66 Comments - Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 1:39 pm: No. I know Soldier Field isn’t the best place in the world. But it is still viable. The new stadium and the surrounding enterprises is going to make them a lot of money. The only way I would say yes to something like this, is if there is some sort of revenue/profit sharing; a payback to the people who are investing in the complex. - Rahm's Parking Meter - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 1:41 pm: As a resident, I am fine with infrastructure spending by the village, but am worried their new development will hurt Downtown Palatine and Arlington Heights. I also oppose AFP’s ordinance to ban any company from a subsidy because Arlington height should not be come some petrie dish for a tea party purity test. - Rahm's Parking Meter - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 1:41 pm: I hate typos, Arlington Heights*. - MisterJayEm - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 1:42 pm: “Should the Bears receive any public (state or local) assistance in constructing their multi-purpose project?” No. Our default position should be no assistance unless they can demonstrate a legitimate need coupled with a clear and convincing benefit to the public. The Bears organization (valued at multiple billions of dollars) has demonstrated neither. – MrJM - regular democrat - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 1:44 pm: I believe the state and local entities should help defray the cost of the roads utilities etc much like the Obama Center. The will get that money back as time goes on in residual taxes. - Nick Name - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 1:45 pm: No. If the Bears want to move they can bloody well pay for it themselves. - ArchPundit - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 1:45 pm: I tend to think governments picking up infrastructure costs are reasonable for a large project like this within reason–so changes to roads, water, waste, etc are a reasonable things for government to pick up in this big of a development. The rest of the development would be a no because those are supposed to be businesses and thus, someone can invest in them. - New Day - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 1:47 pm: Hell no. And by the way, have you seen that hideous design? O.M.G. What were they thinking? - Sox Fan - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 1:47 pm: I heard somewhere that the interchange off the expressway needs to be remodeled whether the Bears move there or not. If that’s actually true, I think I could get behind finding a way to fund a project like that. Otherwise, no. - Siualum - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 1:49 pm: I vote no. I think professional sports and entertainment generate enough revenue on their own without taxpayer assistance. Indeed, much of that revenue comes from local residents and taxpayers anyway in form of ticket sales, advertising, etc. - Southside - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 1:55 pm: Anyone drive down the Dan Ryan and see your tax dollars at work? Madigan will haunt us (taxpayers) for a long time. With all the comments about pay for it yourself why didn’t/haven’t the Sox? - levivotedforjudy - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 1:55 pm: Even with the stadium component, public infrastructure costs should be covered by government entities mostly. If you take out the emotion of it being the Bears and look at the other components, treat it like you would any other multi-million/billion dollar project that will definitely provide property, sales, entertainment taxes, etc.. This sounds like an EDGE project. - Amalia - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 1:57 pm: don’t see why Arlington Hts. would not want to contribute tax dollars as they will reap huge benefits from the non stadium side of the project too. this is not just about a stadium. it is about a huge complex attached to the stadium. money. - Jocko - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:00 pm: No. They could’ve had a dome on Soldier Field for all the billions they sunk into that remodel. - Frank Manzo IV - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:02 pm: No, for the reasons @MisterJayEm stated. I wish they cited who did the economic impact analysis and linked to the report so it could be reviewed. Usually infrastructure investment has a “multiplier effect” of 1.5-2x. The Bears’ release suggests $9.4B in total impact, suggesting that the total stadium and district development may cost around $5-$6B, which is massive (but on par with the Los Angeles football teams’ stadium costs). Professor Sanderson is correct that the net economic impact of the move is negligible for the entire Chicago metro area. Now, if Chicago were to get a second team to play at (a renovated?) Soldier Field, then that would change. The release also said they “anticipate that the development will generate $16 million in annual tax revenue in addition to property taxes for Arlington Heights, $9.8 million for Cook County, and $51.3 million for the State of Illinois.” This is not a good reason to provide any public support. In general, that money is already going to the State of Illinois and to Cook County when the Bears play in Solider Field. So the only change is the $16M that would now be going to Arlington Heights (from Chicago). I haven’t looked into this, but could the State, or even a pension fund, LOAN the Bears money at a relatively low interest rate? Become a partner in an income-generating asset and generate a return for taxpayers. - Save Ferris - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:04 pm: They can have 6B or equivalent and some infrastructure improvements. Maybe a sales tax rebate or reduction to help the retail and hospitality businesses get started. But they don’t need anything else. The NFL can help them with funding or the family can monetize some of their shares for capital. I mean, George Halas was PAID by Col. Staley to take the franchise away from Decatur. Their return is infinite. - Norseman - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:08 pm: As a Packers Owner, I’ll have to recuse myself. - OneMan - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:08 pm: It Arlington Heights wants to that is their business, but the state or other entities. No Why? I guess taking out my feeling about the Bears, they don’t have any leverage. It isn’t like they are going to leave for another metro area, and if they did, teams would kill each other to come to Chicago. Secondly, I might be a little swayed if this was going to Harvey or something, but I don’t seen Arlington Heights needing state support for development. Also, the Bears are a multi-billion entity and helping them do what is a real estate development seems a bit daft. It isn’t low-income housing, and I am not sure of the state’s interest in creating a compound that people will not leave for events. - Cool Papa Bell - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:09 pm: No. Its not a long run job creator and the NFL and the Bears are awash in money. - City Guy - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:10 pm: I’m opposed to government subsidies. Stadiums largely reallocate existing entertainment dollars and have limited economic benefit. Football stadiums are particularly bad investments because they play so few games. - JS Mill - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:17 pm: No. Private enterprise. Infrastructure improvements would fit under public responsibility but that is it. - ChrisB - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:20 pm: Hard No. No sports team should ever receive government assistance for their stadiums. The Bears are a Billion (with a B) dollar enterprise. They can afford it if they really want it. - Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:22 pm: – much like the Obama Center – Big difference. Obama won. - thunderspirit - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:25 pm: State and/or local assistance for this venture should include infrastructure (i.e., IL-53 interchange and Metra station improvements, power supply, water/sewer service, etc.) but not for the stadium and development of the project itself — that part is, and should be, the Bears’ responsibility. Basically, what ArchPundit said. - James the Intolerant - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:26 pm: Infrastructure, yes. Nothing else. As someone said earlier, 35th & Shields is a prime example. Super deal for the Sox that keeps on giving. And that is coming from a huge Sox fan. - Red Ketcher - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:27 pm: Still angry about the Churchill Downs closing the Racetrack to protect their Casino. So , it’s a bias fueled NO. - Captain Obvious - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:37 pm: This is a privately owned and operated enterprise. They should succeed or fail on their own dime. It’s a no for me. - Romeo - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:38 pm: Definitely not. If the city/state decides to work with the Bears to improve downtown infrastructure, sure. But for the building itself, no. Soldier Field is, whether they like it or not, still useable. It is their choice to construct a new building in a new location. - XonXoff - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:41 pm: No from me. All they need is an empty football field to play a football game. Gotta go. Kids on my lawn. - Scott - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:42 pm: No public money for the stadium, but I’m ok with public money for some of the infrastructure around it. And New Day “have you seen that hideous design?” You do realize that that isn’t the actual stadium design. They haven’t designed the stadium yet…it’s a generic stadium-sized block meant to represent it, but the new stadium will not actually look anything like that. As a Bears fan, I’m fine with them moving. Right now, they are in a stadium they don’t own and have little control over. They have the smallest stadium in the NFL and have nearly zero options for expanding it. Because it’s an open-air stadium in the north, they are also limited on any other events that they might try to host there. Their current location, while nicely-located close to downtown, does not have anything nearby in terms of hotels, bars, restaurants, shops, etc. like you see in areas like Wrigleyville or the Battery in Atlanta, or around newer NFL stadiums like in LA (https://hollywoodparkca.com). Let Soldier Field be a location for maybe a USFL or XFL expansion franchise. - Peter Griffin - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:50 pm: Agreed on Infrastructure being paid for by Govt. As for other subsidies, maybe. Everyone can talk about Soldier Field still being usable is looking through it with blinders on. Soldier Field can’t host a Super Bowl (Arlington Heights would probably get one in their first season). Soldier Field can’t host mega concerts 6 months out of the year. Soldier Field can’t host the Final Four. Soldier Field can’t host Wrestlemania. The State will get a lot of jobs and the government will get a lot of taxes. I think that’s something worth helping pay the bills for if needed. - TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:53 pm: Should they, no. Will they, absolutely. –but would expect to partner “with the various governmental bodies to secure additional funding and assistance”– TIF districts. TIF districts as far as the eye can see. Probably sales tax rebates too. And likely some Public-Private-Partnership structures for good measure. Also note the very specific language that no tax money will be used in *direct construction of the stadium itself*. There are a lot of other things going on here in this proposal that will be given public money. We’ve created an almost infinite number of ways to hand over tax money to private companies, without it being obvious to the casual observer. There are ways to make this equitable, but it’s going to take a lot of attention by the locals to what their individual agencies are agreeing to in this project. - Occasional Quipper - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:53 pm: == This is a privately owned and operated enterprise. They should succeed or fail on their own dime. It’s a no for me. == Totally agree. Which is why I’m opposed to giving money to private citizens who voluntarily went into debt to get a college degree. - Roadrager - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:54 pm: ==With all the comments about pay for it yourself why didn’t/haven’t the Sox?== 35 years ago, no one was wised up to the hackery and completely made-up “economic impact” numbers of buying rich people new toys. Now we should all know better, but there are enough politicians of all stripes willing to pretend not to, so rah-rah, go team. I say this as a Sox fan: We’d all be better off had Thompson, Madigan, et al told Jerry Reinsdorf to go have fun in that slumping, dumpy dome in St. Petersburg. So, uh, put me down for “no.” - Jaguar - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 2:55 pm: If the Bears want public assistance towards the mixed use portion of their development let the Bears market the site like any other developer and consider assistance to whoever they recruit on a case by case basis. - SpfldWestsider - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 3:15 pm: The Bears are worth $5.5B. That’s “B” for BILLION. N-O. Y’all wanna move to Arlington Heights? Pay your own way. - H-W - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 3:16 pm: No. But also to the post =Though the team’s press materials were long on anticipated revenue-generating benefits for Cook County and the state of Illinois — forecasting $1.4 billion in annual economic impact= Does this assume new money, above and beyond what the Bears are currently bringing to the county and state annually? Does it account for the loss of revenues associated with abandoning the current facility? If the state assumes the burden of an abandoned facility, then no. The state should not pay to assist the Bears in abandoning one facility and building another. That would just be nutty. The abandoned facility will cost the state a lot of new money in the coming years, not to mention lost revenues being “traded” for projected revenues which will at best, offset. PS - my students have suggested the Jacksonville Jaguars will move to Chicago. Pie in the sky? - Pundent - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 3:18 pm: No. The Bears have the ability to pay for and/or borrow whatever they need to fund this project. And the enterprise value of the franchise will only increase once they move which should be more than sufficient enough collateral for any lender. - Jerry - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 3:20 pm: The Bears already got a stadium paid for with welfare. They can pay for this thing themselves or move. No more Public Entitlement programs for privately run corporations. - Skeptic - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 3:21 pm: No. Next question? - MisterJayEm - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 3:23 pm: “my students have suggested the Jacksonville Jaguars will move to Chicago. Pie in the sky?” I thought they were moving to the U.K. – MrJM - Benjamin - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 3:28 pm: Sure. They’re paying for building affordable housing and public schools in that multi-purpose district, right? Wait, you say they aren’t? Then no. Pay for it yourself, McCaskeys. - Scott Cross for President - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 3:37 pm: No. Cubs didn’t get public dollars and didn’t get a TIF. The family owned monopoly paid for their gut rehab and developmen. Bears don’t need it either. Take on investors if you need help. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 3:38 pm: (Sigh) No. Why? (Deep Breath) 1) The Bears are a multi “B”illion dollar entity, in very large part, they occupy the 3rd largest media market alone 2) The Bears lose 9 figures a year, every year, by not owning their building where they play. Owning the building, even “mortgaged”, will increase their value 3) The Bears can’t and they “can’t” leave Chicagoland. No monetary algebra makes them leaving Chicago makes any move smart 4) The Bears could take out a “mortgage” and use that paper debt to get ridiculous tax breaks they neither need or require, giving a windfall like tax money 5) The Bears can leverage a roofed facility that can host a Super Bowl, College Football championship (NU would be the host) or NCAA Final Four to get additional breaks w/o getting more dollars. 6) The Bears can afford the building by any and every measure. Full Stop Other pointed points; * The Bears “Chicagoland Market” is the largest media market in America that is *not shared*. In actuality, it can be argued, as a franchise, no other franchise has as large of a market that is exclusive, and thus no move can replicate that uniqueness, no matter the incentives * Financing? All the Bears would need to do is to try to get their own financing for a building, what bank would say the Bears lack equity or wealth? Then again, they do that, all illusions finally leave. Can’t have that. Begging poor versus proving poor are far different to perception - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 3:48 pm: Also, the Jaguar silly to the London, and the Bears? Jacksonville is destined for London, per… the NFL. They have first right of refusal. They won’t give that up, or share that. It’s also why the Bears REFUSE to share the #3 media market with an additional franchise located here. It’s tiring. - Thicc Offerman - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 3:55 pm: Absolutely not. Study after study has disproved the economic-benefit claims that team officials continue to trot out. Public money for any business, whether privately held or publicly traded, amounts to upward income redistribution. - Flapdoodle - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 3:59 pm: No, nothing. As Prof. Sanderson says, claims about economic benefits from projects like this must be regarded very skeptically. There are both definitional and measurement problems that allow proponents to play fast and loose with their claims, but in general existing spending is simply relocated while new business creation is counterbalanced by closures at the previous location. The same pattern occurs in job creation, with the additional caveats that well-paying construction jobs are only temporary while permanent jobs are seasonal and lower-paying service positions. Finally, sports franchises, not least NFL franchises, are notorious for reneging on contractual agreements or making subsequent demands. Sinking money into stadium development projects only encourages sports franchises to engage in future blackmail efforts. Nip these in the bud and say no now. - Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 3:59 pm: We have a rendering of what things “might” look like but no actual final hard details. Far too preliminary. The Bears are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Show the public the real stadium. Because until that’s final, the rest of this isn’t real either. - Lurker - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 3:59 pm: Yes. Anything to get the Bears out of that hellhole - Darren Bailey (maybe) - Concerned Observer - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 4:07 pm: I have no problem helping with road improvements - for example, as part of Universal Studios Orlando’s coming third park, they are splitting the cost of the road to get there right down the middle with Orange County FL. That seems reasonable. But as for the building itself…nope. Borrow from the NFL, pay it back, there’s no reason to go to the local authorities. - Snarky from Schaumburg - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 4:08 pm: Arlington Park always had a special place in the hearts of us suburban kids. It was where your “cool” Uncle took you to learn about gambling and drinking under the guise of an afternoon out in the sun. And we always wonder about that fire there when mysteriously there were only a couple of people in the Park. I am in favor of public funding for a stadium under the following conditions - the Bears win back-to-back Super Bowls, a special section of seats is reserved for people that look like da guys from the SNL sketch, the team finds a quarterback that plays well for more than two seasons. - Thomas Paine - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 4:09 pm: No. Not even for infrastructure improvements. There are plenty of Illinois families desperate for infrastructure improvements to prevent flooding in their basements, remove lead from their drinking water, rebuild parks and schools. If legislators have an extra $2B laying around, illinois families are a much better investment. - Homebody - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 4:22 pm: No handouts for billionaires. - From DaZoo - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 4:25 pm: No. Even with infrastructure improvements, there will be some cost sharing at a minimum. A developer or business building something that requires large amounts of infrastructure improvements (that were not part of any government agency’s long range plan) will be required to foot at least some of the bill. - From DaZoo - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 4:29 pm: Adding… as some suggest another franchise come in to reuse Solider Field. Perhaps the Cardinals could return? ====…the Bears REFUSE to share the #3 media market with an additional franchise located here.=== Or maybe not. - Former Bartender - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 4:31 pm: No, the NFL has lending programs for the Bears to build their Stadium. All public funding deals for stadiums never benefit the public more than the costs associated. This is proven time and time again. You can just look to the deals for the Bears current stadium to see that. The Bonds that last renovated the stadium are still outstanding and still costing tax payers $$. - City Zen - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 4:46 pm: ==I haven’t looked into this, but could the State, or even a pension fund, LOAN the Bears money at a relatively low interest rate?== The “Municipal Laborer Policemen Firemen Teacher University State Employee Retirement Dome” has a nice ring to it. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 4:56 pm: NO - West Sider - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 4:59 pm: Ask Hoffman Estates how Sears is working out. - Hank - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 5:03 pm: No, because they don’t need public money, just like Stan Kroenke in LA. I don’t see the Bears having any leverage here to force any government entity to cough up public funds, because there is no way the NFL would even consider having the Bears move out of the area. - Chris - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 5:07 pm: Bears are worth something like $6b. Arlington Heights should get a 30% LP interest in exchange for the $2b. Team will be worth $8b+ after the development is done—AH can either get 30% of profits ever year, or sell their share for a nice profit. Win win. Except for the McCaskeys, who won’t be getting free stuff like they are accustomed to. They coulda (shoulda, really) had the dome, in the city, 20 years ago, but took the stupid position that the Bears “had to” play on grass. I’ve often thought that the terrible turf conditions are the Park District’s revenge for that insistence. - Been There - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 5:10 pm: I can see giving a break on property taxes for the other development but not the stadium. Nothing upfront though. And I agree with the professor about moving the decimal point. The new area brings some new revenue but the stadium is just shifting benefits from Chicago to Arlington. - Roadrager - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 5:37 pm: ==Ask Hoffman Estates how Sears is working out== And while you’re at it, ask Bridgeview how things are going down at SeatGeek Stadium. - Because I said so.... - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 5:50 pm: I’m very opposed to the Bear’s moving to Arlington Heights. Nothing against that town but as a Chicago resident, I have zero desire to travel there for a sporting event. So, that probably influences my position. No taxpayer funding unless Arlington Heights wants to pick up the tab. - Chicago 20 - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 6:07 pm: No welfare for billionaires. The timing couldn’t be worse. The Bears should have waited until they got competitive and actually won something, before they tried to pull this public grift. - Captain Obvious - Wednesday, Sep 7, 22 @ 8:00 pm: Is it possible that a topic has been found upon which everyone agrees? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.