bmags

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 04:00 PM) Downtown and the area south of downtown look NOTHING like they did 30 years ago. That area absolutely exploded starting around 2000. Short of some crazy plan like building an elevated stadium on the old post office site, or on northerly island or something crazy, I don't know where you could build downtown or in the south loop. It sounds great to say, but where? I think that window is closed. There are areas for a stadium but you certainly would not see the amount of parking lots the white sox currently have. Which is fine as far as I am concerned but would be a huge neighborhood issue.

Make sure your corporate communications team has an answer for this: http://www.businessinsider.com/ruby-tuesda...-harambe-2016-8

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 02:47 PM) The audio is here in the 2nd hour: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/audio/the-boers-bernstein-show/ Sounds like nothing concrete but said rich people think they'll be available soon. He basically said: Lots of people think White Sox will be available relatively soon. Back channel talk among wealthy people wanting to buy Sox. Team valued around $1.1 billion now. They speculated that a new stadium in the loop with the skyline in the background pushes it near $2 million. Thanks for getting this. That's really interesting. Remember how unbelievable it was when Dodgers sold for 2 billion? Crazy how the tv deals have changed the game.

QUOTE (HeGone7 @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 02:29 PM) Late to the party on this and don't have time to scroll through everything. Was this confirmed at some point in this thread as a legit possibility? I'm all for a sale. Not sure what the consensus has been on here but from weeks past, it sure seemed like this would be something welcomed by Sox fans. I can see Cuban's name mentioned above and Berlin's. I don't know much about Berlin, but I'd love Cuban if the owners would approve him. There was no additional reports from anywhere and Bernstein didn't even write a column on it, so I'd recommend not holding your breath. Probably a very weak rumor.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 01:06 PM) Based on polling as of today, Clinton currently has 1023 ways to win. Trump has 1. (scroll down to the bottom) You've posted a few times about ground game advantage and I think Ohio is going to be where we learn a lot about that.

I sure hope it's lower body.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 10:12 AM) Are the Pritzkers all still fighting each other in court over their money? I actually don't know. But they are running a lot of independent companies and donate a lot still, so I don't know how much is reserved.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 11:39 AM) I have been speculating this for a while. There have been some signs: 1. JR's public campaign against Manfred 2. The Sox looking at only short term deals in the off-season - gives a new owner a lot of flexibility to free up operating expenses. 3. The specter of a new TV deal, the speculation around the TV deal could very likely be worth more than that. 4. JR's advanced age and desire to have the family get out of the baseball business This ain't new thou

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 11:27 AM) I don't know if you follow Atrios/eschatonblog but oh man does he hate parking spaces requirements. Portland has pretty strong anti-sprawl legislation. Totally. DC/LA the worst. Again, Chicago is very reasonable but still has them, Chicago did probably the worst in Wicker Park. Did not know about Portland.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 11:30 AM) California also gets the added weird effects of Prop 13 where those people who bought houses in Palo Alto in the 70's that are now worth $2M+ are probably only paying a couple hundred in property taxes. The new owners would get a new evaluation and their taxes would be more in line with what you'd expect for a house of that value. Ha, that too. The capacity of the baby boomers to uniformly screw younger generations and then act like the younger generations are the ones trying to get a special deal without working for it really makes me laugh.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 11:16 AM) Property taxes as a cost factor. Gotcha. This spiral seems 98% due to education funding through prop taxes. As hard as it is to convince people building is good for the country, telling locals to stop funding their schools so much is probably harder/not as much fun.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 11:06 AM) What does Texas's sprawl look like, though? Aren't cities like Houston and Dallas known for being nearly 100% car-dependent with horrific traffic? Not that SF or LA traffic is really great, but I don't know if that's really the model of the future for both environmental reasons and if younger people even want that. That's more of a product of building in an era of the car than their policy of sprawl. They let people build, and the demand for single family homes was a driving factor for that. The good news is that houston and Dallas are attracting more people now that want to live in urban areas and they are not restricting that. What you would see in places like Washington DC and LA are parking space requirements, which have become a key driver in useless space and a reduction of housing units. The market in Chicago/LA/NYC would dictate less parking space requirements, but they are regulating more because incumbents have cars and care about parking. In Houston, they don't have to build any. Your assumption is that their sprawl is because of their policy. But realistically, I have yet to see a movement of regulating density and anti-sprawl. More regulation would likely have led to more sprawl in those areas. For example: DC If DC had same ability to build as Houston, you'd have far, far less sprawl.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 11:07 AM) Property taxes are also a very quiet and quickly expanding part of that problem in a lot of areas. Property taxes as an exclusion tactic you mean or just taxes being too high for new workers to arrive?

I did it! I finally got housing discussion to catch on!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) What's the proposed solution? More high rises? I'm in and around they bay area frequently, and homes are already packed in really tightly. Well palo alto is different in that it requires a certain plot with grass and height restrictions. But San Francisco is only half as dense as Brooklyn. It doesn't require sky scrapers to build more densely (see paris), they are built closely, as in other areas, but they aren't serving as many tenants. And worse, that same lack of density is pushed outside the geographic constraints of San Fran where they all have archaic and stupid rules against building (see Palo Alto)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 10:58 AM) There are a quite a few numbers out there that really give pause to talking about the extent of this economic recovery. Home ownership is a huge one. Despite essentially not having an interest rate in this economy for basically a decade, home ownership is still declining, and is at its lowest rate since the 1960s when it was essentially nearly impossible for a good portion of the country to even buy a house. Productivity and home ownership. I think I posted an article on this in here, but a blogger did a calculation that showed san francisco would require 200,000 new units to push its home prices down to 60% of where they are now (I forgot why they chose that number but it was to target some comparable median). Chicago, to be sure, does a much better job. But of the high productivity areas of the country (New York, Seattle, San Fran, LA) the deference to community sentiment on what is allowed to build is way too onerous and it is killing future generations. Texas has had a huge leg up in just letting people build. This is, of course, how things were when the cities like Chicago, New Yorka nd San Fran were becoming cities. It's amazing how ridiculous peoples ideas of the drivers of housing costs are. And people are way too accepting of them increasing "well if you want to live here you have to pay for it". But, to first point, san francisco productivity for developers has been largely caught up by other areas. At one point are you going to keep accepting 40% of your pay getting sucked up into literal rent when you could live elsewhere and get paid same?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 10:47 AM) http://deadspin.com/the-rio-diving-pool-wh...s-li-1785203864 the diving pool is still green, and divers are complaining of itchy eyes and water that smells like farts Is that bad?

This post: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevo...-palo-alto.html Palo Alto is an extreme, but...man it drives me crazy.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 10:26 AM) The story of winning the gold by a combined margin greater than the champions from 1980 - 2012 combined is astounding...however didn't the score system change which kind of makes that comparison apples to oranges to a degree. Also has the attempted maneuvers in gymnastics become so great that errors are expected if yo uwnatot compete back in teh olden days there seemed to be less errors but I also assume the routines are much greater. Yeah scoring changes are big deal plus there's only 5 vs ... I can't remember like 8 back 2008? Though it seemed like US made some errors, other teams had a lot more falls. China/Russia are good, but, really strange not seeing teams like romania any more.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 10:03 AM) The Bears lead Chicago by a large margin in the Meatball factor. True. Allow me to reiterate my disappointment at how bad the bears sbnation blog is precisely because of this meatball factor.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 07:44 AM) http://sinbin.vegas/report-name-selected-one-three/ Vegas team apparently down to 3 names for the team. And all of them have Hawks in it.. I would think/hope Rocky gives Bettman a call and says hell to the no with that crap. Hell, one is like a combo of the Red Wings and Blackhawks. Just awful. Might as well name themselves the wildcats. Those are like, total middle school mascot names.

QUOTE (RichieZisk @ Aug 12, 2016 -> 09:47 AM) If the team is sold then Andrew Berlin is the most likely local buyer of the team. He already owns a piece of the team (and the Cubs). He is friends with JR who held a private 50th birthday party for him at US Cellular field. He also has turned around the South Bend minor league team which are now affiliated with the Cubs. Unless there is a bidding war with some out of town or even in town investment firm (Chicago based Guggenheim Partners owns the LA Dodgers) Berlin will probably be the next owner of the White Sox which is a good thing since he seems to know what he is doing, has more money than he will ever need so he won't be in it purely for profit, and most importantly of all he is a White Sox fan. http://sportsmockery.com/2016/01/what-beco...einsdorf-66911/ http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/glen...0407-story.html Thanks, I was hoping someone would post a theoretical like this. I looked at the list of chicago billionaires and...you know, I don't see a pritzker getting in it and the rest I've never seen interested. This was helpful, thanks!

I hope Conor Shaw sticks. He was one of the best "gamer"QBs I've ever seen in college. Didn't get to see a lick of the game but local coverage on TV news was pretty brutal. Depth on S, TE and CB isn't good, nor is OL and the past 4 years have indicated that where we are thinnest is where we'll get destroyed.

Damn, get better migo

Jerry Krause is underrated but if one time success means forever credit where does Al Davis stand? Reinsdorf philosophy largely works for orgs too timid to go for it when you have a competitive team near the top, but it's keeping the w sox in limbo.