Floridians not Scared by S.A.'s Marlins Proposal

LAST UPDATE: 3/10/2006 5:51:09 AM

Posted By: Laura Berryhill

This story is available on your cell phone at mobile.woai.com.

 

Watch this story...

 

People in South Florida do not seem to be shaken by San Antonio's proposal to take the Florida Marlins.

 

News 4 WOAI's Leila Walsh was the only local reporter in Miami Thursday night. She spoke to Miami-Dade mayor Carlos Alvarez and city manager Joe Arriole.

 

"This is a beautiful city. I don't know why they would want to leave," Alvarez said. "But I understand it's a business, and they've got to explore all the options."

 

Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff says the county is willing to finance $200 million of a $300 million stadium. But Arriole says that offer is too low.

 

"You can't build a stadium for $200 million," Arriole said to News 4 WOAI.

 

Wolff, however, has a different view. He told News 4 WOAI there is a 75% chance Bexar County will land the Marlins. Wolff says land near the Longhorn Quarry could be used to build a stadium, but there are no clear answers yet.

 

"Right now, it's a bit of a waiting game. We've done everything we're expected to do," said Wolff. "At this stage we just have to wait and see if they want to come here and get really serious about it."

 

The Retama Park Racetrack is another possible location. If the Marlins like their finance proposal, commissioners will decide when to call an election and voters will have the final say on major league baseball in San Antonio.

 

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?...62-2CB3C9AD8503

What's most telling is that they're citing their agenda again.

 

And Arriola with his repungent attitude.

 

Enjoy it while it lasts, boys.

The problem is not that the offer is too low or that it wont be enough to build a stadium in SA. The problem is that the Marlins now have a solid baseline with which to create a bidding war over. S. Florida is in trouble.

The only thing that scares me is that they won't need a retractable roof in San Antonio, thus cutting a big chunk off the total cost for a new stadium.

The only thing that scares me is that they won't need a retractable roof in San Antonio, thus cutting a big chunk off the total cost for a new stadium.

 

I have no values to verify this, but I'm pretty sure land is a lot cheaper in middle of nowhere Texas versus South Florida as well.

sooner then later the city of miami will think of something.. i hope

Well, on the flip side, the one thing that gives me hope is the situation in San Francisco years ago. I'll never forget it... The team was already being referred to as the St. Petersburg Giants, when out of nowhere they were saved and remained in San Fran.. I'm praying that something like that happens here....

I for one am horrified by SA's organization, aggressiveness and actual DESIRE to have a MLB team. It doesn't seem like any of the major actors have a strong desire to keep the team in S. Florida.

sooner then later the city of miami will think of something.. i hope

 

 

We all HOPE! GO FISH!

Floridians not Scared by S.A.'s Marlins Proposal

"This is a beautiful city. I don't know why they would want to leave," Alvarez said. "But I understand it's a business, and they've got to explore all the options."

 

Can you imagine that? The mayor of Miami doesn't have a clue as to why the Marlins are considering relocation.

 

His problem is obvious.

I ain't never scured!

I'm counting on Rfaerry's thought that baseball needs to be urban, downtown, with lots of foot traffic to be successful these days. Out by the quarry doesn't sound exactly urban with lots of foot traffic to me.

I have no values to verify this, but I'm pretty sure land is a lot cheaper in middle of nowhere Texas versus South Florida as well.

 

 

Middle of nowhere Texas??

I have no values to verify this, but I'm pretty sure land is a lot cheaper in middle of nowhere Texas versus South Florida as well.

 

 

Middle of nowhere Texas??

yeah, maybe he put that a bit harshly.

 

in terms of population density, san antonio does manage to beat out a town like memphis by a smidge.

I have no values to verify this, but I'm pretty sure land is a lot cheaper in middle of nowhere Texas versus South Florida as well.

 

 

Middle of nowhere Texas??

yeah, maybe he put that a bit harshly.

 

in terms of population density, san antonio does manage to beat out a town like memphis by a smidge.

 

In terms of urban density San Antonio is at 3,255 (2000) while Miami is at 4,408 (2000). Not too huge of a difference.

In terms of urban density San Antonio is at 3,255 (2000) while Miami is at 4,408 (2000). Not too huge of a difference.

 

The City of Miami is geographically very small. The South Florida Metropolitan Area is very large, widespread, and populated.

I have no values to verify this, but I'm pretty sure land is a lot cheaper in middle of nowhere Texas versus South Florida as well.

 

 

Middle of nowhere Texas??

yeah, maybe he put that a bit harshly.

 

in terms of population density, san antonio does manage to beat out a town like memphis by a smidge.

 

In terms of urban density San Antonio is at 3,255 (2000) while Miami is at 4,408 (2000). Not too huge of a difference.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Miami:

 

In terms of land area, the city of Miami is one of the smallest major cities in the United States. According to the US Census Bureau, the city encompasses a total area of 55.27 mi? (143.15 sq. km). Of that area, 35.67 sq. miles (92.68 sq. km) are land and 19.59 sq. miles (50.73 sq. km) are water. Miami is slightly smaller in land area than San Francisco and Boston.

 

The city is located at 25?47′16″N, 80?13′27″WGRI1.

 

Miami is the 46th most populous city in the U.S., just behind Minneapolis and Omaha. The metropolitan area, which includes Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, ranks sixth in the United States behind Dallas and is the largest metropolitan area in the Southeastern United States. As of the census of 2000, there are 362,470 people, 134,198 households, and 83,336 families residing in the city. The population density is 3,923.5/km? (10,160.9/mi?), making Miami one of the most densely populated cities in the country.

 

The population of the metropolitain area is 5,007,564.

 

San Antonio:

 

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 1,067.3 km? (412.07 mi?). 1,055.6 km? (407.56 mi?) of it is land and 11.7 km? (4.51 mi?) of it is water.

 

San Antonio is the county seat of Bexar County located within the South Texas region of the U.S. state of Texas. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the city had a population of 1.1 million (though a July 1, 2004 estimate by the U.S. Census placed the city's population over 1.2 million making it the second-largest city within Texas and eighth-largest in the country). The San Antonio metropolitan area, however, is the third-largest in the state and 29th in the United States, with a population of about 1.8 million.

 

Miami is soooooo much smaller than the city of San Antonio.

I have no values to verify this, but I'm pretty sure land is a lot cheaper in middle of nowhere Texas versus South Florida as well.

 

 

Middle of nowhere Texas??

yeah, maybe he put that a bit harshly.

 

in terms of population density, san antonio does manage to beat out a town like memphis by a smidge.

 

In terms of urban density San Antonio is at 3,255 (2000) while Miami is at 4,408 (2000). Not too huge of a difference.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Miami:

 

In terms of land area, the city of Miami is one of the smallest major cities in the United States. According to the US Census Bureau, the city encompasses a total area of 55.27 mi? (143.15 sq. km). Of that area, 35.67 sq. miles (92.68 sq. km) are land and 19.59 sq. miles (50.73 sq. km) are water. Miami is slightly smaller in land area than San Francisco and Boston.

 

The city is located at 25?47′16″N, 80?13′27″WGRI1.

 

Miami is the 46th most populous city in the U.S., just behind Minneapolis and Omaha. The metropolitan area, which includes Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, ranks sixth in the United States behind Dallas and is the largest metropolitan area in the Southeastern United States. As of the census of 2000, there are 362,470 people, 134,198 households, and 83,336 families residing in the city. The population density is 3,923.5/km? (10,160.9/mi?), making Miami one of the most densely populated cities in the country.

 

The population of the metropolitain area is 5,007,564.

 

San Antonio:

 

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 1,067.3 km? (412.07 mi?). 1,055.6 km? (407.56 mi?) of it is land and 11.7 km? (4.51 mi?) of it is water.

 

San Antonio is the county seat of Bexar County located within the South Texas region of the U.S. state of Texas. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the city had a population of 1.1 million (though a July 1, 2004 estimate by the U.S. Census placed the city's population over 1.2 million making it the second-largest city within Texas and eighth-largest in the country). The San Antonio metropolitan area, however, is the third-largest in the state and 29th in the United States, with a population of about 1.8 million.

 

Miami is soooooo much smaller than the city of San Antonio.

 

Well technically Miami is much smaller than San Antonio

 

The way things are figured currently, the metro area used for television rankings is much bigger for 'Miami'..that is true. But the cities themselves is drastically in San Antonio's favor.

 

Just being an ass

 

If some people truly have their way, and San Antonio gets linked with Austin similar to Dallas/Ft Worth, then things are drastically reducted.

Well the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale market is #17 (1,522,960 TV Homes)...then you add in West Palm Beach-Fort Pierce (751,930 TV Homes) at #38 and Fort Myers-Naples (461,920 TV Homes) at #66, which are all within 2.5 hours drive of Dolphins Stadium. You get 2,736,810 TV Homes which would place the area at #5 in front of Boston (Manchester), San Francisco-Oak-San Jose, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Washington, DC (Hagrstwn), Atlanta, and Houston. It would be only behind New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia.

 

San Antonio (760,410 TV homes) is #37 in front of the West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce, but behind Salt Lake City, Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee. Austin adds 589,360 TV Homes and is #53, behind Jacksonville and ahead of Wilkes Barre-Scranton. The total SA/AUS market would produce 1,349,770 TV Homes which would place the market at #21 in front of St. Louis and Pittsburgh, but behind Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn and Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto.

 

Info Courtesy of Neilsen Media: http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html

 

Market notes on San Antonio: Time Warner Cable dominates the area and FSN Southwest is the area's regional sports network. Any potential team would have to deal with these two entities unless they went uncoventional by dealing with someone like Belo which not only owns major newspapers in Texas, but major TV stations (KENS 5 in SA and KVUE 24 in AUS) along with Texas Cable News. This would severly limit the Marlins potential TV growth. The San Antonio Spurs are currently partnered with KENS 5, KRRT 35, and FSN Southwest.

I ain't never scured!

 

 

I secund dat.

Anyway...I'll be a Marlins fan until I die. If the team is in Miami,or in San Antonio...as long as they keep the name 'Marlins'

Anyway...I'll be a Marlins fan until I die. If the team is in Miami,or in San Antonio...as long as they keep the name 'Marlins'

 

 

That's unlikely. They'd rename.

 

Many in San Antonio feel they'd be named the Missons. In honor of our current minor league team as well as it just fits with 5 Missions in the city of San Antonio.

 

 

 

 

 

I have no values to verify this, but I'm pretty sure land is a lot cheaper in middle of nowhere Texas versus South Florida as well.

 

 

Middle of nowhere Texas??

yeah, maybe he put that a bit harshly.

 

in terms of population density, san antonio does manage to beat out a town like memphis by a smidge.

 

In terms of urban density San Antonio is at 3,255 (2000) while Miami is at 4,408 (2000). Not too huge of a difference.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Miami:

 

In terms of land area, the city of Miami is one of the smallest major cities in the United States. According to the US Census Bureau, the city encompasses a total area of 55.27 mi? (143.15 sq. km). Of that area, 35.67 sq. miles (92.68 sq. km) are land and 19.59 sq. miles (50.73 sq. km) are water. Miami is slightly smaller in land area than San Francisco and Boston.

 

The city is located at 25?47′16″N, 80?13′27″WGRI1.

 

Miami is the 46th most populous city in the U.S., just behind Minneapolis and Omaha. The metropolitan area, which includes Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, ranks sixth in the United States behind Dallas and is the largest metropolitan area in the Southeastern United States. As of the census of 2000, there are 362,470 people, 134,198 households, and 83,336 families residing in the city. The population density is 3,923.5/km? (10,160.9/mi?), making Miami one of the most densely populated cities in the country.

 

The population of the metropolitain area is 5,007,564.

 

San Antonio:

 

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 1,067.3 km? (412.07 mi?). 1,055.6 km? (407.56 mi?) of it is land and 11.7 km? (4.51 mi?) of it is water.

 

San Antonio is the county seat of Bexar County located within the South Texas region of the U.S. state of Texas. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the city had a population of 1.1 million (though a July 1, 2004 estimate by the U.S. Census placed the city's population over 1.2 million making it the second-largest city within Texas and eighth-largest in the country). The San Antonio metropolitan area, however, is the third-largest in the state and 29th in the United States, with a population of about 1.8 million.

 

Miami is soooooo much smaller than the city of San Antonio.

 

The numbers I posted are of the MSA's for both cities not the city size.

 

 

 

In terms of MSA/CMSA size:

 

Miami: 1,116 sq. miles (2000)

 

San Antonio: 408 sq. miles (2000)

Guys, guys, the original statement was about the price of land, which is indisputable, not population density.

 

We all know that the Marlins' current stadium and the proposed San Antonio site are not quite representative of the data you're finding anyways, so spare it.

Guys, guys, the original statement was about the price of land, which is indisputable, not population density.

 

We all know that the Marlins' current stadium and the proposed San Antonio site are not quite representative of the data you're finding anyways, so spare it.

 

The price of land in San Antonio? There is more to a baseball team than the cost of building the ballpark. There is also the question of long-term viability. It has been termed by Judge Wolff as "the onion." Right now, the Marlins took off the first, light layer of the San Antonio "onion." We shall soon see how many layers and how many odors this onion is made of.

There is. I'm not denying that. That's why I haven't jumped on every single mediocre site in Florida that has been proposed in the past year (Hialeah certainly has its merits though). The involved parties want to get this deal done right, but they also want to dedicated the littliest amount of resources. Cheap land, which is abundant in San Antonio and its metropolitan areas and no quite so in South Florida, will help towards atleast one of those goals.

 

Also you're a fool or too narrow-minded if you don't this offer is something productive towards resolution of the Marlins' problems, i.e. a more agreeable deal with San Antonio or forcing South Florida back to the negotiating table. After a year of talking about nothing about nothing, this action will help get the ball rolling again, even if may end in disappointment.