First things first, the Cubs’ new bleacher windscreens are not about security. If they are, it’s just one more example of idiotic overreaction to Sept. 11. When will folks in the sports world get it through their heads that they are not terrorist targets, and that all their supposed security measures only inconvenience the people who pay the bills — the fans?

But what is at issue here is the long-running battle between the Wrigleyville Rooftop Owners Association and the Tribune Co. In fact, back in December when the Cubs first started experimenting with the windscreen idea, Cubs Executive Vice President of Business Operations Mark McGuire didn’t say anything about security. What he did say:

Frankly, one of the reasons we would be looking at it now is that if the rooftops continue to be the one group aggressively trying to kill our [expansion] project, there is a feeling we should contemplate a more aggressive response.

Ah-ha! It’s true that the rooftop owners have opposed the Cubs’ plans to expand bleacher seating which would block some rooftop views of game action. One shouldn’t be surprised that they’re upset at the thought of losing a real cash cow, but just because they’re the David to the Tribune Co.’s Goliath doesn’t mean they’ve got right on their side.

In fact, the Tribune Co. is perfectly within its rights to expand Wrigley bleacher seating or alter the park in whatever manner it sees fit. Tribune Co. execs know that while Wrigley is their biggest money generator, they need the flexibility to make changes to stay competitive.

Which is why it is resisting the city’s efforts to make Wrigley a landmark. As McGuire told Dan Barry of the New York Times, "While we agree with the city that the facility in total is special, certain things are not, like chain-link fences and precast concrete."

Many people have the misimpression that declaring a property a landmark somehow "protects" it, but what it really does is make it more vulnerable by limiting the owners’ ability to alter it in such a way that it can survive and keep up with the times.

Landmark "protection" is really just another property taking without just compensation. Of course, owners themselves sometimes seek landmark protection, which is only done because they fear the market — i.e., the cumulative decisions of free individuals — won’t support their overvaluation of the property.

So what do we have here? We have a group of freeloaders whining that the Cubs are trying to block a view they have no legal or moral right to, and they have used the public process of zoning approval — notorious for its special-interest pleading and bureaucratic powermongering — to try and protect their something-for-nothing deal.

In the meantime, Team Marketing Report predicts the extra seats would yield $10.6 million annually for the Cubs. CNN Money’s Chris Isidore says that’s peanuts, but those are peanuts that the Tribune Co. — which, after all, puts on the games and maintains the "shrine" — should be gobbling up. As it now stands, the rooftop owners are getting the peanuts and leaving the Cubs with the empty shells.

Mmm … peanuts.