fire news 4/25 http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...4fire,1,3800045.story?coll=cs-home-headlines] http://www.suntimes.com/output/fire/cst-spt-fire251.html http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intID=38102118
Re: fire news 4/25 What the hell is he talking about? He didn't hit anybody back. He got stripped by an experienced, capped, and skillful player. He lost his temper and grabbed all over AW's jersey. Andy then clocked him squarely across the jaw with a well thrown (and well concealed from the ref) elbow. Welcome to the big leagues kid. Now I'm on the Adu bandwagon too, but that sequence really showed that he is just a kid with a lot to learn. He better get used to having to work and not being the hottest thing on the field. I'm a bit annoyed that in the CHICAGO Sun Times the article on our first win of the season puts Freddy in the headline and at least 60% of the following text. Come on now... ..and hey sports writers: "Ralph made a clever run through the United defense to score the only goal in the 57th minute.." How about something a bit more exciting like "Ralph made a clever run through the United defense to score a world class game winning goal in the 57th minute.." I dunno..something like that. Maybe Quig ought to be writing these AP pieces.
Re: fire news 4/25 http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/yrtwn/south/251syt2.htm http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsindex/21-ds5.htm
Re: fire news 4/25 Good I'm glad no rock bands are touring this summer in big stadium shows. We don't need them to mess up the field or make us change any more Saturday games to Wednesdays.
Re: fire news 4/25 I still hate Adu...Great Goal by Ralph... PTI Update---They still think Nowak should be Fired!
New Obstacle in Bridgeview Just to continue annoying some of you by being the conscience of our move to Bridgeview: WETLANDS MAY BE PRICE OF PARKING http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsnews/257nd1.htm So a developer illegally develops wetlands which meet all legal definitions of the law. He's caught. Under the old law, he's required to make good by purchasing wetlands for protection. The new wetlands are given to the Bridgeview Park District as steward (not a wise move.) The Bush Administration then redefines the term 'wetlands' so that it may no longer apply, and Steve "Bad Faith" Landek decides he can pave them for a parking lot for the Fire. He says hey, under the new definition, these aren't covered. But of course, they were purchased to replace destroyed wetlands that were covered. As usual, a big company gets its way only by trampling on the public interest, using corrupt politicians as their agents. I honestly don't want the Fire to make money if it can't happen honestly. The more this thing smells, the less I care that it's Landek doing the dirty work. The Fire took responsibility for it all when they decided to cut a deal with Landek. And again, I wonder what business is going to Landek's bank as a result. It would be interesting to see where the Fire keep their accounts.
Re: New Obstacle in Bridgeview I think if she (Stephanie Gering, who wrote the story) saw the preliminary designs for the stadium, this would be a non-story. Just my opinion. Later, COZ
Re: New Obstacle in Bridgeview there's already a discussion about this article so I'll add this to it.
Man..... I'm tired of all these MDSC conspiracies. Will we commoners at least be able to see something at the "Meet the team social"?
Hey get used to it baby. We're more corrupt than Anastasio "Tachito" Somoza. Bridgeview politics ain't got nothin' on us! Officially however, we are a legitimate organization that was formed in full compliance with all anti-trust codes and designed for the purposes of abiding the law. Flynn Murphy MDSC Press Secretary/Public Liason
Re: New Obstacle in Bridgeview I haven't seen them myself. What do the prelim designs suggest that make it a non-story?
Re: New Obstacle in Bridgeview I am interested as well. I got to say that I am not a big fan of taking wetlands for the project when there is so much land in Chicago where that would not be necessary. Perhaps they will restore an equal amount of wetlands which is a permitted way of development.
Re: New Obstacle in Bridgeview Mayor Landek is on the board of Bridgeview Bank. As far as I'm aware, the Fire's local banking business is done with LaSalle Bank, a club sponsor. I don't know about AEG in general though I doubt it's done locally in Chicago. The reason this should be a non issue is because in the very preliminary schematic designs, every effort has been made to preserve the existing wetland/prairie and incorporate it into the overall development plan. I don't think it's something to get worked up over.
They said they would only use part of the wetlands not all of it. That area is a dump, it's not really something that is a beautiful nature preserve that has to preserved at all costs.
Its not an issue of attractiveness. The quantity is important, particularly for migratory birds, and even more so this close to lake michigan. The article implies that this site is used by migratory birds. Before any tree hugger jokes, it is important to understand that these areas are vital to ecosystems -- which include us. I feel better based on the comments of those who have seen the drawings, but would still be interested in knowing the amount of acerage that will be used for parking. There will also be the issue of run off from the parking lot -- things like motor oil, antifreeze etc. that leaks from cars -- and in this case, runoff of whatever MDSC leaves in the parking lot.
Re: New Obstacle in Bridgeview A couple of notes. It really isn't the Bush Administration that redefined the term wetland--or at least that's not what the article is saying and that's not my understanding of the matter having studied it recently. The SWANCC decisions were by the US Supreme Court (admittedly the same joes who put the idiot in office, but still not part of the current regime in the White House). As the article alluded to, the upshot of the decisions was that a wetland has to be connected to a navigable body of water to be protected. This can be very loosely construed, but essentially eliminated a lot of seeps, bogs, and quarries which don't connect to navigable bodies of water from protection. And frankly, giving the land to the city just reduced liability on the developer, so from a legal standpoint it was probably a good idea. It's a very interesting issue, now, about the repurchased land to be used as wetlands that are not connected to navigable bodies. What happens with these? Maybe I'll write a law review article about it. I sincerely hope that the last lines of the article outline the future: I don't believe you can make it smaller and make it better at the same time. Any development around it will disturb it somewhat. But if the Fire work with the wetland, and make it part of the identity, along with other aspects of the stadium, then everybody can be really happy. By building drainage swales to filter the runoff before it goes into the wetland, the area can be largely preserved. If they need more room, build a parking garage. I know garages can be pricey, and we want tailgating so it shouldn't be the only parking. Maybe they could have the tailgating area be by reservation only, and get some advance money for parking in that area. The majority of people probably don't tailgate, but those who do would benefit. Other people could pic-nic near the wetland, bringing coolers from their cars. Just know that the Fire is working on this situation, and has done work to protect the wetland. I wouldn't call it a non-issue at this point, but rather one that is still being worked on (or at least, that's the last I heard, and from my understanding of this sort of thing, it's not really a non-issue until everything is finalized).
Re: New Obstacle in Bridgeview I'm still concerned, but the responses here, as usual, are interesting and thoughtful. On the side note raised by FuegoFan, as I understand it, the Bush administration has written administrative rules using a broad interpretation of which wetlands the Supreme Court meant to exclude from the protections of the Clean Water Act. This is based on a vague reference in last week's New York Times, but I don't have time to track down the exact truth, so take that with a grain of salt.
Re: New Obstacle in Bridgeview This is not going to happen. Way to expensive for the fire. The only reason they got one at Sf is because they use it 365 days a year for the museums.
Re: New Obstacle in Bridgeview And they wouldn't use it 365 days a year for restaurants or the planned eventual development that might include a movie theater? Remember, the Fire are only paying for part of this. We'll be the primary tenant, but it's Bridgeview who is putting up most of the cash and whose name will be on the deed. And from all I hear Bridgeview's development plans and design demands shoot beyond even what the club wants.