Cubs to block rooftop views again?

[Derwood]

I've never understood this mentality that rooftop owners are stealing from the Cubs. People are entitled to enjoy the view from their property. If the Cubs coveted the view from those buildings then the Cubs should have bought those buildings.

The Cubs didn't care until the rooftop owners began meddling and held up the building permit when they first started planning the bleacher expansion, as they were afraid the expansion would interfere with their views, and hence, their profits. The rooftop owners brought it on themselves.

 

Exactly. Also, while thats the rooftop owner's property, Wrigley and what goes on inside it belongs to the Cubs and they have every right to block that view if they want to (barring any crazy Chicago zoning laws that I don't know about).

It's like complaining about me putting up curtains in my house because I don't want nosy neighbors looking in.

 

Yeah, I agree. The Cubs absolutely have the right to modify their property to block a view. However, if the Cubs choose NOT to block the view then the neighbors are still entitled to enjoy the view from the property as they see fit.

 

no one is arguing that point though

[Magnetic Curses]

yeah, i don't think this owner is going to get any sympathy. he's profiting from someone else's product.

 

 

Aren't the bars in the area also profiting from someone else's product?

 

not unless those bars are showing the games on television and not paying business rates for cable/dish.

[Mugged By Fluffy]

it's amazing how fast this rooftop commerce has escalated. When I was in undergrad ('92-'96), the only people you saw on those rooftops were the residents of the building. on a nice day you might see 2 or 3 guys sitting around a hibachi, grilling up burgers and drinking cheap beer.

 

It's amazing how the entire Wrigley thing has escalated. I remember going to Cubs games with my Dad and half the ballpark was empty........on the weekend, no less.

 

It all changed in 1984.

 

Not really. It was really easy to get face value tickets from 85-98. By the end of 98, tickets were hard to get. 98 changed everything.

 

The disaster of 99/00 eased some of the demand, but by then people were hooked and preseason sellouts were the norm. 2003 solidified it and now it'll take a lot to deflate that demand.

 

 

I agree, 1998 did it. In 1997 I went to 6 games. 2 games I ordered tix the week prior to the game, 4 of the games were game day walkups. I got upper-deck behind home plate seats in front of the press box, upper deck right next to the camera well, box level seats on the first base side, etc...

 

Once Harry died and the whole celebrity sing along thing started, that was the end of that.

[frostwyrm]

I've never understood this mentality that rooftop owners are stealing from the Cubs. People are entitled to enjoy the view from their property. If the Cubs coveted the view from those buildings then the Cubs should have bought those buildings.

The Cubs didn't care until the rooftop owners began meddling and held up the building permit when they first started planning the bleacher expansion, as they were afraid the expansion would interfere with their views, and hence, their profits. The rooftop owners brought it on themselves.

 

Exactly. Also, while thats the rooftop owner's property, Wrigley and what goes on inside it belongs to the Cubs and they have every right to block that view if they want to (barring any crazy Chicago zoning laws that I don't know about).

It's like complaining about me putting up curtains in my house because I don't want nosy neighbors looking in.

 

Yeah, I agree. The Cubs absolutely have the right to modify their property to block a view. However, if the Cubs choose NOT to block the view then the neighbors are still entitled to enjoy the view from the property as they see fit.

 

Unless there is an agreement in place that they would pay.

 

Depends on the legal status of the agreement. Was it just a handshake deal, or was there a legally binding contract? If so, were there penalties stipulated in the event of a breach of the terms? If it was only a handshake deal then people are entitled to reconsider it.

[Derwood]

I've never understood this mentality that rooftop owners are stealing from the Cubs. People are entitled to enjoy the view from their property. If the Cubs coveted the view from those buildings then the Cubs should have bought those buildings.

The Cubs didn't care until the rooftop owners began meddling and held up the building permit when they first started planning the bleacher expansion, as they were afraid the expansion would interfere with their views, and hence, their profits. The rooftop owners brought it on themselves.

 

Exactly. Also, while thats the rooftop owner's property, Wrigley and what goes on inside it belongs to the Cubs and they have every right to block that view if they want to (barring any crazy Chicago zoning laws that I don't know about).

It's like complaining about me putting up curtains in my house because I don't want nosy neighbors looking in.

 

Yeah, I agree. The Cubs absolutely have the right to modify their property to block a view. However, if the Cubs choose NOT to block the view then the neighbors are still entitled to enjoy the view from the property as they see fit.

 

Unless there is an agreement in place that they would pay.

 

Depends on the legal status of the agreement. Was it just a handshake deal, or was there a legally binding contract? If so, were there penalties stipulated in the event of a breach of the terms? If it was only a handshake deal then people are entitled to reconsider it.

 

i highly doubt it was a handshake deal, not after all the grief the HOA gave them about the bleacher expansion

[Jehrico]

I've never understood this mentality that rooftop owners are stealing from the Cubs. People are entitled to enjoy the view from their property. If the Cubs coveted the view from those buildings then the Cubs should have bought those buildings.

The Cubs didn't care until the rooftop owners began meddling and held up the building permit when they first started planning the bleacher expansion, as they were afraid the expansion would interfere with their views, and hence, their profits. The rooftop owners brought it on themselves.

 

Exactly. Also, while thats the rooftop owner's property, Wrigley and what goes on inside it belongs to the Cubs and they have every right to block that view if they want to (barring any crazy Chicago zoning laws that I don't know about).

It's like complaining about me putting up curtains in my house because I don't want nosy neighbors looking in.

Yeah, I agree. The Cubs absolutely have the right to modify their property to block a view. However, if the Cubs choose NOT to block the view then the neighbors are still entitled to enjoy the view from the property as they see fit.

 

Unless there is an agreement in place that they would pay.

 

Depends on the legal status of the agreement. Was it just a handshake deal, or was there a legally binding contract? If so, were there penalties stipulated in the event of a breach of the terms? If it was only a handshake deal then people are entitled to reconsider it.

It doesn't really depend on the legal status of the agreement. Let's say it was a handshake agreement. The Cubs aren't talking about legal recourses. If the owner doesn't want to pay up, that's fine. The Trib is exercising it's right in either case to erect an obstruction. Even if it was a verbal agreement (that the Cubs alter their bleacher plans and take down the shades in 2004 in exchange for 17%), and that rooftop owner was witnessed by others as agreeing to it, it can still be enforced in court as well. Let's say that the agreement was made by all of the rooftop owners but that one. The Trib obviously still has the right to block them if they want.

 

Either way you look at it, the rooftop owner has no legitimate complaint whatsoever if his rooftops get blocked.

[NCCubFan]

If it was only a handshake deal then people are entitled to reconsider it.

And the Cubs are equally entitled to reconsider not blocking the view.

[frostwyrm]

If it was only a handshake deal then people are entitled to reconsider it.

And the Cubs are equally entitled to reconsider not blocking the view.

 

No argument here. A handshake deal is legally non-binding. It's only valid as long as both parties say it is.

[Jehrico]

If it was only a handshake deal then people are entitled to reconsider it.

And the Cubs are equally entitled to reconsider not blocking the view.

 

No argument here. A handshake deal is legally non-binding. It's only valid as long as both parties say it is.

I don't think that's true. Verbal agreements can still be enforced as contracts. The tricky part is if there's no witness and the sides claim different versions of the agreement. If the owner agreed to it verbally, and the other rooftop owners heard it (and would be willing to testify to that), the agreement could be enforcible. Just because an agreement isn't in writing doesn't mean it doesn't hold any weight legally. Two roommates and I successfully sued a fourth for not paying his share of the rent after he moved out without notice. He never signed any paper agreeing to a set rent on the open room in the house we were all splitting, but that didn't prevent our verbal agreement from sticking in court. The guy took off just before Christmas, and never came back. When we finally got him in court, the judge ordered him to pay rent from January through July, which was when our lease ended.

[Tracer Bullet]

If it was only a handshake deal then people are entitled to reconsider it.

And the Cubs are equally entitled to reconsider not blocking the view.

 

No argument here. A handshake deal is legally non-binding. It's only valid as long as both parties say it is.

 

Some contracts have to be in writing. But your second sentence is a terrible over-simplification.