What are your thoughts on the rooftop business owners near Wrigley?

[Papa Deuce]

I was at one of those businesses in 2013, and what a lot of fun it was. The Cubs are surely just thinking about what is best for them, but really, I think Chicago as a whole needs those businesses. When I went, in September, it seemed like 1/2 the people on the roof I was on was a tourist..... I bet those businesses do create a lot of tourism. Though I may never get back there again, I am glad I got to do it.

[Gregg]

My thoughts are that greed wrecked the whole thing (and not the Cubs).

It started with a few chairs, then some makeshift bleachers, then to big business. The Cubs owe them nothing. The sooner they go back to plain old rooftops the better I will like it. That said I am glad that you had fun when you were there.

[dslaw]

A long time ago it was guys standing on the roof watching the game and I thought it was very cool. Once the owners started charging for admission I was hoping the Cubs would do something to block the view. But then the team entered into an agreement where they got some of the revenue so I think the Cubs owe something to the rooftop owners now. Maybe not legally under the contract but if the Cubs got 50% of my revenue so I built seats and other items figuring on future returns and now the Cubs say "Sorry" I would be upset too.

[james33]

Agree that the Cubs should owe them nothing. Rooftop owners had their run, made their money, and had to figure that the party would end at some point.

But the Cubs did sign some sort of 20 year agreement with rooftop owners in 2004, so its a legal issue. More detail than you need here:

http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2014/1/28/5353708/rooftops-cubs-contract

[Don Quixote]

It's Chicago. Whoever makes the bigger "donations" to the Democratic Party and any judge who may be involved is going to win.

Seriously, though, I'm old enough to remember when the rooftops were just that--a bunch of guys sitting in lawn chairs, drinking Old Style and watching the games. I remember watching a Reds broadcast c. 1989 and seeing Tom Browning up on a rooftop, in uniform, having a beer with the guys up there (no, he wasn't pitching that day). "The Rooftops" appear to have turned into an industry since then, one that leeches off the Cubs. The team has tried to make nice with them. My reading as an informed non-lawyer (where are you, Lucky?) is that if the city administration approves an expansion, "The Rooftops" don't get a vote in the matter, and if they're blocked, hard cheese.

[james33]

It's Chicago. Whoever makes the bigger "donations" to the Democratic Party and any judge who may be involved is going to win.

That would be the Cubs/ownership to Rahm. Doesn't help the rooftop owners that they are suing the city as well as the Cubs about this.

[chancellor]

Neither of those things matter in the least in a contract dispute. The city, however, enjoys qualified immunity from lawsuits.

Absolutely true. Only reason I can think of for including the city is Rahm's in a brutal 5-way primary, likely followed by a runoff, and their lawyers are probably hoping he'll throw Cubs ownership under the bus for some positive publicity.

My money is on the Cubs ownership winning, too, but there might be enough there to induce them to settle.

[chancellor]

First rule of litigation: sue everyone you possibly can. I'm not sure without reading the complaint what the city's role is in this whole thing, beyond giving the okay to stadium expansion. Obviously it's something related to that.

How soon do you get to start suing everybody?

[chancellor]

Gonna be a while. You'll know because you'll get the summons in the mail.

LOL. I will hopefully be safely retired in Costa Rica by then.

[chancellor]

Diversity jurisdiction in federal district court it is, then!

I'll start worrying when Dog the Bounty Hunter shows up.

[bryanbutler]

I'll start worrying when Doig the Bounty Hunter shows up.

fixed.

but that'd be mexico instead of costa rica, wouldn't it?

[Gregg]

This is from ESPN:

CHICAGO -- A temporary restraining order petition on a video board and additional signage planned for the right field bleachers at Wrigley Field was denied by U.S. District Court Judge Virginia M. Kendall at Everett M. Dirksen U.S. Courthouse on Thursday morning.

Kendall ruled the temporary restraining order, brought by attorneys for a group of investors who own two rooftop clubs along Sheffield Ave., did not show that "irreparable harm" would come to the businesses before an "expedited" preliminary injunction hearing.

Kendall set 11 a.m. ET on March 23 for that hearing to determine whether or not the Cubs are allowed to erect a 2,250-square-foot video board along other signage that would block the views from the rooftops in question.