Sports and politics? Time to just say no

My initial inclination is to vote “No!” on Tom Ricketts' proposal to renovate Wrigley Field.

But that's just me and I don't have a vote.

Regardless, I assume a deal will be struck because enough swells will benefit from it.

The Cubs sent out a release Monday proclaiming that union leaders and Wrigleyville activists are all in because of the potential jobs and neighborhood enhancements.

Maybe the plan will depend on Chicago's next mayor, what he wants and how much influence he will have over the General Assembly in Springfield.

To be honest, my reluctance comes with very little grasp of specific social, political and economic consequences of the state borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars for a bond offering.

You know, just so a ballpark can be remodeled.

Doesn't it seem that Illinois already has to finagle enough money just to keep operating? If any cash can be raised for anything, shouldn't it go toward balancing the budget? Hasn't the state been as fiscally dysfunctional in recent years as the Cubs have been for a century?

I tend to say just say “No” because something smells odoriferous whenever professional sports conspire with professional politics.

Start with the basic premise that Wrigley Field needs a renovation. Sorry, but it needs a demolition.

My mind might change if ownership promised that the plan includes a scoreboard with all out-of-town scores instead of just most, customers in the upper sections of the lower grandstands having a full view of the game, and all seats being more comfortable.

Meanwhile, how certain can we be that Ricketts' plan absolutely, positively never would impact the availability of necessary social services?

Anyway, a good guess is that our Founding Fathers intended for there to be a separation of sports and state, although it should be noted that sports back then consisted of the odd beard-growing race and cow-chip flip.

The real problem here is that on the trust scale, politicians and owners of sports franchises are barely ahead of medical malpractice attorneys and sports writers.

Matching politicians with sports owners is like introducing an arsonist to a match. In either case the rest of us better fireproof our wallets.

Tom Ricketts insists and likely believes that taxpayers won't lose anything if the state adopts his Wrigley proposal, and maybe so.

The hook to making the investment appear worthwhile is that the ballpark is reputed to be a prime Illinois tourist attraction. Tourism is what recently persuaded Mesa, Ariz., voters to build the Cubs a new training facility.

Still, I have to think that citizens are at risk when sports and state interact like this, with money in the middle.

Cubs fans would die for the proposal if it meant the team would win a World Series for the first time in their lifetimes.

However, the inkling also could be that any additional cash swirling around this futile franchise simply will go toward paying for more gaffes like Alfonso Soriano.

If this were a prosperous decade, perhaps the General Assembly gambling on the Cubs would be OK. But there isn't a lot of discretionary money to play with, is there?

So just say “No!” to Plan A and encourage Tom Ricketts to concoct Plan B.

Here's a novel idea: Private money financing the entire project instead of just part.

mimrem@dailyherald.com