WATCH LIVE: SkyCam9 over procession for fallen officers

Wrigley rooftop owners sue City of Chicago

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

City Hall has spent years trying to broker peace between the Cubs and the Wrigleyville rooftop owners.  For its trouble it now has a lawsuit, filed against it by eight of those club owners.

The lawsuit asks a judge to review last month’s unanimous decision by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks to OK the Cubs latest renovation plan for Wrigley.

That plan calls for up to seven outfield signs and video screens that threaten the rooftop’s views.   The owners say that would violate the 2004 ordinance that landmarked parts of the 100-year-old ballpark, including the ivy covered outfield walls and uninterrupted sweep of the bleachers and old manual scoreboard.

The suit does not claim a violation of the clubs’ contract with the Cubs which has 10 more years to run.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


  • Joann

    Let’s have the Cubs move out of Wrigleyville & then the roof owners can charge $100 to watch the pigeons fly by in a neighborhood renamed Nothingville

  • arubatom

    Have to agree with John’s post….the rooftop owners are entitled to nothing. If the ballpark was not there, who’d want to go on the roof? It’s all about them losing money because of the “new view” coming…and like Dick pointed out in his post…(and I’ve followed the team since the great collapse of 1969), there are better things to do than watch the so-called product on the field…go have a picnic somewhere, if all you want to do is sit on a rooftop and drink.

    • Marthastew

      If they were entitled to nothing, then why did the Tribune agree to sign a 23-year contract with them? That was never made clear. Nonetheless, contract law trumps what the Ricketts want–and he knew there the contract existed before he bought the place. If the Cubs go through with violating the contract, the rooftop owners are now entitled to any lost revenues, based on the amount of money they would have made for the remaining 10 years of the contract. Ricketts might as well add any settlement costs to the overall price of rehabbing Wrigley.

      • JR

        Wrong. There is specific language in the contract that states any expansion approved by the city would not violate the agreement. Further, there is also language in the contact that states the cubs would have to pay damages should they block the rooftops view if it happened within an 8 year period of the date of the agreement. The agreement was signed in 2004, which means that provision expired two years ago.

        The rooftops are up a creek and they know it. That’s why 1) only some are suing, not all, and 2) the cubs are not the ones being sued here, the city is. The rooftops somehow need to proof the city approving the plans was unlawful. Good luck with that.