PDA

View Full Version : The snail strikes again!


maurice
08-10-2004, 01:15 PM
Today's Trib (Metro section, below the fold) reports that the city refused to issue permits for past repairs at the Urinal and requested "additional information." At this point, in typical Trib fashion, the article switches gears and creates the illusion of coverage by filling out the space with unrelated information and background information. In conclusion, the article notes that they "obtained a permit for the netting installation." How thoughtful of them.

The Sun-Times prominent article (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-wrig10.html) on the same subject clarifies that the permits were not issued, because there is no documentary proof that any significant repairs were ever done. Instead, the Trib gave the city some pictures:

"We don't permit pretty pictures. We need the stuff behind it," said an exasperated Buildings Commissioner Stan Kaderbek. Without the backup information demanded by City Hall, Kaderbek said there's no way of knowing how much work was actually done to repair potentially hazardous bleacher and pedestrian ramp conditions outlined in a 2001 engineering report commissioned by the Cubs. "The number I read was a million" dollars a year, the commissioner said, referring to the money the Cubs claim to have spent on Wrigley repairs. "It better be something close to that." . . .

Ald. Bernard Stone (50th), chairman of the City Council's Buildings Committee, accused the Cubs of "stalling" as part of an elaborate cover-up that began with the first of three incidents of falling concrete at Wrigley over a six-week period. "I don't think they've done a thing other than paint the seats," Stone said. "I think they lied. I absolutely believe they completely ignored all the work they were supposed to do." The alderman noted that, during an annual licensing review of "public places of amusement," the Cubs' own stadium manager acknowledged that the last engineering report done at Wrigley was three years ago. "If you're going to do work, you'd have an engineer check the job site before you do the work. They did not, according to their own employee's statement," Stone said. "It's an indication that they didn't have any intention of doing any work in three years and that any statement that they did work without a permit is an absolute falsehood."
:giantsnail

maurice
08-11-2004, 01:22 PM
Recent comments by the Mayor caused the story to pop up again today in the lower right-hand corner of the Metro section. Again, the article switches gears and fills out the space with unrelated allegations concerning "questionable contracting deals by [Daley's] administration."

By contrast, the prominent Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-wrig11.html) story sticks to the topic:

"If they did it, they can show the bills," Daley said. "You would expect it when terra cotta falls off a building. When a window goes out in a building, you expect that. When scaffolding falls, you expect that. . . . We expect them [the Tribune Co.] to do the same thing." . . .

"Isn't it kind of sad? None of you could do this. If you owned your own home or business, you couldn't do this without plans. Why shouldn't they be held to the same standard as anyone else? Simple as that."

"You write articles about me. . . . You all write articles. I'm not mad at you. I don't take anything personal. I do not. . . . This is all about safety. This is not about Mayor Daley. It's not about the Chicago Tribune."
The article also offers a clue indicating that that Trib intends to expand upon its tit-for-tat approach:

The city noted that the Tribune has filed a Freedom of Information request for records pertaining to the city's maintenance of the facade of City Hall and the adjacent County Building.

Jerko
08-11-2004, 01:26 PM
Typical. Show us yours and we'll show you ours. If I were the mayor I'd show them mine all right, I'd close that dump down until they complied with everything I wanted.

Tekijawa
08-11-2004, 01:59 PM
If I were Dailey I'd have some bulldozers head over there at about midnight and push the whole park in on itself. The next day I would send the Tribune company the information that they requested in an evelope addressed to Wrigley field, with an address not valid building torn down stamp on it! But he wouldn't do that would he?
:bandance:

Gimm
08-11-2004, 02:06 PM
So are Cubs gonna play in our stadium this year or not?

maurice
08-12-2004, 01:43 PM
His Honor puts two-and-two together concerning the timing of the Trib's FOIA request. Daley was never particularly articulate, but he's really churning out some great quotes on this issue:

We are not singling out the Chicago Tribune or the Chicago Cubs," Daley said. "When terra-cotta falls off, we have to deal with the owner of the building. When a window unfortunately drops in one of the high-rises, we have to deal with the building. When the window washers fall off the Hancock, we have to deal with that issue. This is dealing with public safety.

"Then all of the sudden the Chicago Tribune, out of nowhere, has made a Freedom of Information Act request concerning the city's maintenance of the facade of City Hall and the County Building. Now is this the Chicago Cubs or the Chicago Tribune? It's both." . . .

"They can have it, but why do they do it now?" the mayor said. "You have to make the judgment [not me] because they're going to write another editorial, 'Mayor Daley gets mad. Mayor Daley is on a tirade. He doesn't like their editorials. He doesn't like their articles.' Same stuff they always write. . . .

"They're so upset, their blood pressure is going up," Daley said of Tribune executives. "I don't want that to happen to them. I want to make sure they're healthy over there, those corporate executives."
Once again, the Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-wrig12.html) artilce is rather prominent and sticks to the subject, while the Trib article (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-040812cubswrigley,1,5531773.story?coll=cs-home-headlines) is in the Metro section and creates the illusion of coverage by going off on a tangent concerning unrelated issues (property taxes and public schools).