The Rosemont Cubs?

Au contraire? How 'bout the friendly confines of North Chicago, Illinois!

 

North Chicago? Don't you mean Kenosha?

 

Has either of you ever BEEN to North Chicago?

 

I can happily say no.

 

OK. I have. Bubbler is trolling.

 

Oh I've been to North Chicago. It's the third-best city in Chicagoland with Chicago in its name!

What's not to love? Access to the Tri-State and the Metra North Line! Deep in the heart of Cubs territory! Undoubtedly, a brownfield or three in which to build a ballpark! North Chicago native Shawn "Matrix" Marion could help foot the bill!

And with a per capita income of $14,564, the new ballpark can protect the legacy of being a playground for the cocksuckers!

How dare Ruckus challenge my Chicago travels! I've been to nearly every suburb with Chicago in its name. My Chicago-named power rankings:

1. Chicago
2. East Chicago, Ind. -- Not wonderful, not as bad as Gary.
3. North Chicago, Ill. -- See Chamber Of Commerce graphs above.
4. Chicago Ridge, Ill. -- Famous for having a water tower you can see off the Tri-State.



5. West Chicago, Ill. -- Not sure if I've been there or not, but I've seen plenty of the St. Naperuoralislelgin megalopolis to know it's probably very similar.
6. Chicago Heights, Ill. -- Underrated in its epic shittiness, probably because of its distance from Chicago proper. Seriously. Don't ever go there. I drove through on the Lincoln Highway after going to a race at Chicagoland Speedway. It has the kind of recently-closed-factory-level-of-blight that has more of an edge to it than neighborhood-that-went-to-seed-50 years ago-level-of-blight.

Trolling or teasing? It's in the eye of beholder I guess.

 

They've pretty much told them to pound sand from day one.

The problem is the rooftop owners have just enough leverage to be annoying:

The Cubs can't afford to do these renovations without money from new revenue streams associated with it: jumbotron advertising, more night games.

Those new revenue streams require approval from the city for various reasons (zoning and historical status).

Chicago politics traditionally and almost formally give aldermen approval over projections and changes in their own wards.

The alderman in Wrigleyville/Lakeview is pretty much bought and paid for by the rooftop owners, who make heavy campaign donations to him.

 

Ricketts /The Cubs don't seem to be the best negotiators either. They've had a lot of these situations going back to Ricketts buying the team from Zell to losing Arizona State as a partner in the new spring training home. He's going to get pretty much everything he wants here. If he would've dropped the public financing in 2010, or never picked it up, they'd already have a scoreboard up.

 

You can tell the really bad side of Chicago Heights when you see the sign noting you're in a video surveillance area. That's as you approach Ford Heights, which I believe is the poorest town in Illinois. It's at least the poorest burb in Chicago.

Left unranked: New Chicago, Ind., scrunched between Gary, Hobart and Lake Station.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chicago,_In

 

Some details on what the Cubs want:

Despite the announced "agreement", I don't see them getting all this.

 

I ask this question in all seriousness:

Is there a percentage of Cubs fans who would pick "staying in Wrigley but remaining mediocre" over "moving to Rosemont and winning a World Series in the next 15 years"? And what might that percentage be?

 

Have you ever been to Wrigley Field?

I'm guessing about a quarter of the fans on any given day would choose sucking and staying. (The question might be whether they qualify as fans.)