.32 $4.37 $2.05 FROZEN MEAL $2.26 $2.61 $0.35 POTATO CHIPS $2.08 $1.56 $0.52 TENNIS BALLS $2.06 $2.54 $0.48 HALF GAL MILK $1.79 $1.99 $0.20 TOOTHPASTE $1.79 $2.74 $0.95 KLEENEX $1.74 $1.84 $0.10 COKE $1.66 $1.26 $0.40 SUGAR $1.48 $1.67 $0.19 PEACHES $1.44 $1.90 $0.46 LETTUCE $0.99 $1.36 $0.37 SHAMPOO $0.96 $1.19 $0.23 FROZEN CORN $0.80 $1.25 $0.45 FRIED CHICKEN $0.72 $1.14 $0.42 BREAD $0.59 $1.46 $0.87 TUNA $0.57 $0.70 $0.13 MARGARINE $0.53 $0.69 $0.16 SWEET PEAS $0.50 $1.02 $0.52 BANANAS $0.37 $0.49 $0.12 ALL ELECTRICAL $0.00 $170.98 $170.98 Mortgage (%) 5.97% 6.09% -0.13

Juanky Posted Today, 10:20 AM: It's not even close to the same level.....plus it's only half of one country as opposed to four entire ones. Somewhere along the line I may have lost the Point: Is the point being made that Cubans/Mexicans/ Puerto Ricanos/Latinos/etc. have a different level of LOVE for the game? If so, you'll have to show me the stats that reflect that. I'm not saying you're wrong, I would need proof in order to believe it. Baseball is one sport that us Hispanics get be proud of because of the representation. :thumbup

Not only that but i'll put money that the Taco Bell on 49th street makes better tasting tacos than the one's their talking about. I assume you're latinos so I'll let that one go?

Hotcorner Posted Today, 12:48 AM: uh, that's not a rascist comment. Rascist comments are obvious, all others are in the eyes of the beholder. Being Latino the word "Politico" isn't offensive. It's been used for decades, by the way the word "Politico" isn't only address at Latinos, but all in general, Hispanic/Whites/Blacks, etc.

prinmemito Posted Today, 11:04 AM: So shocked that they've responded with nothing. two nothings = nothing SA+SF = 0 Thus far? :confused

Hollyberry Posted Today, 09:51 AM So is May 15th still an important date? The May 15th deadline is for San Antonio in order to place the referendum in 2006, as noted by Longhorns Rule. It doesn't mean that SA won't deal with the Marlins again if they come calling. The May 15th isn't for the Marlins to have an agreement with hialeah in place. Baseball: Wolff stands pat on May 15 deadline for Marlins "The May 15 deadline is needed because we would need to finalize the stadium site, negotiate a letter of understanding and then hold a campaign," Wolff said. "Based on what (the Marlins) have told us, they have a long way to go on the Hialeah site," Wolff said. "They have a lot of issues to deal with. I would think it would take them awhile to sort that out." The above statement seem as if the Hialeah deal will not be completed anytime soon. I hope I'ved helped clarified the difference between SF & SA as it relates to the 15th of May.

fyatuk Posted Today, 10:46 AM QUOTE(JRTexas55 @ May 4 2006, 10:34 AM) If what I'm reading above is a tax rebate, perhaps we are using the wrong terminology subsidy. Sudsidy is not a Tax rebate. Under the subsidy method: for example people from the Panhandle who pay taxes are not going to benefits from subsidy forwarded to Orlando/Tampa/Miami. Again this is under the Subsidy method, however, if indeed it is a tax rebate then call it what it is. My entire comment was based on sudsidy not rebates. Depending on how Florida sales tax is set up, its still a subsidy. Since I know Texas law, I'll use it. under Texas law, the state collects 6.25% sales tax and cities are allowed to collect up to 2%. All of this money goes to the state initially, then the city's share is refunded back. Let's say they state decided it would refund a certain amount of sales tax to the Spurs, or the Cowboys, from sales tax earned on site. At least 3/4 of that would be state money, being given to support a local team. That's unacceptable. However I wouldn't mind if say, San Antonio decided to refund a portion of it's share of the sales tax earned at the AT&T Center to the Spurs, or some other situation. Like I said though, depends on how FL tax is set up. Fair enough. Thanks,

If what I'm reading above is a tax rebate, perhaps we are using the wrong terminology subsidy. Sudsidy is not a Tax rebate. Rex Posted Today, 10:22 AM QUOTE(JRTexas55 @ May 4 2006, 10:00 AM) That will not sit well with those individuals who will not benefits from this bill, but will have to folk out taxes anyway. Could you give me an example (definition) of the individuals that you are talking about? Who are the individuals that will be folking out taxes if this bill passes? I'm just trying to get a better grasp of your opinion. thanks.... Under the subsidy method: for example people from the Panhandle who pay taxes are not going to benefits from subsidy forwarded to Orlando/Tampa/Miami. Again this is under the Subsidy method, however, if indeed it is a tax rebate then call it what it is. My entire comment was based on sudsidy not rebates.

HOMER Posted Today, 10:03 AM QUOTE(JRTexas55 @ May 4 2006, 11:00 AM) If the Florida senate passed the bill more power for Florida's professional sports. However, I have always, and will continue to object using state tax dollars to fund a regional sport teams. Whether it's LA. for saints, or any other state, period. I'm all for each regions using thier own tax dollars to fund local stadium, etc. But it's unfair for the rest of the Florida population that have nothing to do, or can't attend regional game beacuse of distance, etc. LA. is the exception, they don't know what in the whole is going in their own state. LA is seem to be in the news more often than not relating to corruption. This is no reflection on the citizens of LA, but their leaders. Note: Tag NFL Commissioner has gone on record saying that the state should not be funding professional sports in form of a subsidy. I will support local funding for local teams, but not state money. I'm not being negative towards the Marlins, and if the bill passes more power to SF. But, I'm being objective here. If Jeb Bush signed this bill, he could be waving goodby to his future political career. Just keep in mind that funding will not benefits the entire state, only certain areas. That will not sit well with those individuals who will not benefits from this bill, but will have to folk out taxes anyway. rferry , and fyatuk what's your take. I respect your fair and balance objectivity. Admin and markkotsay, what are your takes? I respect your biblical and semetic Jewishness. There is always one in the crowd.

If the Florida senate passed the bill more power for Florida's professional sports. However, I have always, and will continue to object using state tax dollars to fund a regional sport teams. Whether it's LA. for saints, or any other state, period. I'm all for each regions using thier own tax dollars to fund local stadium, etc. But it's unfair for the rest of the Florida population that have nothing to do, or can't attend regional game beacuse of distance, etc. LA. is the exception, they don't know what in the whole is going in their own state. LA is seem to be in the news more often than not relating to corruption. This is no reflection on the citizens of LA, but their leaders. Note: Tag NFL Commissioner has gone on record saying that the state should not be funding professional sports in form of a subsidy. I will support local funding for local teams, but not state money. I'm not being negative towards the Marlins, and if the bill passes more power to SF. But, I'm being objective here. If Jeb Bush signed this bill, he could be waving goodby to his future political career. Just keep in mind that funding will not benefits the entire state, only certain areas. That will not sit well with those individuals who will not benefits from this bill, but will have to folk out taxes anyway. :mad rferry , and fyatuk what's your take. I respect your fair and balance objectivity.