Joe Ricketts Hates Obama And How It Could Kill Wrigley Fixes

[Sammy Sofa]

The Chicago Cubs are asking for government money (albeit local and not federal dollars) to renovate Wrigley Field.

 

I realize that is how the people who want to make this a story want to frame it for the uninformed, but the Cubs are not asking for government money.

 

Last I checked amusement tax dollars are still government funds.

 

The thing with the Wrigley renovations though is that it's not the Government "spending" money, if it's structured right the direct money they issue will be an investment for the city/state and they should see returns. If they issue bonds and/or loaned money to the Cubs they will eventually receive their principal back + interest, the entertainment tax or whatever Tom wants to tap into is already in place so it's no more added taxes just shifting of who gets it (and let's no fool ourselves here if that tax is already in place it's going to continue to exist even if it is set to expire sometime soon they will find a way to extend it). Plus with Wrigley renovations you have all the indirect benefits of the direct investment, conceivably you add jobs, increase payroll/income tax collection, lower unemployment, people employed by the projects will have more money to spend elsewhere, taxes will be collected on goods/services bought for the projects, Wrigley/added buildings/surrounding buildings would likely see their value increase which would mean added property tax is collected, the first few years of a renovation would likely see more people visiting Wrigley/surrounding area which likely would mean more money being put into the local economy there through Wrigley/Bars/Restaurants/Shops (state/city would be able to collect the sales tax that comes out of that).

[Magnetic Curses]

Rahm is pissed

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120517/BLOGS02/120519836/ricketts-anti-obama-campaign-could-cripple-plan-to-rebuild-wrigley

 

good for rahm, i hope he very publicly shoves a white hot iron up ricketts's ass for this little idiocy.

[Magnetic Curses]

the city makes a crap load of money off the team from taxes, it has for a very long time. they're just asking for some of that money to be put back into the park before it falls apart. I don't see how what they are asking for is wrong. there are plenty of fat lazy people who don't add anything to the city or economy being supported by government money. there are plenty of places tax money is being wasted if they are looking to balance the budget. Doesn't this board have a place for politics? This is going to turn into a very politically driven thread very quickly.

BTW yay for the Ricketts if they get involved in exposing Obama for the joke of a president he is. If the country had known him for what he really was the first time he ran he'd have never been elected. The media has and is doing a grand job of sheltering Obama. He's been easily the worst president of my lifetime.

 

AND I ALSO HATE THAT JANE FONDA!

[questionmarkgrace]

The Chicago Cubs are asking for government money (albeit local and not federal dollars) to renovate Wrigley Field.

 

I realize that is how the people who want to make this a story want to frame it for the uninformed, but the Cubs are not asking for government money.

 

Last I checked amusement tax dollars are still government funds.

 

The thing with the Wrigley renovations though is that it's not the Government "spending" money, if it's structured right the direct money they issue will be an investment for the city/state and they should see returns. If they issue bonds and/or loaned money to the Cubs they will eventually receive their principal back + interest, the entertainment tax or whatever Tom wants to tap into is already in place so it's no more added taxes just shifting of who gets it (and let's no fool ourselves here if that tax is already in place it's going to continue to exist even if it is set to expire sometime soon they will find a way to extend it). Plus with Wrigley renovations you have all the indirect benefits of the direct investment, conceivably you add jobs, increase payroll/income tax collection, lower unemployment, people employed by the projects will have more money to spend elsewhere, taxes will be collected on goods/services bought for the projects, Wrigley/added buildings/surrounding buildings would likely see their value increase which would mean added property tax is collected, the first few years of a renovation would likely see more people visiting Wrigley/surrounding area which likely would mean more money being put into the local economy there through Wrigley/Bars/Restaurants/Shops (state/city would be able to collect the sales tax that comes out of that).

 

You can spin it how you want it but it is still money that would normally be going into the general revenue fund. It may be a good investment long term, but short term it sucks when the city and state have real problems that need to be fixed now. These are problems that transcend the cubs situation. I say let Ricketts fix it themselves and then offer them tax incentives to pay them back over the years. Doing it the other way around just doesnt make sense for the city and state right now. Also according to Crains and the Suntimes, the cubs are looking to keep 50% of the amusement funds increases and would like to use tax free bonds that are normally reserved for infrastructure projects which would save them/cost the city another $30million dollars. Why should the city assume all of the risk in this? I want Wrigley to get fixed as bad as anyone but its got to be the right deal and this just isnt it. On top of it all many of the Wrigley residents are not too happy about plans to close streets, increase night games, have street fairs/festivals/concerts. Its got to work for everyone involved not just for the cubs.

Edited May 20, 2012 by questionmarkgrace

[bcl412]

Isn't there a difference, at least philosophically, in wanting to take city government money but still having an issue with federal spending?

[KingCubsFan]

On top of it all many of the Wrigley residents are not too happy about plans to close streets, increase night games, have street fairs/festivals/concerts. Its got to work for everyone involved not just for the cubs.

This should be the least of anyone's worries. Without Wrigley Field, their home values would fall off a cliff.

[J.R.]

Isn't there a difference, at least philosophically, in wanting to take city government money but still having an issue with federal spending?

 

Joe Ricketts is a five alarm hypocrite.

[Sammy Sofa]

Why should the city assume all of the risk in this?

 

They're not assuming all of the "risk," there's not really all that much risk given how much money Wrigley brings the city, and it makes the city more money down the line. Wrigley is a Chicago institution; hell, it's officially a historical landmark. The city is invested.

 

On top of it all many of the Wrigley residents are not too happy about plans to close streets, increase night games, have street fairs/festivals/concerts. Its got to work for everyone involved not just for the cubs.

 

Seriously, [expletive] the residents. The only reason they have nice homes and the clout to complain about the stadium is because of the stadium they're complaining about. If they had their way they wouldn't want any night games, any street closures or any construction/renovations.

[TruffleShuffle]

Seriously, [expletive] the residents. The only reason they have nice homes and the clout to complain about the stadium is because of the stadium they're complaining about. If they had their way they wouldn't want any night games, any street closures or any construction/renovations.

 

yeah plus unless they inherited their place from great great grandparents, they knew that a ballpark was located in their neighborhood. Don't buy a condo near wrigley and then bitch that it's noisy after night games. If you don't want to deal with that, don't buy a place across from a 40,000 seat ballpark.

[Guest]

Yeah, the Cubs/Wrigley are in the rare position where they can actually say that they've provided a bunch of value to the community. Plus, with the way the community has imposed on them to make it more difficult for them to maximize revenue(day games, landmark status), and the fact that to my knowledge they've never come to the city for assistance before(someone please correct me if I'm wrong), it's far from outrageous for the team to suggest the plan that they have, especially for the relatively modest sum and proportion of total funds.

[dfnowak]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt Ricketts already mention the importance of staying in Wrigley, thus eliminating any possible threat of leaving to be used in negotiating? Might have been able to get more night games, signage and street closures if that card was used.

[Sammy Sofa]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt Ricketts already mention the importance of staying in Wrigley, thus eliminating any possible threat of leaving to be used in negotiating? Might have been able to get more night games, signage and street closures if that card was used.

 

I think they didn't bother; that would have to be one hell of a bluff, and nobody would probably buy it, especially since the Ricketts were so vocal about wanting Wrigley and it's "importance" to the team back during the buying process.

[questionmarkgrace]

The city assumes all of the risk because they have to loan out money that is currently counted on for a number of different projects at a time where they already do not have enough money to pay for basic services let alone all of the infrastructure projects that need to be started and completed. It makes much more sense for the city to re-pay them later with tax breaks then to loan out money that they need to use. Just because the sox and the bulls got a sweet deal doesnt mean its fiscally sound to do so in this economic climate.

[Sammy Sofa]

Again, it's not risk; it's a lock they'll make the money back and then some. The Cubs effectively getting a loan to fix the stadium isn't going to break the bank of the local economy; in the grand scheme of things it's not that much money. I really don't understand what you think the risk is; do you think the city's economy is going to collapse and this can save it? Do you think some critical service or program is going to be cut? You really don't think this presents a pretty clear cut budget to work around/with? They're not going to shut down train renovation or start closing after school programs because of this; its a matter of "OK, the Cubs get the money for this period of time, and then here's when we get it back and then some." It's not just blindly throwing money at a project and having no clue when it's coming back. This is basically as safe an investment of public funds as the city can do right now, and, quite frankly, they need more of.

[Guest]

Again, it's not risk; it's a lock they'll make the money back and then some. The Cubs effectively getting a loan to fix the stadium isn't going to break the bank of the local economy; in the grand scheme of things it's not that much money. I really don't understand what you think the risk is; do you think the city's economy is going to collapse and this can save it? Do you think some critical service or program is going to be cut? You really don't think this presents a pretty clear cut budget to work around/with? They're not going to shut down train renovation or start closing after school programs because of this; its a matter of "OK, the Cubs get the money for this period of time, and then here's when we get it back and then some." It's not just blindly throwing money at a project and having no clue when it's coming back. This is basically as safe an investment of public funds as the city can do right now, and, quite frankly, they need more of.

As long as it's a loan and not a gift, I'm fine with it. Both sides need to realize the symbiotic nature of the relationship. Any one of the Wrigleyville complainers could sell their house tomorrow for much more than they paid for it yesterday. I just don't get that part of the argument.

[jersey cubs fan]

Any one of the Wrigleyville complainers could sell their house tomorrow for much more than they paid for it yesterday. I just don't get that part of the argument.

 

I'm sure that's not close to true.

[SouthSideRyan]

Any one of the Wrigleyville complainers could sell their house tomorrow for much more than they paid for it yesterday. I just don't get that part of the argument.

 

I'm sure that's not close to true.

 

You don't think property value has increased every day for the past 20 years in Wrigleyville?

[Guest]

Any one of the Wrigleyville complainers could sell their house tomorrow for much more than they paid for it yesterday. I just don't get that part of the argument.

 

I'm sure that's not close to true.

It was meant to be rhetorical not litteral, point taken.

[dfnowak]

the Ricketts were so vocal about wanting Wrigley and it's "importance" to the team back during the buying process.

This was what I was thinking. Could have done something similar to what the Bears did to get the Soldier Field renovations paid for...start looking at other potential sites. I remember them even looking at a site in Gary, IN.

[KaiserCesar]

Any one of the Wrigleyville complainers could sell their house tomorrow for much more than they paid for it yesterday. I just don't get that part of the argument.

 

I'm sure that's not close to true.

 

You don't think property value has increased every day for the past 20 years in Wrigleyville?

 

I don't, nor does the Cook County Assessor's office, take a look around at properties on their site

 

http://cookcountyassessor.com/Property_Search/property_details.aspx?pin=14202190431001

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If the loan is such a guaranteed money-maker for the city, why do the Cubs need to go through the city to get the loan for the money they need?

[Sammy Sofa]

Think about what you just said.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Think about what you just said.

 

Once I say stuff, I make it a point never to think about it again. Makes things easier.

[cubbyvirus00]

Any one of the Wrigleyville complainers could sell their house tomorrow for much more than they paid for it yesterday. I just don't get that part of the argument.

 

I'm sure that's not close to true.

 

Please tell me you're joking

[Old Style]

Think about what you just said.

 

Once I say stuff, I make it a point never to think about it again. Makes things easier.

I love this quote so hard.