Bears float new tax subsidy for suburban stadium
Wednesday, Dec 14, 2022 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Greg Hinz…
The Chicago Bears are floating in Springfield the possibility of creating new form of tax subsidy for their pending redevelopment of Arlington Park, one which would give them financial help but not penalize local school districts as harshly as conventional tax increment financing district.
Under the plan, which has not yet been submitted in writing but has been raised with key legislative players, the Bears would be able to utilize something known as payment in lieu of taxes, or PILT.
PILT originally was developed by the federal government as a means to compensate local units of government for the loss of property taxes due to the existence of tax-exempt federally-owned property within their borders. The concept since has spread to payments for state-owned property in some parts of the country and to some private developments, such as solar-energy generation, that are not feasible with normal property taxes.
The Bears’ pitch is in the preliminary stage and is receiving a mixed reception from Springfield officials. But because PILT payments can be negotiated rather than being set at a predetermined rate, and because they can be shared with schools rather than stay with municipalities, they offer more flexibility than a conventional TIF district.
There’s more.
Discuss.
- Senator Clay Davis - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 3:48 pm:
No new subsidies. Call their bluff. They already have a stadium, which taxpayers already paid for, twice. And the team sucks. Go shake down another state government.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 3:50 pm:
No. On all accounts.
Subsidizing a family of billionaires and “negotiating” their taxes with local taxing bodies is completely wrong. The local schools will probably feel compelled to bargain with them, if not they risk losing revenue because the municipality may go for TIF and freeze schools and other units of local government out.
The other side of this is that only one TIF in Illinois has successfully been opposed and that is in Burr Ridge. This project seems like the perfect one to oppose since the property is not “blighted”.
Still, absolutely not. Pay your taxes and take a smaller massive income.
- Former Bartender - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 3:55 pm:
This is definitely not a “private development … that (is) not feasible with normal property taxes” so hopefully the State puts a quick stop to this.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 3:59 pm:
Nope…
Big Nope…..
A whole lot of Nope….
Go to Gary, or how about Kenosha.
- jimbo - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 3:59 pm:
Arlington Heights residents should be able to do what they want.
But it’s borderline ridiculous for Cook or the state to incentivize a company to move from one side of the county to the opposite side of the same county.
If they were thinking of moving out of state to say, Gary, (LOL) that would be a different discussion.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:02 pm:
Worth more than $5.8 billion.
Not one expense has been a worry for 20+ years.
No assistance. Borrow off the assessed value of the asset, have the NFL co-sign
- OneMan - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:04 pm:
Yeah, if Arlington Heights was to give the store away to them, fine. But not the state.
- Vote Quimby - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:04 pm:
No. If you can’t afford it, sell the team to someone who can.
And also who maybe can field a decent team for a stretch of time… but I know that’s wishful thinking /s
- Early Wynn - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:06 pm:
Let’s also claw back the tax break for Sox Park , thé continued McCormick place boondoggle
- hisgirlfriday - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:07 pm:
Vote Down, Chicago Bears
Make the McCaskeys pay for this facility
Vote Down, Chicago Bears
For years they’ve given us nothing but futility
We’ll never forget the way they thrilled the nation
But the ‘85 Bears are now an AARP generation
Vote Down, Chicago Bears
And let them know why you’re wearing a frown
Beg the NFL commish you employ, not the taxpayers of Illinois
Chicago Bears, Vote Down
- Madigan's Apple - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:10 pm:
I’d be interested in the amount of revenue Arlington Heights will generate in sales, liquor, and hotel taxes. I bet it’s a great deal of $$$.
The Bears proposal could make the entire community whole. City gets taxes, school district gets Payment in lieu.
I get that tax payers don’t want to subsidize private business. But, it may be a little more complicated than that.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:12 pm:
The biggest bet ever taken in Arlington.
- Socially DIstant watcher - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:15 pm:
PILOT programs are also common with exempt properties like schools. But are the Bears really saying they should be exempt from taxes but will negotiate an amount to pay instead? That’s one heck of a precident they’re looking to set.
- Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:18 pm:
Borrowing from Richie Cunningham … “H E Double hockey sticks NO!”
- Just Another Anon - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:33 pm:
I don’t like taxpayer funded stadiums unless we are pulling NEW revenue in. If the Cardinals want to leave St. Louis and move to Addison, then by all means, sweeten the pot. But incentivizing moving between cities in the state isn’t really bringing anything new (besides potentially construction jobs), just redistributing what’s already there. The state shouldn’t be picking winners and losers amongst municipalities as to who reaps the benefits of local entertainment taxes.
- Homebody - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:36 pm:
Absolutely not. No handouts for billionaires. I don’t live in Arlington Heights, so I don’t care what the municipality does, but the state should not be pitching in anything.
- TJ - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:36 pm:
ILGOP and ILDems will briefly unite to laugh uproariously at this idea.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:41 pm:
Dear Chicago Bears:
Read the room.
Sincerely,
Just about everyone else
- TJ - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:46 pm:
+1 point to hisgirlfriday
- New Day - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:49 pm:
My answer to you, Senator, is this: Nothing. And I’d like you to personally pay for the gaming license.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:50 pm:
=But, it may be a little more complicated than that.=
It is actually less complicated than it would appear, so no.
- Occam - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:55 pm:
Last week, Rich just posted about the Local Government Business Anti-Poaching Act, HB0211, which would probably prevent these types of incentives to the Bears.
This hasn’t passed. Feature or bug?
- TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 4:58 pm:
There are an almost infinite number of ways this could be done other than this.
A special purpose district which is paid for by applying a tax to any tickets sold, or food sold, or beverages sold. Even a TIF allows for the collecting municipality to refund monies collected back to a school district with a custom agreement, if that’s the true intent of this proposal(which I doubt).
The only reason to try anything even more convoluted, is exactly because it is convoluted and unfamiliar to most people. There’s no other reason. The intent here is very clearly to use public money to subsidize a private for-profit sports team, no matter what form it takes. This being the worst form it has taken so far.
An especially large NO from me for any state money being used.
- ChicagoVinny - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 5:02 pm:
Why would I, a Chicago resident, ever support subsidizing the Bears moving out of the city?
They can pound sand.
- DuPage Guy - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 5:14 pm:
If they want a TIF District that doesn’t hurt schools or other property taxing bodies, then they should go with a Business Development District. Same qualifications, but uses a sales tax of up to 1%. And the city puts it into place, not the State.
- MisterJayEm - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 5:15 pm:
To quote a famous American, “My final offer is this: Nothing.”
– MrJM
- DuPage Guy - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 5:17 pm:
To add to my above comment: I forgot that Business Development Districts can also levy that 1% on hotel stays as well.
- West Sider - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 5:17 pm:
hisgirlfriday- sing it loud, sing it proud
- Colors of Fall - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 6:22 pm:
-But, it may be a little more complicated than that.-
How much in sales, liquor, and hotel taxes would be lost from current location? I bet it’s a great deal of $$$.
The Bears proposal could make the entire community whole. City gets taxes, school district gets Payment in lieu.
I get that tax payers don’t want to subsidize private business.
- Colors of Fall - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 6:25 pm:
Please pardon the copypasta error.
- Henry Francis - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 6:53 pm:
The team, and this new stadium complex, is going to be sold once Virginia passes. Any money given for this project is essentially further feathering the beds of Pappa Bear’s grandkids.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 7:21 pm:
Agree with OW. Bears are worth billions, they don’t need the money. It’s just typical pro sports asking for ransom money.
There’s no danger of the team moving- the NFL wouldn’t allow it. It’s the biggest market with just one team.
- Give Us Barabbas - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 7:55 pm:
As a fan, I too say nay, they have the money to do it on their own and no way state money should be used to subsidize the move or the construction. The only state spending should be idot road work under their regular planning protocols.
- West Side the Best Side - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 8:18 pm:
Maybe Decatur will take the Staleys back.
- jimbo - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 9:23 pm:
==As a fan, I too say nay==
Since it’s Arlington Park, should it be:
I too say neigh?
Sorry, I’ll see myself out.
- Amalia - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 9:37 pm:
Oh Bears organization, this is the season for giving to the needy. That’s not you. Way to act greedy at a particularly bad time of the year.
- Moved East - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 10:04 pm:
I think all TIFs should be banned, and this is a big No for the Bears
- Fivegreenleaves - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 10:09 pm:
So the McCaskeys (which I’m a huge Bears fan) want me to help them pay for their stadium in Arlington Heights, when A: they’re billionaires and I’m not, B: they deliver subpart performance for the money I’ve spent on the Bears, and C: I want them to stay in Chicago. They don’t have to stay at Soldier. I was there the first of November, and Good Lord, what an out of date stadium. But I would prefer if the Chicago Bears played in Chicago. I’m well aware many teams don’t play in their namesake cities, such as the Cowboys, Bills, Rams, Giants, and Jets. But one thing I like about the Bears is they’re the Chicago Bears, and they play in Chicago. I’d prefer they stay that way. No thanks. They can finance their own move out of Chicago.
- Gonna Happen - Wednesday, Dec 14, 22 @ 11:23 pm:
Just wait…this is an opening offer. A version of this will happen and JB will sign off on it. And all you heck no commenters will be right back here backing up JB for making a great deal.
- Stuck in Celliniland - Thursday, Dec 15, 22 @ 7:56 am:
This may be a ridiculous idea, but since it looks like Joliet Speedway has lost NASCAR permanently (and in all likelihood its days are numbered), how about the Bears consider converting that speedway to a new South Suburban stadium instead of AH?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Dec 15, 22 @ 8:06 am:
===Bears consider converting that speedway to a new South Suburban stadium instead of AH?===
The Bears own the property in Arlington Heights. They bought that land specifically for their stadium that they would own, and it’s (arguably) closer to Halas Hall (Lake Forest) than Soldier Field.
Please, keep up.
- Rabid - Thursday, Dec 15, 22 @ 8:30 am:
No one is luring the bears with TIF funds to come. They bought it
- DeeLay - Thursday, Dec 15, 22 @ 9:37 am:
“The state shouldn’t be picking winners and losers amongst municipalities as to who reaps the benefits of local entertainment taxes.”
The municipalities that lost out on a casino license would agree.
- NorthSideNoMore - Friday, Dec 16, 22 @ 8:31 am:
Allow school district to share in the sales tax revenues from the venue that would be an interesting avenue . Otherwise keep them whole under current assessment. A short term abatement might be in the districts interest for long term property value increases but nothing more that 3-4 years.