Someone needs to explain the financial/legal business concept behind the term "friendly confines" to the parasitic-like rooftop owners and political operators in Chicago.
"Friendly confines" -- though used for many years to define what many see as the open and hospitable atmosphere inside the Ivy-walls of Wrigley Field -- also has a business-friendly context to it as well, In that context it must also be recognized as a successful baseball franchise that is, first and foremost, a highly successful privately-owned, business enterprise.
Contact information ( * required )
Neither should the term "friendly confines" be identified as somehow being indigenous to, or belonging to, the building owners in the surrounding area, or the very relatively recently re-gentrified, and redefined geographic area.
The historic Wrigley Field, and the term "The Friendly confines", belong entirely to Wrigley Field's present legal owners and that fact should be respected. Those owners have an exclusive legal right, and, in some instances an obligation as well, to other investors, employees, and community, to assure the business remains both viable and profitable.
It's almost bizarre that the adjoining Wrigley Field rooftop owners, and local political cronies, now believe that they are being somehow "cheated" because the newest owners of the Chicago Cubs National League franchise have determined that they need to make what they have determined to be essential changes within "the confines" of their privately-owned facilities. These proposed "inside the park" changes will pose no physical adverse affects on any of the surrounding neighborhood building structures.
As a native Chicagoan, and loyal Cub fan, who believes strongly in the free-enterprise system, I hope the Cubs' owners win this one -- this, for business owners and entrepreneurs everywhere.
Patrick J. Dalton