Wrigleyville Neighborhood Meeting Look-In

Wrigleyville Neighborhood Meeting Look-In

Thanks to the kind individual who runs the Wrigleyville Nation Twitter account, we got a good look-in at the Lakeview community meeting on Monday night between the neighbors, city officials and Cubs representatives.  The relevant tweets that summarize the entire meeting:

 


For their part, the Cubs seemed mostly courteous and answered all the questions they could save for a few that they were not at liberty to disclose responses to as of yet, such as the revenue coming in from the new signs (still seven) proposed to go up in the outfield.  We're sort of in the camp that thinks the rooftops don't have a legal fight in this, but there are some very irritated neighbors who don't seem to like that the Cubs are going forward with this anyway, especially without communicating with the neighborhood about the proposed changes first.

To this, I am a bit amused.  After all, the Cubs have been championing a Wrigley makeover ever since I went to the Cubs Convention more than two years ago.  They have talked about the possibility of a big screen at least since then, and have been in communication with the city, Alderman Tom Tunney, and the neighborhood since, trying to be a good neighbor.  At some point they just said, "Screw this," and decided to just go forward with it.  I'm very glad for this, and with the Cubs now on the Thursday agenda, we should find out in short order whether the project is approved despite community objections and how soon the Cubs can get this on the road pending any litigation (that I believe will be quashed in short order).

 

Well Mr. Tunney, maybe you should have told your constituents to suck it?  But of course that would be political suicide even though the city is obviously supporting the Cubs and Tom Ricketts has the leverage here (again, depending on whatever litigation he has to deal with).


It's also unreasonable for a bunch of people who live next to a Major League Baseball stadium to expect a normal living situation, and to expect said MLB franchise to just eat lost revenue year after year, but I digress.  I believe the Cubs will gain approval on Thursday as anticipated, but they won't have at least one supporter:

 

 

The Cubs did agree to release the results of light and sound studies and adjust the noise and light level of their signs and speakers accordingly.  And yeah, the Cubs have to be pretty good neighbors, letting the neighbors sneak peeks at their product for marginal fees.  I also found these other tweets funny:

 


I love these guys.  Anyway, assuming everything is hunky-dory, it sounds like there is in fact a timeline!

 

 

Very good to know this, and again thanks to that Tweeter for hooking us up.

 

Please subscribe to our blogs (info here) and follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

Leave a comment
  • The one relevant thing in the linked Anno Catuli article is "The answer is simple. They know the contract just as well as the Cubs do, and they know the wording works in the Cubs favor."

    Besides that, everyone knows what the contract is, since the Tribune posted it. While one may quibble whether adding 5 seats to the bleachers is a "city approved expansion," the remedies are clearly stated in the contract (1) that the Cubs would have to pay 17% of the cost of raising the rooftop bleachers to a certain point in time, and most importantly (2) any dispute goes to arbitration. The rooftop owners are not going to court, just like Donald Sterling's lawyers are not going to get a probate case removed to federal court. Tunney is just bloviating, but if he does anything more to ball up the situation, I'm sure Emanuel will find an opponent for him. Maybe Laura Ricketts.

    As the article indicates, the only doubt is whether the Landmarks Commission will approve the additional signs, or Ricketts has to go back to what was approved last year, but despite Bruce Levine keeping up his hokum that "the Ricketts fear an injunction," even he realizes that it can only go to arbitration. Hence, there is no reason not to break ground July 14, 2014.

  • In reply to jack:

    Laura might be a fun alderman!

  • In reply to Rice Cube:

    Might even marry Deb Mell, who is supposedly going through a messy divorce.

  • In reply to jack:

    It would actually be really cool for the city to see that, being that it's legal in Illinois now.

Leave a comment