Tom Tunney now fighting himself over proposed Wrigley changes

The Chicago city council took up the latest iterations of Cubs owner Tom Ricketts’ Wrigley Field renovation plan this week, and they didn’t actually entirely rubber-stamp everything! Yet, anyway:

The revised Wrigley plan now heads to the full council for a vote, where everything will no doubt get worked out between Tunney and himself. Whether anything ever actually gets built, since Ricketts is still insisting on a no-lawsuits pledge before breaking ground, is another story.

 


3 comments on “Tom Tunney now fighting himself over proposed Wrigley changes

  1. The “advertising arch,” is asinine, and while I have read in our local papers some vocal opposition to it, I am surprised there is not more, as the “arch” is effectively over Clark Street, city of Chicago property…so what’s to stop other local based companies, say Boeing, from proposing to put up an advertising arch over Washington street downtown, collecting the revenue for itself, although the arch is constructed on city of Chicago owned Washington street? The Cubs organization does NOT own the streets that border Wrigley Field, and if they want to construct an arch, and the city approves it, why not prior to approval, state “OK, Cubs org. you can have your arch, but we want 30-40% of the advertising revenue associated with the arch as a split.”
    I’m also wondering about opposition from the myriad bars in the neighborhood, regarding the Cubs open air plaza idea/concept…if the Cubs are selling beer, and will likely have patrons “roped off,” so that they have to stay in that area, it may lessen foot traffic among the bars in the area…and that is ripe for opposition from bar owners. Then again, they may feel that there is plenty of business for all, and the Cubs org’s contract with Budweiser precludes them from offering more variety as you can get in the local bars (Goose Island & other local brews…although Goose really is no longer a local brew, having been bought by AB some years ago)

  2. I need to see if my city will give me the right to place an arch above my street. I could stop paying my mortgage!

  3. Dan: A revenue sharing agreement should have been a non-negotiable condition for the city, IMO. No surprise that the city rolled over and let the Ricketts family “do what they will” with them.

    Neil: Re: Tunney, isn’t the best conflict in literature always ‘internal’? If it is eventually proved that Tunney does have multiple personalities (as his curious and often contradictory positions on all issues related to the Cubs might suggest), can all his agreements be quashed because “somebody else” signed them???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

(Please note that personal attacks on other commenters are not permitted, and will be deleted.)

25,830 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>