Thoughts on the Wrigley Naming Controversy and Other Stuff

I have to tell you that Wrigley Field will always be Wrigley Field to me. I still call the South Side joint Comiskey. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, or a ball park as stale and rank....

If it nets the owners a few bucks to help the organization, it doesn't bother me. What I want is to see these bastards win the World Series. I'm not really concerned about what they call the edifice it happens in.

Let's face it, the park's infrastructure is in disrepair and there are going to have to be major renovation in order to keep the place safe. I'm not personally committed to the netting as a great long-term solution to falling concrete. Given the situation, there will have to be major decisions made. I'm in favor of doing whatever it takes to keep the franchise in good health while also keeping in mind the best inerests of the neighborhood.

There was a lot of angst and fervor over the Soldier Field renovations. Soldier Field was delisted as a Landmark and is currently NFL stadium with the least seating capacity. This is not an example of a rousing success. However, we seemed to have moved on. The Bears lost the Big Game, but at least the fans recognized that witnissing Hester dance his way to the end zone was more important than whether the stadium still looked the same as it did in 1985.

Zell seems hell bent on getting maximum value. If that meant ripping the place apart and selling it piece by piece as numbered collectibles, I'm pretty sure that would be in development right now. If I were a prospective buyer, I would not want the team without the stadium, but that's just me. When I straighten out my $1.5 billion financing deal, I'll let you know. I don't blame Zell, he is looking out for the bottom line, but I don't have to smile while he does it.

There are other concerns with the proposed sale of Wrigley Field to the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority. These have been addressed by the fine Mayor of Chicago. In short, the Honorable Mayor Richard M. Daley mentions that changing landmark status for a building that all parties worked hard to get not that long ago seems silly. What, in fact, is the reasoning behind all this? Money, of course, and The Mayor knows this.

The Mayor astutely points out that the main priority of the State and the City is not diverting sales-tax revenue toward fixing Wrigley Field. In the face of recently averted budget concerns and CTA doomsday scenarios, it's hard to argue with The Mayor. He took a minute to level similar concerns regarding spending $40 million to replace a Northern Illinois University building on the sole basis that it was the sight of a recent tragedy. On that basis alone, I think we could all agree that Wrigley Field probably should be torn down. It's seem so much tragedy and misery that it oozes out of the very concrete that dangles perilously over your drunken head.

There is a lot of Big Money and Political Clout circling this situation. Sadly, these two forces of nature are often too intertwined to know what's best for anyone but themselves.