* Crain’s has a story about Chicago Federation of Labor President Bob Reiter’s support of a new White Sox ballpark in the South Loop…
The Sox organization may be trying to whip up as much support as it can before it meets with Pritzker and has to answer the biggest remaining question about the stadium proposal: Who would pay for it?
Reiter would say only that he was told “no new taxes built in . . . and right now that property isn’t generating nearly the amount of revenue as it would if it were fully developed.”
Sources familiar with what the team is planning, but who say they are not free to speak about the deal, have told Crain’s that the White Sox are likely to ask state legislators to empower the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority to either extend or issue new bonds backed by the existing 2% hotel occupancy tax currently used to satisfy the bonds issued to pay for Guaranteed Rate Field.
While that would not raise a new tax, because the hotel occupancy tax is already in place, state legislators may still turn up their noses at extending or issuing new bonds, or providing any public dollars to help build a stadium for a team whose value is measured in billions.
Thoughts?
…Adding… With a hat tip to a commenter, this is from the Bond Buyer last fall…
The ISFA owns, operates and issued $150 million of bonds in 1989 for Guaranteed Rate Field where the White Sox play, and issued $400 million of 2001 bonds that financed the renovation of the Chicago Park District-owned Soldier Field, home of the Bears. About $416 million of debt is outstanding, nearly all of it for the 2003 Soldier Field renovation.
- Dan Johnson - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 9:56 am:
When do the current bonds expire?
- So_Ill - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 9:56 am:
Jerry can spend his own money if he wants a new stadium to replace his current stadium that he didn’t pay for and doesn’t need replaced.
Go Cubs
- New Day - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:00 am:
How much is left on those bonds? Normally I oppose state funds for sports teams, this idea looks like it would be of a ton of value to the City.
- Just Me 2 - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:03 am:
When the bonds expire the current revenue stream should go towards things the City actually needs. Another new stadium is not one of those things.
The Sox should get the same public subsidies the Cubs get. If they take their ball and go elsewhere that is fine with me.
- Lincoln Lad - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:03 am:
Don’t understand what is inadequate with the current stadium, other than there would be a preference to be located closer to downtown. Not sure that justifies a change after the stadium’s been built, occupied, and unfortunately not paid for.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:06 am:
The drawings of the proposed new stadium and surrounding structures allow for zero parking. Not sure how that would work. Most suburban fans are averse to using public transit.
- DuPage Dad - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:08 am:
The ISFA holds all of the debt for both Guaranteed Rate Field as well as Soldier Field, which still stands at about $400 million, and almost all of said balance is related to Soldier Field. The problem is not that Guaranteed Rate Field isn’t paid off (it basically is), the problem is that the State made ISFA the sole holder and financier of debt for those two facilities, so you sort of have to lump them together from a fiscal perspective. The city’s hotel tax was effectively set up to satisfy this debt, but it is currently struggling to do so. In addition, the hotel tax is already one of the highest in the country with a growing list of places to go (think every growing metro in the south/Vegas/NYC as your competition), so raising it would be very challenging.
In summary, the ISFA is not in pristine shape, and now there’s two sports teams who want to relocate, both potentially within the city.
Good luck.
- ChicagoBars - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:13 am:
“How much is left on those [ISFA] bonds?”
From a September paywalled Bond Buyer article when they got a ratings upgrade….
“The ISFA owns, operates and issued $150 million of bonds in 1989 for Guaranteed Rate Field where the White Sox play, and issued $400 million of 2001 bonds that financed the renovation of the Chicago Park District-owned Soldier Field, home of the Bears. About $416 million of debt is outstanding, nearly all of it for the 2003 Soldier Field renovation…..The debt is set to mature in 2032. A current refunding is expected next year using existing state authority to push out the final maturity by one year to 2033, but new authority is needed for a more comprehensive solution, said ISFA Chief Executive Officer Frank Bilecki. “If you look at the payments going forward and how they ramp to just over $90 million toward the end, versus where the hotel tax revenue estimates might be…”
So figure almost a cool half billion already outstanding in ISFA debt and hard to see the White Sox getting their beak wet from a cash out (for new stadium) ISFA bond refi without the Bears bringing their stadium subsidy tin cup too.
- Save Ferris - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:16 am:
“the problem is not that Guaranteed Rate Field isn’t paid off (it basically is)”
I’m looking at the 2022 ISFA annual report right now. There are several series of bonds, some tied to SF, some tied to Comiskey, but I can’t tell for certain which are which outside of the 2001 series. I was under the impression that Comiskey was more in the “somewhat” that “mostly” paid off category due to additions like the restaurant built at taxpayer expense on the north side of the stadium.
That said, the comments about ISFA being “not in good shape” are spot on. Jerry and Dollar Bill paid for the UC on their own. Jerry can do it again.
- Frida's boss - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:18 am:
Jerry has put a sub-par product on the field and hasn’t paid real money for years due to a lack of attendance numbers. The Sox pay $1.5 million/year in rent, they then have to pay between $3-9 per ticket over 1.9 million fans. If they don’t reach 1.9 million fans they keep all the revenue. It has happened one time since 2011 they’ve gone over 1.9 million.
The Sox are valued at over $2 billion dollars. They want a new stadium go build it. Buy the land and build the stadium. It’ll cost you money but you have it. You haven’t spent on players, or upgrades or anything else. Your spring training facility has been paid for by the Govt in Arizona as well.
Stop giving billionaires welfare.
- Roadrager - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:20 am:
==Reiter would say only that he was told “no new taxes built in . . . and right now that property isn’t generating nearly the amount of revenue as it would if it were fully developed.”==
That’s a funny way of saying “Just think of all the money Jerry Reinsdorf and Jerry Reinsdorf alone could make off of this land.”
- Just Me 2 - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:20 am:
Friendly Bob Adams - because there is so much parking available at Wrigley Field? They’ll get over it.
- NotRich - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:20 am:
Can anyone say “Nashville White Sox”???
- DuPage Dad - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:22 am:
@Save Ferris
This is the source I found for my comment. It is dated Sep. 2023 so I feel it is likely reasonably accurate, but welcome any alternative information you find.
“The ISFA owns, operates and issued $150 million of bonds in 1989 for
Guaranteed Rate Field where the White Sox play, and issued $400 million of
2001 bonds that financed the renovation of the Chicago Park District-owned
Soldier Field, home of the Bears. About $416 million of debt is outstanding,
nearly all of it for the 2003 Soldier Field renovation.”
https://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/0/B75DCA0D5C40E2AE88258A22004EFC7F/$file/Bond%20Buyer.pdf
- ChicagoBars - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:23 am:
I note purely as a sideline observer of chaos that McCormick Place also probably needs to refinance a bunch of debt, AND needs to renovate/redevelop their oldest building Lakeside Center, AND between the Bears, Sox, and McCormick Place there are a expiring leases to be renewed too. Big fun ahead (banned punctuation)
- The Truth - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:25 am:
I gotta admit I was wrong at first blush about this. There seems to be a lot more real push for this new ballpark than I estimated.
- Almost the Weekend - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:33 am:
I don’t know how Illinois can get involved in the White Sox new stadium and not Chicago Bears. It’s best to stay away from both. Call Jerry’s bluff or let him go to Nashville.
- Save Ferris - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:35 am:
@DuPage Dad: Some really good stuff in that link. Like you, I assume it’s accurate. Just such a mess they’ve made out of it. The SF deal is just the worst. Too much money for too small a stadium with terrible architecture on an inaccessible plot of land.
- Probably should retire soon - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:36 am:
There is a little more than $40 million in principal outstanding for the bonds sold to fund Comiskey restruction. Here’s the kicker, they’ve been paying interest only since the bonds were issued years ago. The principal payments do not kick in until 2027. Your tax dollars hard at work!
- Benjamin - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:37 am:
I’m a Sox fan, but I agree with So_Ill: Jerry can pay for his own stadium. I’m very much against propping up (wealthy) sports teams with support from taxes or tax-backed bonds.
- Jerry - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:50 am:
Like the Conservatives like to say: No Socialist Welfare Entitlements for The Chicago American League Ball Club.
Don’t like it? Move.
- Cool Papa Bell - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 10:56 am:
=When the bonds expire the current revenue stream should go towards things the City actually needs.=
Not sure if that’s how it would all work, but I agree. Use the existing 2% to payoff what is now largely Solider Field debt and then fund other things.
I don’t think the Bears should get any money and I don’t think the Sox should either. The think is about Nashville, they are building a brand new stadium for the Titan’s and I wonder if the Sox realize that the city/state won’t be ready to pump another $500/$750 million into a stadium for a team from out of town.
I think the Sox are now really figuring out they have no where go, so it’s time to fleece their hometown for some new digs.
- Pundent - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 11:01 am:
I think of these bonds like a mortgage that’s about to be paid off. Jerry’s argument is that you should continue to pay that mortgage once it’s gone or get a new one simply because you’re used to paying it. And that’s a fools argument.
- Dan Johnson - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 11:17 am:
These comments are great.
So basically…it seems like there’s about a decade left of payments from the 2% hotel tax to retire all the corporate welfare for billionaire families who own sports teams debt (if the Authority decided to max out on principal payments and the hotel tax doesn’t plummet and there aren’t any more projects built). That’s because Comiskey is down to $40M ish and Soldier Field still has $400M ish.
But with interest, somehow in 10 years, it’s $743M total in debt.
Anyone know how much 2% of the hotel tax brings in? It looks like it is enough to cover all the debt service which is about $55M (ramping up to $90M for the ballon payment in the last year).
Oh and the state already sends $5M every year in the annual budget. So that and the city hotel tax covers the cost….except it might not ramp up to the $90M in a decade. That’s what I get from that very helpful article.
No new projects and ISFA is paid off in a decade (assuming hotel occupancy rates keep up). I hope they are paying off as much debt as they can this year.
Anybody have a hotel tax revenue chart?
- Leslie D. - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 11:17 am:
I agree with So_Ill, and I am a Sox fax. How are you going to blame THE FANS when it’s the team on the field? Also staging someone bringing in a gun was a horrible idea. We can’t even bring in purses of a certain size but this guy got a gun in? Also anyone else notice the same lobbyist at City Hall for Da Six is the same for NASCAR and Dollar Tree? All hot topics. Just saying. Jerry needs to sell the team or actually build one. There is nothing wrong with the current stadium. Fans love it!
- TNR - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 11:21 am:
Related Midwest already got the 78 development placed in a TIF. Would be nice to get some clarity on how much that is supposed to raise and what it’s supposed to finance.
- Amalia - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 11:34 am:
huh.that stat on what the financing is owed for is quite interesting. the details of the deal for the new stadium will be about more than the stadium. that is why the Alder is interested & why the Alder of 11 does not seem to mind the loss of the current stadium. it will connect things to the south side. it seems like the project will be a huge financial deal beyond the stadium. while I’m loathe to spend public dollars for any stadium after both the spending efforts of the past this project is about far more than the stadium itself. therefore it becomes a more fascinating idea for public help.
- DS - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 11:35 am:
That Soldier Field debacle is the curse that keeps on cursing. Never again.
- Macon Bakin - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 11:39 am:
Stop grifting and start selling the team, Jerry.
- Tommydanger - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 11:47 am:
I understand the initial reaction to the Bears and Sox receiving any government funding because their owners are wealthy individuals. Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are wealthy individuals too. GM and Boeing are ‘wealthy’ corporations as well.
And yet, governments routinely vie with one another by offering taxpayer subsidies in an effort to have such companies locate in their state or community. If you disagree with all of those efforts and oppose assistance to the Bears or Sox, then I can’t fault your stance. If however, you’re ok with a Boeing or Tesla incentive package, then I suggest you may be inconsistent in your views.
The state and city are obligated to assess requests by the Bears and Sox in the same manner they would for a Boeing or a Tesla; what are the benefits, primarily measured in economic terms, that the business would yield if it were to locate in their state/community. New jobs vs transferred jobs, the value of those jobs both in constructing the facilities and then for operating the facilities. The value in new jobs, new property tax revenues, new sales tax and hotel revenues resulting from any spin off developments resulting in that business locating where planned. Will there be resulting increases in the value of properties already existing by the planned location that will yield additional property tax revenues. Will the related and necessary infrastructure improvements bring new value to neighborhoods nearby, specifically the extension or improvement to public transportation systems. I’m certain there is financial modeling employed by governments that is done for any project of this magnitude.
The numbers generatedwill make or break the case for assistance.
In the case of the Sox or Bears if a Chicago location is chosen, you’ll have to factor in the cost or opportunities for the former facilities. There’s a non economic factor of the pride/cache of a professional sports franchise located in your community, but frankly I would place nominal value on that when taxpayer dollars are involved.
There are many more ways to view, value and discuss the use of taxpayer monies for these projects, but I believe for better or worse, they should be evaluated as a business proposal and divorced from how deep you believe the pockets are of the person making the request.
- Jibba - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 11:53 am:
Sell the Bears GRF for $416 mil, pay off the bonds, and do the infrastructure that helps Jerry build on the south side. No more.
- JB13 - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 11:54 am:
– I wonder if the Sox realize that the city/state won’t be ready to pump another $500/$750 million into a stadium for a team from out of town –
Maybe. But the Houston Oilers say hello
- Amalia - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 12:06 pm:
can’t recall who gave us the Soldier Field deal. who was at the Park District then? the design is a disaster. I know people who will not go to a game there because they hate the watch.
- City Guy - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 12:10 pm:
There has been a big push to move development away from the core and north side. Mayor Lightfoot had Invest South/West which was deemed not successful enough for Johnson. It will be interesting to see if Mayor Johnson will support moving the Sox closer to the core of the City.
- supplied_demand - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 12:20 pm:
==The drawings of the proposed new stadium and surrounding structures allow for zero parking. =
As reported by Sun-Times, it would have 4k spots underground. On the other hand, Wrigley does just fine without massive parking structures.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2024/1/19/24044344/white-sox-stadium-the-78-related-midwest-jerry-reinsdorf-multibillion-dollar-development
- Tinman - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 1:22 pm:
The Sox’s want an entertainment center much like the cubs with hotels and bars near the ballpark . It could be a big boost to the city . It would generate jobs and economic activity during the course of construction and afterward. Should the bonds be issued to finance it ? It is a common practice and should pay for itself in the course of time .
- Just Me 2 - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 1:32 pm:
Tinman - is that is what the Sox want, and it can easily be financed, then the Sox can build it themselves.
- Frida's boss - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 2:03 pm:
Tommydanger, it’s a well-thought-out and articulated debate.
You left out one of the biggest pieces - political dynamics.
- Blue Dog - Friday, Jan 26, 24 @ 3:19 pm:
is Barry ‘bonds’ available?