Comments on: The Ricketts family takes a new tack to get Wrigley Field renovated

By: louhudson23

louhudson23 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:14:44 +0000

That depends entirely upon the deal as negotiated.It can be beneficial and worthwhile and it can be yet another form of Corporate welfare.Which is something the Ricketts are very familiar with. Imagine their astonishment when yet another trip to the buffet line was halted so abruptly. Clearly they draw a line between use of public funds,public education and infrastructure for the enrichment of individuals and the use of public funds which actually benefit the public….what’s a trickle down welfare queen to do??

By: kayooger

kayooger — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:08:19 +0000

I mean “the Calcaterra,” obviously. It’d be even weirder in you referred to yourself by the name of the author of “Sleepers.”

By: escapingexile

escapingexile — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:46:19 +0000

I’ll assume this was directed towards me, so I shall respond accordingly. Reading comprehension is not a difficult task. The question is, do you have the capability to form your own thoughts or are they tethered to only what you read? The field was designated a landmark in 2004, which would be five years before the team was last purchased. This isn’t something that just happened. The Ricketts should have had the foresight to understand what they wanted to do and how they would have to go about doing it when they purchased the team. Now, being a landmark doesn’t prevent you from renovating the site, it merely creates a process in which approvals have to be given from a committee. Basically, in my experience, these committees are merely there to preserve the original aesthetics of the facility but are more than happy to modernize things….. within reason. Now, a plausible explanation of this entire scenario is that the Ricketts family is trying to play hardball by offering outlandish renovation ideas for which they are “willing” to pay for on their own knowing full well that they are going to be denied. They are then using that denial as the reason for which the city should have to foot some of the bill, ultimately, saving themselves hundreds of millions. Come on, try and think outside of the box a little bit. These people don’t get to be billionaires because they are stupid.

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:49:06 +0000

Miami politicians spend a week in Chicago and a week in Caracas as interns….

By: kayooger

kayooger — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:51:09 +0000

Language PSA: If you’re talking about the Calcaterra family, you’d call them the Calcaterras. If you’re talking about the Ricketts family, you call them the Rickettses. Referring to “the Ricketts” is like bestowing a stupid nickname on Tom Ricketts, as if you were referring to yourself as “the Carcaterra.” End of PSA.

By: kyzslew77

kyzslew77 — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:37:31 +0000

Vikings already got theirs (before the Marlins thing blew up) and I think the Bills did too. But yes, hopefully the movement continues to gain steam. Easy for me to say since all of my favorite teams are in stadiums/areas that are less than 20 years old and still in good shape, but still. It’s getting out of hand.

By: kyzslew77

kyzslew77 — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:33:53 +0000

It’s pretty clear from your comment that YOU have never been to the North Side. They could shutter Wrigley tomorrow and the area would (for the foreseeable future) continue to be an attractive place for young professionals with good restaurants and bars.

-former Lakeview resident who moved away because he hated the people around there (and the Cubs fans), but has to acknowledge that it’s a really nice place to live

By: derklempner

derklempner — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:13:23 +0000

Haven’t been to Chicago recently, have you?

By: coryfor3

coryfor3 — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:16:47 +0000

If they can’t fool legislators in Springfield then they can’t fool anyone. It doesn’t get easier than that.

By: deepstblu

deepstblu — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:41:12 +0000

If memory serves, when the Wrigleys held the controlling interest there were some publicly held shares in the Cubs that traded on the over-the-counter market.

By: Reflex

Reflex — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 18:21:56 +0000

Most studies that have been done on the topic have come to the conclusion that sports stadiums, as drivers of the economy, break even at best. The areas immediately around them do tend to prosper, but increased infrastructure and services costs, plus the fact that they tend to simply shuffle local businesses around(that prosperous area means other areas in town do less well, especually at game time), but do not on balance equate to a better economy.

Its fine to want a sports team for the various social aspects it brings to the table, the potential increase of a region in prestige and other factors. But the economic argument has never really made sense.

By: lesnheart

lesnheart — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:57:21 +0000

Again they want to but the city has the stadium as a landmark status, so the city needs to give up some money or let them do what the have to. Dont u understand what u read!!!!!

By: lesnheart

lesnheart — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:53:52 +0000

If u had read it right they want to, but the city has limitations on them.

By: hojo20

hojo20 — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:31:15 +0000

“and schedule games at times that would maximize revenue”

Ugh, goodbye to all the weekday afternoon games.

By: paepae805

paepae805 — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:22:12 +0000

I agree with your statement about public money, but look at what the cubs/or any professional franchise does for the area. How many jobs are created directly or indirectly because of the Cubs. Look at the property values for the area. High property values equals a greater tax base for county/municipality where the team/stadium is located.

I don’t know if you have been to the northside, but if the cubs were not there, I am sure crime, low income housing, etc would dominate that area.

Just my 2 cents worth. I am one for public funding for projects because it serves a greater cause than just lining the owners/players pockets.

By: qcubed3

qcubed3 — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:48:19 +0000

If the Ricketts really did try to tear down Wrigley, the Chicago River would find itself with the same number of Ricketts in it as went missing form the City of Chicago the day before.

By: sheriffpeyton18

sheriffpeyton18 — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:46:20 +0000

Why don’t they sell shares in the team similar to what the Packers did. Sell a share for 200 bucks a piece?

By: mjames1229

mjames1229 — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:33:24 +0000

I think what’s missing in this discussion is that the Ricketts bought a team while KNOWING (or at least, they should have known) the state of the economy in Illinois and Chicago, the ordinances of the Wrigley area, and the confines of the geography.

My personal opinion is that you could sell me on public financing if (for example) a team is threatening to leave town. But that certainly doesn’t apply to the Cubs.

It just seems like the Ricketts are playing themselves like idiots because they are having problems driving new revenue streams. There was probably a reason why the Tribune sold… they couldn’t produce the revenue they wanted. Looks like they found the right rube to sell to.

By: chill1184

chill1184 — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:40:13 +0000

The anti-sports welfare movement is slowly gaining steam. We saw Charles Wang (owner of the NY Islanders) get rejected when he wanted a new tax payer funded building. The fights that are going on in Buffalo (Bills), Minnesota (Vikings), Atlanta (Falcons) are going to be interesting

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:31:56 +0000

I think it's hilarious that a franchise afflicted with an Indonesian prion-vectored neurological disease known to the Sepik River tribes as Die Vloek van die Geitbokshould be owned by someone named after a vitamin deficiency.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:28:34 +0000

Exactly. For some time, and perhaps still, IL was the state in the worst financial shape and there wasn’t a close second.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:27:02 +0000

Only if Miami politicians suddenly held office in Chicago.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:14:39 +0000

Their problem in obtaining public funding wasn’t the Joe Ricketts anti-Obama ad. That was a red herring. In fact, several people in the Ricketts clan are staunch supporters of Obama.

The problem is the city & state are flat broke! There is no money. I think taxpayers in this state are finally starting to wake up to this notion. It would be political suicide to give a billionaire public funds.

The Ricketts should be within their right to renovate that dump as they see fit, as long as they’re using their own money.

By: escapingexile

escapingexile — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:57:09 +0000

I have a problem with people who have enough money to purchase a sports franchise then have the audacity to ask for help from the public to do anything. For me, it’s the equivalent of you just bought yourself a bmw but, in doing so, you have leveraged yourself so much that you need welfare.

By: dcfan4life

dcfan4life — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:56:13 +0000

At least the Ricketts are bad at getting public money. If Jeff Loria owned Wringley they would have renovated it 3 times by now all with public money…

By: chill1184

chill1184 — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:49:47 +0000

The Ricketts family should use their own money if they want to improve their building. Sports welfare is a joke