hnd wrote:
not so sure. from a distance (oot) but as a lifelong fan, the rooftops created some nostalgic feelings but really, wrigley would of survived and done well regardless of them being there or not. obviously, the other way around, not so much.
i think the rooftop owners should of seen the writing on the wall and gotten out. thats the most prudent business decision. contracts can be broken, penalties paid, and both can move on. the rooftop owners have always been not the ones in power here. i think they were shortsighted. this opinion comes to you from a acknowledged completely not in the know viewpoint.
First of all, there were buildings on those streets before Weeghman ever built his ballpark. Second, there seems to be some weird idea among a lot of fans that the ability to slap up more signs correlates with a better product on the field. Obviously false, but whatever. These are discussions we've had here time and time again.
I'm really just curious as to why anyone would characterize the owners of certain building as scumbags. I'm not saying they're not. I don't know them. Is Ricketts a scumbag for trying to mooch complete city streets?