New Advertising at Wrigley

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=69986:date=Nov 23 2009, 01:56 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Nov 23 2009, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69985:date=Nov 23 2009, 01:41 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Nov 23 2009, 01:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69984:date=Nov 23 2009, 01:35 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Nov 23 2009, 01:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=69983:date=Nov 23 2009, 01:31 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ Nov 23 2009, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->With the building made worthless for it's current purpose, Ricketts can buy it, tear down the new billboards and put his new jumbotron on the Bud building.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just hope there isn't a lawsuit in the works, as I'm sure the owner will attempt to recover lost property value and revenues. Even if he doesn't have a case, it could drag on and cost the Ricketts some.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

What say, ye lawyers? Could the owner successfully sue for lost revenue he never had any right to in the first place?

"My building is worth a lot because you can see it from inside a ballpark." That's an interesting argument for someone to try and base a legal claim upon.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I only say this because the building has been there, unobstructed for so long. If there is no deal in place between the owner and the ballclub, then that's one thing, but even if there is no case, it could turn into a headache and waste of time and money for both parties.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I hear you...two things that might work in favor of no protracted legal battle..

First, there's no issue regarding seeing INTO the ballpark from this building...as opposed to other buildings...and second...even if that was the issue...there is precedent for Wrigley blocking rooftop views.