Comments on: The Ricketts’ proposal for Wrigley Field is wrongheaded and deceptive

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:23:38 +0000

I normally don’t like to do research for people, but I like you. Because you like Matt Stairs

http://www.newgeography.com/content/0040-the-decline-chicago-the-city-doesnt-work

By: levistahl

levistahl — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:09:29 +0000

Between 1990 and 2000, Chicago's population grew by 4%, adding 112,290 people to bring its population up to 2,896,016. Cook County, meanwhile, grew by 5%, adding 271, 674 people to bring its population up to 5,376, 741. The 2010 US Census figures aren't in yet, but other sources point to a small drop, but a Census estimate from 2006 does show a 2.2% drop in Chicago's population, down to 2,833,321, which would still leave the number well above 1990 and would be better than the estimated 3.3% population drop for the state as a whole.

By: WhenMattStairsIsKing

WhenMattStairsIsKing — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:36:42 +0000

I live a mile and a half from Wrigley field. I see no one fleeing Chicago. Where are you hearing this? Tell that to the many folks on my train every morning.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:33:00 +0000

I was mainly referring to it’s negative population growth. People are fleeing the city actually. And that could effect the unemployment rates to the + because less people live there today than 9 years ago. Only by a couple % points more than likely though.

By: WhenMattStairsIsKing

WhenMattStairsIsKing — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:00:00 +0000

This is almost an irrelevant comment, but IL unemployment is no worse than the national average. But I entirely agree with you.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:57:55 +0000

It’s no wonder people are fleeing Chicago…. waste in government kills. It’s going to be nice now that Chicago’s economic model is in DC….. This story makes me ill, and I hope this stands out in people’s minds on election day. Private buisness should not be funded by the public. Ever. If the Ricketts want the stadium they own fixed, figure out a way to do it without touching tax dollars. With Taxes that high and the budget in ruins you must assume mass corruption is still par for the course in Chicago. and this guy wants free money for repairs….. nice…

By: Rosenthals Speling Instrukter

Rosenthals Speling Instrukter — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:12:19 +0000

And when did going to a Cubs game constitute amusement again? Last time I remember a Cubs game being amusing was when there was a 6% Charleston tax.

By: levistahl

levistahl — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:09:39 +0000

As Whet Moser pointed out on his Chicago Reader's blog, this is essentially the same approach taken by the city when it sets up Tax Increment Financing districts: cap the amount of property tax money going into the city's general fund at the level it's at today, borrow money to fund improvements to the district, and repay that money with the increased property taxes generated above today's level over a fixed number of years (usually thirty). It's not the worst idea in the world, and it can theoretically be useful in truly blighted areas that need help attracting investment and building infrastructure. But the Daley administration has used it willy-nilly, everywhere from truly rundown areas to the Loop itself, and the amount of money siphoned off via this route is a big reason the city's budget is in such a mess right now. This version seems particularly egregious,and I'm kind of surprised that the Rickettses are so tone-deaf: they really couldn't have picked a worse time to try to float this idea, given the shape of the state and city budgets and the prevailing mood in Illinois. I would have expected them to be more PR-savvy. The general impression of Wrigley is that it's a cash cow, and that any investment in it will easily pay for itself--I can't believe that the Ricketts family thought the public would see this any other way. Finally, I feel like I should mount at least a tepid defense of the amusement tax: if you need revenue, an amusement tax, in concept, isn't the worst idea, because it taxes inessential consumption. In theory, it's less regressive than, say, a general sales tax. Now, in reality, we've got a sales tax over 10% here in Cook County and an amusement tax of 12%, so we get you coming and going. Give me a progressive, graduated income tax instead any day.

By: johnvmoore

johnvmoore — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:40:00 +0000

Here is Tom Ricketts on the record. From last night’s Chicago Tonight:
http://www.wttw.com/chicagotonight/video/zJm9G_Dui_L__xuBW69yNXvTJd_jJBd6/

At about 8:20 he reacts to his father’s statement.

By: apbaguy

apbaguy — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:38:50 +0000

Chicago really should look at SF’s approach to AT&T. That construction was private, but the infrastructure improvements around the ballpark were taxpayer funded. Everybody won (and are still winning) with that arrangement. Wrigley is similarly a jewel in the City, with a near guarantee of attendance, so direct taxpayer funding to benefit the owners is a pure giveaway.

By: ThatGuy

ThatGuy — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:38:17 +0000

Whats really outrageous(besides the whole public funding on stadium thing, cause thats dumb to) is a 12 percent “Amusement” tax. Why on earth does everything need to be taxed. Sales tax isn’t good enough? Because it’s something people enjoy doing, and will spend money on it we need to get every drop we can out of them? Ludicrous.

By: WhenMattStairsIsKing

WhenMattStairsIsKing — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:37:46 +0000

You’re exactly right; the raising of the tax prices is what fans would notice quicker.

As a Cub fan, I’m embarrassed that Ricketts is trying to ask for that kind of money with the debt we have. Wrigley needs to be rehabbed badly, but to put the weight of that on the general public just wrong.

I hope they heed the Trib’s advice.