Ricketts Family Annoyance Thread

[Eli]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

[Eli]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

[Slaky]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

I would very much like to see someone raze their fucking buildings overnight. I don't care who is inside.

[Saul Goodman]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

I would very much like to see someone raze their fucking buildings overnight. I don't care who is inside.

Mayor Daley, Chicago needs you.  He hates the Cubs, he loves tearing shit up at midnight, he's a perfect fit.

[ChuckD]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

Question for the lawyers of the board since it's not mentioned in that article. It's been a while since I studied land use/property law, but I seem to recall there being easements that property owners can get which "run with the land" and allow the owner of the property the right to a viewshed (usually for beachside properties, but this would seem to be the same principle)? Do the rooftop owners have such easements?

[motown]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

I give the rooftops credit for turning three dudes hanging out with a grill into bleachers packed with 100+ paying customers. Couldn't the Cubs, back in the day, have bought up all those buildings themselves for a song and done the same thing themselves?

Still, that doesn't give the roofies ownership of the view, and reduces my desire to see the rooftops burned to the ground very little.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

I would very much like to see someone raze their fucking buildings overnight. I don't care who is inside.

Mayor Daley, Chicago needs you.  He hates the Cubs, he loves tearing shit up at midnight, he's a perfect fit.

Rahm seems to have the all tools he needs.

[Saul Goodman]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

I would very much like to see someone raze their fucking buildings overnight. I don't care who is inside.

Mayor Daley, Chicago needs you.  He hates the Cubs, he loves tearing shit up at midnight, he's a perfect fit.

Rahm seems to have the all tools he needs.

Probably a good idea, Daley might "accidentally" swerve into, say, the left field bleachers.  Actually, no.  Go ahead.

[Tonker]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

I give the rooftops credit for turning three dudes hanging out with a grill into bleachers packed with 100+ paying customers. Couldn't the Cubs, back in the day, have bought up all those buildings themselves for a song and done the same thing themselves?

Still, that doesn't give the roofies ownership of the view, and reduces my desire to see the rooftops burned to the ground very little.

Another SUPYAD.  It's obviously the season for them.

[Quality Start Machine]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

Question for the lawyers of the board since it's not mentioned in that article. It's been a while since I studied land use/property law, but I seem to recall there being easements that property owners can get which "run with the land" and allow the owner of the property the right to a viewshed (usually for beachside properties, but this would seem to be the same principle)? Do the rooftop owners have such easements?

I just saw the roofies more or less under the same principle as stealing cable. Getting the goods and services without paying for it. Would that type of law be more applicable?

[CT III]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

Question for the lawyers of the board since it's not mentioned in that article. It's been a while since I studied land use/property law, but I seem to recall there being easements that property owners can get which "run with the land" and allow the owner of the property the right to a viewshed (usually for beachside properties, but this would seem to be the same principle)? Do the rooftop owners have such easements?

I had always assumed that the revenue sharing agreement that the two sides signed probably afforded some sort of protection to the rooftop owners view.  Nice choice, Crane.

Also, this shit is just infuriating:

Sources said the rooftop owners demanded that the massive video scoreboard planned for left-field also be moved to the top of a rooftop building.

[Slaky]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

Question for the lawyers of the board since it's not mentioned in that article. It's been a while since I studied land use/property law, but I seem to recall there being easements that property owners can get which "run with the land" and allow the owner of the property the right to a viewshed (usually for beachside properties, but this would seem to be the same principle)? Do the rooftop owners have such easements?

I had always assumed that the revenue sharing agreement that the two sides signed probably afforded some sort of protection to the rooftop owners view.  Nice choice, Crane.

Also, this shit is just infuriating:

Sources said the rooftop owners demanded that the massive video scoreboard planned for left-field also be moved to the top of a rooftop building.

HAHA. Yeah, just put that scoreboard on my building. Yep.

Oh that's mine now, btw. I'm gonna show some movies on it when the Cubs aren't playing and make more money.

[thehawk]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

Question for the lawyers of the board since it's not mentioned in that article. It's been a while since I studied land use/property law, but I seem to recall there being easements that property owners can get which "run with the land" and allow the owner of the property the right to a viewshed (usually for beachside properties, but this would seem to be the same principle)? Do the rooftop owners have such easements?

I just saw the roofies more or less under the same principle as stealing cable. Getting the goods and services without paying for it. Would that type of law be more applicable?

That may had been the case in the past, but the rooftop owners have been paying 17% of their gross to the Cubs for a while now.  Apparently the revenue sharing deal has some language that could be construed as saying that in exchange for those payments the Cubs will not make changes to the bleachers that would adversely effect the views, but it is apparently far from clear exactly what the langague says or how it applies here (which is what courts are for).

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Not sure guys. I think I'm done.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/25113883-418/wrigley-field-deal-fell-apart-at-stormy-session-with-cubs-rooftop-owners.html

I haven't followed all this very closely, but I guess I have never understood why rooftop owners feel they have the right to a clear view inside Wrigley Field.

Who owns the view is a big legal question.

I understand that it's a complicated legal issue. But from a common-sense perspective, I don't think the rooftops owners deserve anything. Again, just me.

I would very much like to see someone raze their fucking buildings overnight. I don't care who is inside. the Cubs follow through on their threats to move somewhere else.

Seeing that hag cow Beth Murphy and her merry band of self-righteous freeloaders choking on their own vomit would make my year'd.