I'm guessing they don't need to. IIRC, the wording was such that after a certain number of years (which has passed) the contract didn't offer much protection of the rooftop views. A while back, Brett linked an article saying essentially that any expansion of Wrigley that was approved by government wouldn't be a violation of the rooftop deal. I can't see the original, it's behind a pay/register wall at the Trib, but here's Brett's article with an embedded link. http://www.bleachernation.com/2013/02/04/obsessive-wrigley-renovation-watch-some-reported-details-about-the-contract-with-the-rooftops/ Heh, this quote is interesting after the threat from the rooftop owners to take this to court....