* Back in October of 2009, Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts told the Tribune that his family saw the Boston Red Sox as a model for their organization. I’ve set the embed to start at that point in the conversation. Watch…

But the Red Sox revamped their stadium without any taxpayer financing. The owner put $200 million of his own money into the place. And the investment has paid off…

Revenue has grown to $266 million today from about $180 million in 2002. The team’s market value has also risen, to $870 million from $617 million in 2005. All without building a new stadium or asking for a dime of taxpayer money.

* Yesterday, I showed you a video of Ricketts family patriarch Joe Ricketts deriding government borrowing as a “crime” and a Ricketts website that labels US Sen. Dick Durbin and others “hooligans” for supporting projects just like what the Ricketts family wants to do here.

The elder Ricketts, who controls the family cash, is also a board member of the American Enterprise Institute. Ironically enough, an article published a couple of years ago in AEI’s magazine derided publicly financed sports stadiums. The conclusion…

Of course, even if the benefits of stadiums and arenas cover the subsidies, the subsidies still may not be sound policy. First, there may be enormous variation in the distribution of the consumption and public-good benefits. It is clear that not all citizens in a community benefit equally from the presence of professional sports franchises in their city. Indeed, because the tax revenues used for the subsidies are often generated from lotteries and sales taxes whose burden falls disproportionately on the poor, while the consumption benefits go mostly to relatively wealthy sports fans, the net benefits are distributed regressively.

Second, we should consider the net benefits to the community of alternative uses of the funds spent subsidizing sports facilities. Good policy means using the money where the net benefit is greatest, not simply where the net benefit is positive. That’s something state and local governments should keep in mind before pledging millions of dollars to fund the next new stadium project.

This proposed Wrigley Field deal is so anathema to the Ricketts family’s political and ideological history that it just reeks of rank hypocrisy.

Taken as a stand-alone, the renovation plan has plenty of merits. But this family has literally spent millions of dollars stoking hatred of government subsidies for just about everything. To see them now eagerly run to Big Brother with an out-stretched hand kinda makes me ill.

* Meanwhile, an added dynamic is injected into the political debate whenever a sports team wants something from the government. Sports columnists become part of the mix, and they’re far more brutal than political columnists…

Can’t you see the Cubs’ lightweight battle for stadium financial support shaping up like the Bears’ mess did? I don’t know if the respective pols will act the same, but the respective owners are stumbling along similarly, not to mention the way Ricketts has seemingly adopted McCaskey’s elfin voice.

Except, the Bears actually got their stadium rehab. It wasn’t everything they wanted, but they did get something. Right now, the Ricketts family isn’t faring nearly as well.

Still, though, “elfin voice”? Oof.

* The other thing that happens is city reporters are often given the assignment to cover the story rather than Statehouse reporters. From the Sun-Times…

The mayor said he likes the concept of a stadium renovation plan that would keep the Cubs at Wrigley for at least 35 years and free up the money the Ricketts family needs to develop a triangle building promised to Wrigleyville residents in exchange for a bleacher expansion.

But Daley said he’s not about to saddle his successor with a deal that requires Chicago taxpayers to forfeit 35 years of amusement-tax growth needed to bankroll basic city services

Daley is a lame duck. His Statehouse power is pretty much gone. And the bill will preempt his home rule powers, so he’s been written out of the script.

* Admirably enough, the Tribune editorialized against the Ricketts plan, but as usual they got their facts wrong…

Perhaps the strongest argument of all: The Civic Federation’s Laurence Msall warned against taking on debt for non-essentials with a $15 billion deficit looming. “The state of Illinois faces an enormous financial crisis and will be needing all of its borrowing power just to pay its bills and continue to operate,” he said.

The bonds won’t be backed by the state whatsoever, so it wouldn’t impact the state’s borrowing abilities.

* The governor’s petulance at not being consulted is completely understandable, but perhaps he ought to tone it down a bit…

“They haven’t shown it to me. Apparently they don’t think I’m as important as some others, and I am important in this matter because I’m a goalie for the people of Illinois to make sure they get their priorities addressed.”

All true, I suppose, but the bill will require a three-fifths vote, meaning that even if he vetoes it the General Assembly will have enough built-in votes to override.

* Whatever the Ricketts family did, this would probably not go well. People are naturally averse to using tax money of any kind to build stadiums.

But there’s no doubt that they completely screwed up this process. It’s mind-boggling, in fact. And in the end they may get far less than the Bears did if they don’t make some adjustments very soon.

In that October, 2009 interview posted above, a Ricketts family member told the Tribune that “hope is not a strategy any more.”

He was talking about the team’s on-field play, but it could just as easily apply to this stadium revamp.