Mariners Hope Cano Draws Fans, Other FAs Braves Make Pitch To Developers For New Ballpark Vikings Concede In Fight Against Wells Fargo Signage NBA Kings Shopping Arena Naming Rights O's Raising Season-Ticket Prices Hershiser Leaving ESPN For Dodgers RSN Rooftop Signs Are Sticking Point In Vikings Project 'Dega To Remove Allison Grandstand Churchill Downs Struggles During Fall Meet Wrigley Could Be Allowed To Push Back Wall
SBD/January 22, 2013/Facilities
Chicago Considers Easing Landmark Restrictions For Wrigley Field Renovations
Published January 22, 2013
MAKING A CASE: In Illinois, Mike Imren writes, "As long as the Cubs continue paying taxes at a high level, the only better new plan would be to build a replica Wrigley Field somewhere else like the suburbs.” While it is “too dramatic to say that Wrigley Field is an ill wind away from falling down, it has outlived its usefulness for 21st century professional baseball.” As long as the Ricketts are “willing to ante up, the city should be willing to let them, albeit with a sane system of checks and balances” (Illinois DAILY HERALD, 1/22). A CHICAGO TRIBUNE editorial states the Ricketts “deserve credit for their efforts to get buy-in from fans, neighbors and surrounding businesses.” The editorial: “We're especially happy that the Cubs have come up with a Plan B to finance the face-lift. … This is no time for taxpayers to shoulder the costs and risks of upgrading a privately owned stadium.” But it continues: “It's not fair for the team to have its hands tied, either. Yes, the stadium is a landmark, but it houses a functioning business that can't survive unless the owners are allowed to adapt to consumer demands” (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 1/22). In Chicago, Rick Telander writes under the header, “It Should Be Cubs First, Wrigley Second.” The Cubs' job is “to win a World Series before we all drift beyond the vines” (CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, 1/22).