26 Comments - DuPage Dad - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:17 pm: Define “incentives.” And how does that affect ISFA? - Suburbanon - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:21 pm: If I understand the language correctly, targeting only teams that move, Chicago will still be able to offer as many incentives to Bears as they want. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:27 pm: ===targeting only teams that move=== Yes, that’s also the headline. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:27 pm: ===And how does that affect ISFA? === You hearing something about ISFA offering help to a team that’s moving? If not, why even bring it up? - 60657 - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:30 pm: This seems badly drafted. How narrowly would “location” be interpreted? E.g., would it prohibit incentives if the Bears moved to a different site within Chicago? Also, you could argue that the Bears’ operations (team offices, practice facilities, etc.) aren’t in Chicago, they’re in Lake Forest. If they keep using Halas Hall, would they qualify for incentives even if they play their games in Arlington Hts? - Pundent - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:32 pm: As it should be. Last I checked the Bears have a perfectly acceptable stadium to use. And I’m sure they’ll have no problem in arranging financing, albeit at slightly higher interest rates. Moving to Arlington Heights is in their economic interest, not ours. - ddp76 - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:36 pm: So theoretically they could try to attract the Packers (or any other out of state team)? Tongue firmly in cheek. - Anon 1:37 - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:37 pm: Does this speak volumes to how universally disliked the McCaskey family is. - Montrose - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:42 pm: “Does this speak volumes to how universally disliked the McCaskey family is.” They may be disliked, but I don’t think this about who owns the Bears. People are just tired of this type of play for government money. - Excitable Boy - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 1:49 pm: I would have liked it better if they’d stopped after organization. - Jerry - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:01 pm: How does this affect Aaron Rogers, who “owns” the Bears? (meant in humor). - Stuck in Celliniland - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:06 pm: How about follow this up with a House or Senate Resolution (or better yet, a Joint Resolution) calling for Virginia to sell the team and/or the McCaskeys to get the boot? - SpiDem - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:06 pm: To the question regarding definition of incentives, my read is that it would only apply to incentives applicable to this new act. In other words, standard, existing economic incentives, such as EDGE tax credits, could still be accessed by the Bears. - 48th Ward Heel - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:07 pm: If you really want to put a stake in this thing’s heart, tell the folks in western Lake County that the Bears will be demanding we revive the Route 53 extension next. - Pundent - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:09 pm: =People are just tired of this type of play for government money.= And last I checked NFL teams aren’t struggling for revenue or profitability. And when they look to sell their franchises they go for record numbers. They’ll require their season ticket holders to purchase personal seat licenses and will have no problems whatsoever in selling them. So as people struggle with inflation, and to simply make ends meet, I don’t think they have much sympathy for NFL owners. - lake county democrat - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:21 pm: 48th Ward - my suggestion for the stake in the heart would be to post a simulation video of what it’s going to be like driving from the north shore suburbs gameday down Lake/Euclid to get to Arlington Heights. - Jerry - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:27 pm: @48th ward heel: Too funny. Well done, thanks for the laugh. - Google Is Your Friend - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:27 pm: When Virginia passes, this team is getting sold and the only way an Arlington Heights stadium would happen is with a new owner. The McCaskey family is totally in over their heads now and it was true in their last stadium search too. - Stuck in Celliniland - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:29 pm: ==tell the folks in western Lake County that the Bears will be demanding we revive the Route 53 extension next== And then follow that up with some bones to the western suburbs, Peoria area and western Illinois, by claiming that the Bears are also demanding revival of the Prairie Parkway, Route 336 from Macomb to Peoria, and finishing I-180 to Peoria (and thus renumbering the Illinois 6 freeway in Peoria to I-74). For “the benefit of downstate Bears fans.” - Facts Matter - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 2:39 pm: SpiDem - That is incorrect. EDGE has always contained a prohibition against awarding the credit for moving from one location in the state to another location in the state. - Unionman - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 3:17 pm: Maybe the Bears should buy out parts of Northwest Indiana and move there. Indiana probably has some money for them. They can still call themselves the Chicago Bears (if it good enough for New York, why not Chicago) - Betty Draper’s cigarette - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 3:57 pm: === They can still call themselves the Chicago Bears (if it good enough for New York, why not Chicago)=== The Gary Bears has a nice ring to it though. - Stuck in Celliniland - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 4:14 pm: ==The Gary Bears has a nice ring to it though.== What about the Hammond Bears or the Merrillville Bears. - Huh? - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 4:21 pm: All this means is the bears can’t get direct cash from DCEO. There is nothing that says they have to pay for the infrastructure improvements needed to support their stadium and associated development. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 4:26 pm: ===There is nothing that says they have to pay for the infrastructure improvements=== If the locals want to step in, then whatever. But this comment of yours should be filed under “People will complain about literally anything.” - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 9, 23 @ 4:30 pm: ===“People will complain about literally anything.” === Also, I hate it when OW takes a day off. lol Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.