The Ricketts family has told the us time and time again that the Wrigley renovation project was not going to funded by any public money. Well, that turns out to be a rather big white lie.
First, the city gave away parts of the public streets for the bleacher expansion. Normally, the city sells the property to the private developer at fair market value, which could have put millions into the city's coffers.
Second. the Cubs are seeking a $75 million tax credit from the IRS to help off-set (and pay for) much of the Wrigley Field project. The tax credit is supposed to help people restore historic and landmark buildings. That is money that other taxpayers, such as ourselves, will have to make up. As the Tribune reports, the Park Service and the IRS have raised serious issues about the historic "restoration" of Wrigley:
In a memo to the Cubs obtained by the Tribune, the agency expressed concern about advertising overkill at Wrigley, which is known for its ivy-covered outfield walls, hand-turned scoreboard and intimate dimensions as opposed to typical corporate billboards at every other baseball stadium.
"It is important that the cumulative impact of new signage in the outfield does not, in itself, create such a defining feature that the historic character of the stadium is altered," stated the memo, which was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
In a statement, the Cubs said that it is "normal for there to be changes to design and construction as a project evolves and we are working with" the Park Service to finalize approval for those changes. The team said the entire project has been approved by the city of Chicago, and it intends to start construction at the end of the season.
But the federal government does not cede authority over its determination to a rubber-stamped city council. The article also states:
The Cubs are not required to get final certification of their rehabilitation plans before starting work. But the Park Service in general cautions property owners that any work begun before getting formal approval is done at their own risk of losing potential tax credits. If such work is subsequently deemed not to meet the Park Service's standards, then the entire project may be disqualified for consideration of benefits from the federal government.
One of the standards deals with new construction and states, "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment."
The team was hoping to have the Park Service give the team the thumbs up on the revisions before the landmarks commission voted on the changes in July, said Carol Dyson, chief architect and tax incentives coordinator at the state preservation agency.
"Much of the work being proposed can meet the guidelines," Dyson said. "The additional signage is something that's a little more complicated to evaluate. It has some visual impact."
As we have posted at length before, the plans for Wrigley Field is not "restoration" of a historic building and its landmark elements, but a massive real estate development project to create new advertising and commercial revenue streams to ownership. If the money was just going to rebrick the outfield walls, repair the manual center field scoreboard, or replace all the seats with traditional wood ones from the original era of the ball park, that would be "restoration" of the facility to its former glory. But adding electronic jumbotrons, expanding the footprint to add restaurants and bars, and advertising signage in and around the ball park has nothing to do with historic preservation but corporate greed. And that is why federal officials are balking at the tax credit request; how are these plans conserving any historical feature of Wrigley Field?
In the big picture, the tax credit is more important than the advertising signage. It amounts to 25 percent of the projected construction budget for the Wrigley Field portion of the plan. If it is not granted, the Ricketts cannot off-set or shield $75 million of income. This windfall may be critical in keeping the financial ship from listing further as any tax savings bolsters the bottom line of profitability.
