Chicagoist: This Post Presented By State Farm

jmagic

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:33:42 -0600

'tilda: ok ... i understand it now. i see your point, but i guess i'm just at the end of the spectrum of how tiresome this process is becoming. i agree that the ownership - whoever the hell that is - should be paying to bulk of this if not all of it. as taxpayers, we should not have to support this endeavor as it isn't everyone's choice. but, there is this sense that they will no doubt force this down our throats-whatever their solution is. my basic thoughts are ... it's a fucking old stadium and one that has been a part of history and the city's legacy and it should be kept ... is it now our responsibilty? the new owners? the current owners? the city? -- this debate can go on and on. bottom line: whoever buys this thing needs to fix it up and should foot the bill. if the state buys it, it's going to fall to us and how they choose to fund it, likely through tax hikes - will go through even if we battle them because there will be too many heartstrings pulled that the public will give in. should it be that way - hell no.

smussy

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:27:45 -0600

i hate this whole effing thing. big time. but just for the fact of the matter .... doesn't one part of the city already have a higher sales tax than other parts? isn't there that weird loop sales tax thing where downtowners pay an extra sales tax? someone?

chimusic

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:07:37 -0600

It would be a disgrace to all Cubs fans if they decide to change the Wrigley Field name that has been a part of Cubs baseball for so long. Good thing they cant do anything to the Cubs Marquee

matilda

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:36:46 -0600

J magic: My tiny increase would be nowhere near a full percentage point, though I am not sure how that would translate into actual percentages. Again, that would be the bow at the end, and just for the immediate area. I much prefer the first two steps. And shouldn't the consumer pay the price for this private product? What I am missing here? Sure, the Cubs bring economic benefits to the city, but it is not like they are losing money, or in danger of losing money, or even in danger of leaving North Side Chicago. If there is debt leftover, let the owner deal with it. That is what a free market is, right? Why should we pay? The Cubs are a private business and part of a larger organization of extremely rich people who enjoy extraordinary anti-trust protections from the citizens of the USA. Why must I bend over once more for these rich people just to remove a bit more risk from their freely-made investments? I know where you are coming from regarding apathy, but I guess my problem with that attitude is it gives people an excuse to not bother their leaders, to not make calls, to not educate fellow citizens, to not write letters to the paper--tactics that still work from time to tim, even in Chicago. I think it's a cop out, even if the odds are stacked against you.

fed up

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:17:46 -0600

Maybe sam zell could pay for rehabbing wrigley field the same way I paid for fixing up my kitchen. I worked a little bit more and used my own money.

jmagic

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:11:53 -0600

"I prefer most from private investment, a good part from higher ticket prices (supply and demand and the Cubs' attendence figures suggest this would work) and, perhaps, a small and relatively symbolic tax gift from the city/state (say, if possible, a tiny sales tax rate increase for restaurants, bars in the immediate area of Wrigley, to expire in a relatively short time--say, 5-10 years) to grease the political wheels. Zell never seems to be happy, after all, unless he is loading his risk onto other people." what constitutes a "tiny sales tax raise?" 3%, 5%, 8%? you think it's going to fly that one area of the city will have a higher sales tax rate than another? you don't think there will be a political in-fight on that? what happens after that 5-10 yr. period and there's still debt leftover? you're still laying it on the consumer to purchase higher-priced tickets and pay more to eat in Wrigleyville than they would say, in Lakeview ... it's not that I'm apathetic to the whole thing, it's that I know it's going to boil down to taxpayer/consumer dollars. the public will pay for it - either way you cut it - whether you support the Cubs and Wrigley Field or you support the private investment. What I'm saying is lets get on with the show already. lay it on me now ...

matilda

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:37:46 -0600

"Let's just move on already. We're all going to end up paying in the end whether this thing is bought by the state or by some corporation -- it's going to come down to tax dollars at some point -- we know this." It such apathy disguised as world-weary cynicism that enables the politicians and business people to keep pulling this shit year after year after year.

jmagic

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:31:43 -0600

Bud - I read the Sun Times' tirade and I really don't know how to respond to it other than they're really banging this thing on all fronts. I'm tired of the drama - it's almost worse than the Brian Roberts trade rumors. Let's just move on already. We're all going to end up paying in the end whether this thing is bought by the state or by some corporation -- it's going to come down to tax dollars at some point -- we know this. Zell is a dick and I think everyone will agree with that, but the sooner this gets done, the sooner we don't have to hear from the assclown. the song "Johnny Quest Thinks We're Sellouts" by Less than Jake comes to mind for some reason ...

Spook

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:55:25 -0600

Two big bad AS$ easter Bunnies...... Spook....Commentator of the Month! Mich....Vice Commentator of the Month thier slogan? Wrigley Field, "Tear it down 08" Now who wants the T shit?!? Pinko? What about you? Does your grand pap or crazy uncle need a shot? The Campaign is buying!

matilda

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:54:44 -0600

For all those in favor of rehabs to the park, how exactly do you want to pay for it? What do you think is the fairest, most efficient way to pay for the hundreds of millions of dollars the rehab project likely will cost? I prefer most from private investment, a good part from higher ticket prices (supply and demand and the Cubs' attendence figures suggest this would work) and, perhaps, a small and relatively symbolic tax gift from the city/state (say, if possible, a tiny sales tax rate increase for restaurants, bars in the immediate area of Wrigley, to expire in a relatively short time--say, 5-10 years) to grease the political wheels. Zell never seems to be happy, after all, unless he is loading his risk onto other people.

mike_thoms

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:43:31 -0600

I'm in favor of any renovation that gets rid of the troughs, I will say that. and it would be great to renovate the concourse. I wonder if the upper deck can be pushed back and up a little bit so it rests on top of the lower roof of the terrace that juts out. because there's really no other way to expand the stadium out, unless you move addison street, which would be a giant cluster fuck. they could always just close off that entire area during a game, turn addison between clark and waveland into a sort of midway, tear down all those eyesores on the south side of addison and make the road go around that. is that any better?

Pinko

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:35:11 -0600

Sam Zell is a total douchebag. Perhaps he should buy the naming rights himself to the restrooms as one gesture of goodwill to the fans before he departs... Excuse me while I go take a piss in the Sam Zell Troughs...

matilda

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:34:15 -0600

Benjy: Fair enough, and I read the editorial a few hours ago. I keep up with the news, thank you very much. But--not be more of an asshole than I already am--how hard is it to write a few words around the links that provide the meat of most Chicagoist posts? You've already done a couple of naming-rights stories, after all, which is arguably a relatively minor issue comparied with the taxpayer funded rehab plan. And the rehab plan is gaining steam, according to actual reporters and report. Do you plan to write about it after it passes? I realize you are not making money off this, and I thank all writers for their efforts, but I just don't get your rationale.

Kevin Robinson

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:26:14 -0600

Yes, Navin. Chicagoist presented by Busted Tees. But the girls are cute, so who cares?

mike_thoms

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:00:45 -0600

I'd be more in favor of the Cubs exploring and/or opening new revenue streams if it meant keeping ticket prices down. but i know it won't. and it pisses me off that Zell picking the team apart piece by piece and selling everything off before he dumps it. That guy is a blight on this city, I don't care which side of Madison you're rooting for.

Navin

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:57:14 -0600

I'm with 'Tilda, You guys should be talking about the millions in property taxes and such that will be lost if the state buys Wrigley on top of us funding improvements. Guess who's going to have to pay the make-up cost for this lost money? No one involved in this would be deal, that's for sure. Chicagoist presented by Busted Tees.

Bud Selig

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:57:11 -0600

Yeah, the Sun Times is real subtle and even-handed with their coverage of this. Anyone see the hysteria-filled front page today? I'm not in favor of the state buying the stadium, and I don't think Wrigley being sponsored by corporations is all bad. When I point out the bleachers I just call them the bleachers, I don't say, "over there are the Bud Light Bleachers." You call it what you want. If the upper deck has some ridiculous corporate sponsor, so be it, but I'm not going to call it anything but the upper deck.

mike_thoms

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:49:50 -0600

I don't think it's the name, i think it's the idea that Crane Kenney passed on last week about actually changing the sign...it would look the same but say something else instead of Wrigley Field. Good to see they probably can't do that.

Benjy Lipsman

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:41:07 -0600

Yes, we're getting sick of all the hand wringing over the possible naming rights, too... but the new developments that it might not be an actual change to the name of the stadium is a rather large piece of news. As for the state's ill-advised purchase of the stadium -- we're not ignoring that. I do intend to post about that, too, in the near future. If you can't wait until then, the Sun-Times has an editorial about it today.

mike_thoms

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:38:42 -0600

Important points mentioned in the article by Blair Kamin though...sort of goes against Kenney's BS line about free speech...what an ass. I like to see Daley balking at relaxing the restrictions...there's a man who knows that 50% of the people who vote of him are Cubs fan. I hope he's not just saying that in public. The whole thing is a scam though. Granted the state did some great things with The Cell, really improved on the mess that it originally was. but they're working with such a small space at Wrigley and it's historic. What else do we have in Chicago if we don't have our famous buildings, our architecture. we should protect any important building at almost any cost.

mich

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:34:18 -0600

tear it down.

peteypants

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:30:04 -0600

some interesting, but minor, developments in the story. but would it have killed you to use another picture for the post. major deja vu felt here.

mike_thoms

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:28:29 -0600

who cares? who cares about what? the naming rights, the state buying the stadium. these are important issues on many levels, whether you're a cubs fan or not.

xlprq

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:20:56 -0600

1...2...3... WHO CARES!

matty

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:13:44 -0600

OH F*** SAKE FIX YOUR SERVER. garhagjhahgaghaghlgahklg

matty

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:13:16 -0600

Honestly if Macy's did the same for Marshall Field's no one would have cared. Like Macy's at Marshall Field's.

matilda

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:12:53 -0600

Dear god, you are falling for the minor and somewhat manufactured controversy of naming rights, while ignoring the bigger issue: The state is pretty close to buying the park, and funding rehabs through tax revenues that will not go to other civic services. Who the hell cares about the naming rights? Well, people easily distracted, I guess. Do you want your tax dollars to help Zell make more money off the sale of the Cubs? That is the real, if biased, question, a question that is more important to Chicago and, in a more general way, or concept of the free market than a silly debate over naming rights.