I'm disappointed it took me so long to come up with this.
The Cubs need more night games--eventually up to 55 home games at night per season, up from their current limit of 30. The Cubs' neighbors who forced through the city ordinance banning night games at Wrigley Field, with the help of former Ald. Bernie Hansen, want the Cubs to stay in the neighborhood. (The Cubs receive permission from the city to play a limited number of night games per season, but the ordinance does ban night games at Wrigley Field. That limited number stands at 30.) So the Cubs call Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) for a friendly meeting. Then the Cubs, in a respectful, polite way, will tell the alderman: If we don't start playing as many night games as we want, whenever we want (including Fridays and Saturdays), beginning with the 2011 season, we won't play a full schedule in Wrigley Field anymore.
With a little planning, the Cubs could probably implement this plan this season. Owner Tom Ricketts places a call to his crosstown colleague, White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf. Would it be all right if we used your ballpark for a few games? Uncle Jerry would be delighted. The decision wouldn't really be up to him; it would be up to the government agency that runs the taxpayer-financed and -owned ballpark. It would also need MLB commissioner Bud Selig's rubber stamp. But I'm sure everyone would be agreeable. Reinsdorf would love to show off his ballpark to a fresh audience of Cubs fans, most of whom would only venture to Bridgeport to see the Cubs anyway. With the current interleague schedule of just three Cubs games per season at U.S. Cellular Field, very few Cubs fans have ever visited the South Side ballpark because those tickets are in such high demand. Reinsdorf and the White Sox would enjoy additional revenue from Cubs games, which they would share with the Cubs.
Happily, several White Sox road trips and Cubs homestands coincide in the heat of the summer this season. Here's a sample itinerary:
Thurs. July 15 - Sun. July 25: the Cubs add another two night games to their schedule.
Tues. Aug. 2 - Mon. Aug. 9: the Cubs add another two night games to their schedule.
Mon. Aug. 16 - Mon. Aug. 23: the Cubs add another three night games to their schedule.
In three stretches, that's an increase of 7 night games--23 percent over the Cubs' permitted limit of just 30 night games in that dump Wrigley Field. But moving these games 8.1 miles south poses serious consequences for Wrigley's Lakeview neighborhood, commonly known as Wrigleyville. Moving so many games in the heat of the summer--which is the whole point, to give the players respite from the brutal sunshine. This is also the most profitable time of year for businesses that depend on Cubs fans spending time and money in the neighborhood. If the Cubs aren't home for this critical period, that would be devastating for numerous bars and restaurants.
And I think the Cubs should go right ahead and do it. The night-game limit is keeping the Cubs from their goal of bringing a World Series championship to Wrigley Field. If the Cubs convince their Wrigley neighbors the night-game limit makes it impossible for them to be competitive, and that they will seriously consider and act upon alternatives, the neighbors will knock down Ald. Tunney's door, demanding that he give the Cubs the night games they want.
Working this out with the fans is really a minor issue. The Cubs could provide bus service to U.S. Cellular Field from Wrigley Field and the Wrigley night parking lot (Lane Technical High School). Fans could convert their Wrigley seats to U.S. Cellular seats at the Cubs' website. Once Cubs fans visit Sox Park for the first time and enjoy the wide concourses, plentiful concessions, plentiful on-site parking, and unobstructed views of the action, they may not want to go back to Wrigley Field.
Then Uncle Jerry would have the last laugh.
Showing posts with label Lakeview. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lakeview. Show all posts
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Attacks on men in Lincoln Park continue
It happens every few months in Chicago. The typical situation: women walking alone at night are sexually assaulted in North Side neighborhoods with high concentrations of white women, such as Lakeview and Lincoln Park. Last week and yesterday, men were the target--just robbery. In Monday morning's incident, apparently the victim used a bike lock to fight off his attackers while giving up $137.
These perpetrators know they are preying on an unarmed and disarmed populace. Possession of handguns in Chicago is illegal. When the handgun ban ordinance went into effect in 1982, handgun owners were allowed to keep their weapons, avoiding an unpleasant situation of mandatory turn-in or possible door-to-door confiscations. I do not know if "grandfathered" handgun owners are permitted to replace non-working weapons. I do know Chicago Police Headquarters in Bridgeport, at 3510 S. Michigan Ave., has a "Handgun Registration" window.
The biggest proponent of the handgun ban is Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley, who has 24-hour armed, taxpayer-financed Chicago Police protection, as well as a taxpayer-financed Chicago Police squad car in front of his South Loop home at all times.
I sympathize with the victims and anyone who must walk alone at night in the Windy City. From my days of being Carless in Lakeview, there were a few very scary incidents. Fortunately, none resulted in violence or the loss of my wallet/cash, thank G-d. But I know I would have felt so much safer if I had been able to carry a handgun with me, on my person. (Concealed carry is illegal only in Illinois and Wisconsin. The other 48 states respect their citizens' constitutional rights.) Thanks to Chicago law, I was only permitted my wits and pepper spray. Pepper spray is ineffective on attackers under the influence of controlled substances, and many of them are, desperate for cash to fuel their addictions.
The sexual assaults are obviously more serious than robbery attacks, although one victim last week was hospitalized with a broken jaw. I keep hoping that one night, a potential victim will whip her handgun out of her purse and blow her attacker's head off. I would pay to see Mayor Daley's press conference the next morning. What could he say? Would he congratulate the heroine? Would he be furious at her for daring to defend herself in Daleyland, his imaginary crime-free metropolis? Would such an incident encourage the aldermen to consider repealing the handgun ban, against the mayor's threats to their cushy taxpayer-financed jobs?
One of my Facebook Friends posted a news story today on the attacks to warn her male friends. After I suggested someone ought to defend himself with a weapon, another Friend teased me for using the term "pack heat." A loaded phrase, perhaps--pun intended. But the situation is absurd. The city with one of America's highest murder rates has a handgun ban. Exactly how does the handgun ban reduce street violence? It doesn't. It just makes it more difficult for us to defend ourselves against the violent perpetrators who prowl the city, looking for hapless victims.
These perpetrators know they are preying on an unarmed and disarmed populace. Possession of handguns in Chicago is illegal. When the handgun ban ordinance went into effect in 1982, handgun owners were allowed to keep their weapons, avoiding an unpleasant situation of mandatory turn-in or possible door-to-door confiscations. I do not know if "grandfathered" handgun owners are permitted to replace non-working weapons. I do know Chicago Police Headquarters in Bridgeport, at 3510 S. Michigan Ave., has a "Handgun Registration" window.
The biggest proponent of the handgun ban is Hizzonerdamare Richard M. Daley, who has 24-hour armed, taxpayer-financed Chicago Police protection, as well as a taxpayer-financed Chicago Police squad car in front of his South Loop home at all times.
I sympathize with the victims and anyone who must walk alone at night in the Windy City. From my days of being Carless in Lakeview, there were a few very scary incidents. Fortunately, none resulted in violence or the loss of my wallet/cash, thank G-d. But I know I would have felt so much safer if I had been able to carry a handgun with me, on my person. (Concealed carry is illegal only in Illinois and Wisconsin. The other 48 states respect their citizens' constitutional rights.) Thanks to Chicago law, I was only permitted my wits and pepper spray. Pepper spray is ineffective on attackers under the influence of controlled substances, and many of them are, desperate for cash to fuel their addictions.
The sexual assaults are obviously more serious than robbery attacks, although one victim last week was hospitalized with a broken jaw. I keep hoping that one night, a potential victim will whip her handgun out of her purse and blow her attacker's head off. I would pay to see Mayor Daley's press conference the next morning. What could he say? Would he congratulate the heroine? Would he be furious at her for daring to defend herself in Daleyland, his imaginary crime-free metropolis? Would such an incident encourage the aldermen to consider repealing the handgun ban, against the mayor's threats to their cushy taxpayer-financed jobs?
One of my Facebook Friends posted a news story today on the attacks to warn her male friends. After I suggested someone ought to defend himself with a weapon, another Friend teased me for using the term "pack heat." A loaded phrase, perhaps--pun intended. But the situation is absurd. The city with one of America's highest murder rates has a handgun ban. Exactly how does the handgun ban reduce street violence? It doesn't. It just makes it more difficult for us to defend ourselves against the violent perpetrators who prowl the city, looking for hapless victims.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Wrigley Field: A Losing Proposition
I've poked fun at Wrigley Field a few times on my Twitter feed, giving various reasons why I can't stand the ancient ballpark. Here's the full list, subject to additions:
Why I Can't Stand Wrigley Field
1. Not enough night games
2. No Friday or Saturday night games
3. Uncomfortable hard metal seats
4. Unconventional and confusing seat-numbering format
5. Inconvenient and insufficient concession stands
6. Crowded concourses ill-equipped to handle 40,000 fans
7. Disgusting men's rooms--the troughs are infamous
8. No gift shoppe
9. Inadequate out-of-town scoreboard that cannot show all games of a full MLB schedule
10. The scoreboard does not show the game's current score; addition of the linescore is required
11. The scoreboard does not have a video board with which to show replays
12. The scoreboard does not show the team's lineups
13. The scoreboard does not show official scoring for a play in which the scoring is in question other than "H" or "E" (it actually could be both)
14. Most main-level seats between the bases are obstructed-view seats due to the retrofitted suites hanging overhead
15. The public address systems plays "YMCA," possibly the worst song ever, during the first pitching change
16. Unfriendly ushers - I've had several unpleasant experiences
17. The ballpark is decrepit and structurally unsound
The night-game restrictions hit the Cubs very hard financially and competitively. This is most evident for Friday home games. The Cubs play 13 Friday afternoon home games. All other teams play at least 10 of their 13 Friday home games at night. This means all through the hot summer, the Cubs are stuck playing under the hot sun on Fridays. (Saturdays, too, but that's true of many teams due to the Fox television contract with MLB.) The limited number of night games makes attending games for day-shift workers (two-thirds of the workforce) that much more difficult. On weekends, they compete with tourists and families for seats. The television revenue also suffers with fewer daytime viewers. And I didn't even mention the ridiculous parking situation. Speaking of No. 17, the Cubs are very lucky a concrete block hasn't fallen and seriously injured an innocent fan sitting in his seat or walking on the concourse. If the Cubs want to stay in Lakeview, that's fine--they can raze the main structure (leaving the northeast corner--the bleacher section--largely intact) and rebuild it to modern specifications. That would mean two levels of skyboxes, a club level, a gift shoppe, dozens of concession stands, and a VIP seating area near home plate. It would also include wide, climate-controlled concourses, comfortable lounges away from the seating area, and a seat-numbering system that makes sense.
Many Cub fans don't realize how much they are missing by attending games in a ballpark nearly 100 years old. They find out when they cross town to U.S. Cellular Field or take road trips to see the Cubs in Milwaukee, Cincinnati or St. Louis. Teams in those cities play in ballparks built in this decade, and it shows.
It's not cost-effective for the Cubs to spend $100 million or more (without taxpayer help, I hope) to renovate and rebuild "that dump Wrigley Field," as I like to call it, if the night game restrictions continue. The Cubs' new ownership, the Ricketts family, must issue an ultimatum to Mayor Daley, Ald. Tom Tunney (44th), and the anti-Cubs minority in Lakeview: we schedule our games whenever the hell we want, or we're leaving town. I'm sure there are still available parcels of land in the northwest suburbs along the Jane Addams Tollway (I-90) corridor where the Cubs could build a new ballpark with a retractable roof. Inside, it would look a lot like Wrigley Field with a modern twist and 21st Century amenities. It would lack "charm," of course, "charm" being a euphemism for "aging dump." With a new ballpark near their season-ticket base in the northwest suburbs, the Cubs would be able to maximize revenue with parking, stadium advertising (including the video board), and a night-game schedule that resembles that of other teams--about 55 night games per season.* The ballpark would be the crown jewel of the northwest suburbs, joining Allstate Arena, Sears Centre and the Grand Victoria Casino as major entertainment options along I-90.
While the sale of the ballclub seems to be mired in financing difficulties, this is an opportune time for the Ricketts family to make its plans known, in no uncertain terms, for the future of Wrigley Field. The longer renovation waits, the greater the risk of a ticketholder, employee or player being seriously injured by falling concrete or debris. The current situation--not enough night games, and a ballpark in desperate need of repair--hurts the ballclub's value. Mayor Daley and Ald. Tunney need to assure the Ricketts family that their investment will be a sound one. Ballpark renovation should be permitted to begin at the conclusion of the 2009 season. The Friday/Saturday night-game ban should be lifted in time for the 2010 season, and the number of night games should be increased to the point that the Cubs are playing 55 regular-season home games at night by 2012.
*The Cubs currently play just 30 night games at home, a considerable difference of 45 percent compared to other teams and a serious competitive/financial disadvantage.
Why I Can't Stand Wrigley Field
1. Not enough night games
2. No Friday or Saturday night games
3. Uncomfortable hard metal seats
4. Unconventional and confusing seat-numbering format
5. Inconvenient and insufficient concession stands
6. Crowded concourses ill-equipped to handle 40,000 fans
7. Disgusting men's rooms--the troughs are infamous
8. No gift shoppe
9. Inadequate out-of-town scoreboard that cannot show all games of a full MLB schedule
10. The scoreboard does not show the game's current score; addition of the linescore is required
11. The scoreboard does not have a video board with which to show replays
12. The scoreboard does not show the team's lineups
13. The scoreboard does not show official scoring for a play in which the scoring is in question other than "H" or "E" (it actually could be both)
14. Most main-level seats between the bases are obstructed-view seats due to the retrofitted suites hanging overhead
15. The public address systems plays "YMCA," possibly the worst song ever, during the first pitching change
16. Unfriendly ushers - I've had several unpleasant experiences
17. The ballpark is decrepit and structurally unsound
The night-game restrictions hit the Cubs very hard financially and competitively. This is most evident for Friday home games. The Cubs play 13 Friday afternoon home games. All other teams play at least 10 of their 13 Friday home games at night. This means all through the hot summer, the Cubs are stuck playing under the hot sun on Fridays. (Saturdays, too, but that's true of many teams due to the Fox television contract with MLB.) The limited number of night games makes attending games for day-shift workers (two-thirds of the workforce) that much more difficult. On weekends, they compete with tourists and families for seats. The television revenue also suffers with fewer daytime viewers. And I didn't even mention the ridiculous parking situation. Speaking of No. 17, the Cubs are very lucky a concrete block hasn't fallen and seriously injured an innocent fan sitting in his seat or walking on the concourse. If the Cubs want to stay in Lakeview, that's fine--they can raze the main structure (leaving the northeast corner--the bleacher section--largely intact) and rebuild it to modern specifications. That would mean two levels of skyboxes, a club level, a gift shoppe, dozens of concession stands, and a VIP seating area near home plate. It would also include wide, climate-controlled concourses, comfortable lounges away from the seating area, and a seat-numbering system that makes sense.
Many Cub fans don't realize how much they are missing by attending games in a ballpark nearly 100 years old. They find out when they cross town to U.S. Cellular Field or take road trips to see the Cubs in Milwaukee, Cincinnati or St. Louis. Teams in those cities play in ballparks built in this decade, and it shows.
It's not cost-effective for the Cubs to spend $100 million or more (without taxpayer help, I hope) to renovate and rebuild "that dump Wrigley Field," as I like to call it, if the night game restrictions continue. The Cubs' new ownership, the Ricketts family, must issue an ultimatum to Mayor Daley, Ald. Tom Tunney (44th), and the anti-Cubs minority in Lakeview: we schedule our games whenever the hell we want, or we're leaving town. I'm sure there are still available parcels of land in the northwest suburbs along the Jane Addams Tollway (I-90) corridor where the Cubs could build a new ballpark with a retractable roof. Inside, it would look a lot like Wrigley Field with a modern twist and 21st Century amenities. It would lack "charm," of course, "charm" being a euphemism for "aging dump." With a new ballpark near their season-ticket base in the northwest suburbs, the Cubs would be able to maximize revenue with parking, stadium advertising (including the video board), and a night-game schedule that resembles that of other teams--about 55 night games per season.* The ballpark would be the crown jewel of the northwest suburbs, joining Allstate Arena, Sears Centre and the Grand Victoria Casino as major entertainment options along I-90.
While the sale of the ballclub seems to be mired in financing difficulties, this is an opportune time for the Ricketts family to make its plans known, in no uncertain terms, for the future of Wrigley Field. The longer renovation waits, the greater the risk of a ticketholder, employee or player being seriously injured by falling concrete or debris. The current situation--not enough night games, and a ballpark in desperate need of repair--hurts the ballclub's value. Mayor Daley and Ald. Tunney need to assure the Ricketts family that their investment will be a sound one. Ballpark renovation should be permitted to begin at the conclusion of the 2009 season. The Friday/Saturday night-game ban should be lifted in time for the 2010 season, and the number of night games should be increased to the point that the Cubs are playing 55 regular-season home games at night by 2012.
*The Cubs currently play just 30 night games at home, a considerable difference of 45 percent compared to other teams and a serious competitive/financial disadvantage.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Could we take an iPhone Sabbath break?
It would be silly for me to spend a shabbos in a neighborhood with many less-observant Jews and then complain about that situation in a blog. That's not fair. I'm a guest. It's not my house/condo; I'm in no position to complain. So if people want to call the elevators, drive to dinner, take a taxi home, it's really none of my business. I'm not saying a word, and to be honest, it doesn't bother me.
But let me say this. I don't care what night of the week it is. If I'm at a dinner party, my phone stays in my pocket or on my belt. I don't whip it out at the earliest opportunity to show everyone my new Blackberry Pearl, or latest iPhone app, or Samsung PDA. If I'm expecting an important call, I'll warn my host. Otherwise, I'm just not taking calls during dinner. Is that so hard? A friend told me he could never keep his phone off for a whole day. How about a two-hour dinner/dessert party? No, it's more fun to have it on display, I suppose.
But let me say this. I don't care what night of the week it is. If I'm at a dinner party, my phone stays in my pocket or on my belt. I don't whip it out at the earliest opportunity to show everyone my new Blackberry Pearl, or latest iPhone app, or Samsung PDA. If I'm expecting an important call, I'll warn my host. Otherwise, I'm just not taking calls during dinner. Is that so hard? A friend told me he could never keep his phone off for a whole day. How about a two-hour dinner/dessert party? No, it's more fun to have it on display, I suppose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
