* Subscribers were also briefed this morning. Tribune…
The Chicago Bears are prepared to provide $2 billion in private funding for a new publicly owned enclosed stadium and park space in the city, the team confirmed Monday.
The lakefront site would replace Soldier Field and increase open space on the museum campus by 20%, and provide a prime location to host the Super Bowl, NCAA Final Four and year-round community events, a source familiar with the deal said. […]
“This investment will enhance our reputation as a world-class city and tourist and convention destination,” [Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Jack] said. “And it will encourage more investment.”
A city ordinance generally prohibits private development on the lakefront. The nonprofit group Friends of the Parks filed suit and defeated a previous plan by Star Wars creator George Lucas to build a museum south of Soldier Field. The team is expected to meet with the group soon to share its plans.
* ESPN…
Although the team has not released renderings of its proposed lakefront stadium, a source confirmed the location would be immediately south of the current site of Soldier Field and would maintain parking in the south lot. […]
The public component for the proposed lakefront stadium is not yet known. […]
Should the Bears succeed in their plan to build a new lakefront stadium, a source indicated the team likely will put the Arlington Park property up for sale.
* NBC 5…
The Bears plan to invest more than $2 billion of private funding into the project, which would also increase open space in the area by 20%, the source said.
That open space would include plazas, paths, landscaped areas, lakefront access and more. That effort — creating more public spaces in the redevelopment of the area — appears aimed at placating preservation group Friends of the Parks, which successfully sued to prevent George Lucas from building a museum along the lakefront and has previously voiced opposition to the team’s construction of any new stadium project on Museum Campus. […]
Complicating the ask for public funding is the money still owed on both teams’ stadiums. The Illinois Sport Facilities Authority, which issued bonds for the construction of both stadiums, owes $589 million on the 2002 renovation of Soldier Field and $50 million on Guaranteed Rate, which opened in 1991. Those bonds are paid in part through the state’s 2% hotel tax, but if those revenues can’t make the multi-million dollar payments, Chicago’s share of the state income tax picks up the shortfall. Guaranteed Rate’s bonds are slated to be paid off in 2029, while the Soldier Field deal runs through 2032.
* ABC 7…
A previously floated plan, included a partnership between the White Sox and the Bears to build two new stadiums in the city at the same time, but in this new version, sources said the Bears would go it alone. […]
Arlington Heights Mayor Tom Hayes said in a statement, “We did not receive a courtesy call from the Bears about this and have seen nothing in writing, so no comment at this time other than we know it’s a long way from a done deal at either location.”
* Mayor Brandon Johnson…
I have said all along that meaningful private investment and a strong emphasis on public benefit are my requirements for public-private partnerships in our city. The Chicago Bears plans are a welcome step in that direction and a testament to Chicago’s economic vitality.
I look forward to subsequent talks with the Bears, State leadership and community stakeholders about how we can continue to responsibly support the aspirations of the team, its fans and all residents of the City of Chicago.
* Bears President and CEO Kevin Warren…
“The Chicago Bears are proud to contribute over $2 billion to build a stadium and improve open spaces for all families, fans and the general public to enjoy in the City of Chicago. The future stadium of the Chicago Bears will bring a transformative opportunity to our region—boosting the economy, creating jobs, facilitating mega events and generating millions in tax revenue. We look forward to sharing more information when our plans are finalized.”
* After laying out the plan in quite a bit of detail, Fran Spielman has some questions…
• Where is that private money coming from, and how much of it is from the National Football League?
• Would the team sell naming rights to the new stadium? That wasn’t viable at Soldier Field, given its war memorial status.
• If bonds are issued to help fund the stadium, which public entity would issue them, and what tax would be used to pay off those bonds?
• What are the infrastructure costs at the lakefront site?
• Would public transit along the lakefront be improved to allow better access to the stadium?
The team also released a few poll results, but they didn’t include the questions asked and several other important aspects, so I’m choosing not to share the numbers they did release.
…Adding… Rep. Mark Walker (D-Arlington Heights)…
“From the Bears’ first announcement to purchase Arlington Park, I’ve been open to the team’s move to Arlington Heights, but reaching a fair deal for all has always been the priority. As I’ve said before, I trust the Bears when they say they’re exploring all options in the best interest of their company. If they go forward with their lakefront plan, it’s our responsibility to make the best decision for Arlington Heights, Rolling Meadows, and our neighboring communities as well. I look forward to the many interesting proposals to come on the future of Arlington Park like new business development, more affordable housing, or welcoming centers for new arrivals.”
- Former Downstater - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:10 am:
This is apparently how the public funding questions were asked in the Bears’ poll- https://x.com/dan_bernstein/status/1767215318231810213?s=20
- vern - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:15 am:
I’m baffled by this development. If they have $2 billion available, why not build a stadium they’ll own on land they own?
- Save Ferris - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:22 am:
They’re haggling over $5 million to $8 million a year in taxes during the construction period, only. That’s what they just spent on a running back. This is all a head fake to get AH to cave.
And the best part, if they don’t move there, the Bears are STILL on the hook for the taxes as the already own the property!
- Cool Papa Bell - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:24 am:
=The Bears plan to invest more than $2 billion of private funding into the project=
If you have $2 billion, then why would a few extra million a year in property tax in AH be such a deterrent that you need to walk away from that property?
=The Illinois Sport Facilities Authority, which issued bonds for the construction of both stadiums, owes $589 million on the 2002 renovation of Soldier Field=
Stop the can kicking. There is no need to pile more public debt on top of existing debt to give away any more money on one of these projects.
- Benniefly2 - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:27 am:
Since the actual financing details are non-existent, all I will say is this… It would be a very expensive mistake for Chicago to accept ownership of a privately built domed stadium that the Chicago would be on the hook for all maintenance and upgrade costs going forward. The land should remain public. The stadium should be owned and maintained and financed by the Bears and the Bears only.
- supplied_demand - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:37 am:
==If they have $2 billion available, why not build a stadium they’ll own on land they own? ==
Because the new leadership prefers to stay in the city and they now have a mayor willing to work with them on the revenue they need to make it work (naming rights, casino, more control of gameday experience).
They bought the racetrack because it was available and they had to move if they wanted it. They can always sell it.
- Roadrager - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:39 am:
==The public component for the proposed lakefront stadium is not yet known.==
And until it is, with a very firm number, and until the McCaskeys put their cash on the table for real, this is all magical thinking and another blarney PR push to friendly outlets in this week of luck and leprechauns.
- Say What - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:45 am:
== It would be a very expensive mistake for Chicago to accept ownership of a privately built domed stadium that the Chicago would be on the hook for all maintenance and upgrade costs going forward. ==
Soldier Field is a PUBLICLY owned stadium and Chicago Park District is now responsible for its upkeep.
- Roadrager - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:45 am:
==Because the new leadership prefers to stay in the city==
Tell me who you think is in charge of the Chicago Bears, and who serves an employee of the person or people in charge of the Chicago Bears.
- Skokie Man - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:48 am:
I’m surprised they didn’t release pretty pictures of the imaginary stadium and fictional new park… that’s a standard piece of the blarney PR show that franchises put out there.
I hope they put out pictures of the stadium shaped like a giant bear reaching into a honey pot full of public dollars.
- Slooper - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:49 am:
Where’s Pat Dowell and the city council on all this. I smell Bob Dunn…
https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2022/7/25/23278067/bob-dunn-soldier-field-renovations-dome-bears-one-central-project-transit-hub-museum-campus
- Roadrager - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:54 am:
==I’m surprised they didn’t release pretty pictures of the imaginary stadium and fictional new park==
Another indicator of the degree to which this organization has thought this all through and has it all together.
- Jerry - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:56 am:
The Bears are free to build whatever they want they are a privately owned, for-profit corporation.
However, because of Tax Fairness, there is no public funding available. They already got a free stadium paid for by taxpayers.
- Socially DIstant watcher - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:57 am:
So, after crashing an alien spaceship into Soldier Field, now they want to tear it down?
- JS Mill - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 11:09 am:
No public money. Period.
- Arsenal - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 11:19 am:
This sounds like a much better idea, and were it up to me I would try to clear the zoning and regulatory roadblocks to make it happen, and I would not offer a dime of public money.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 11:24 am:
“a prime location to host the Super Bowl, NCAA Final Four and year-round community events”
The Chicago lakefront and skyline are iconic, such a great place for major national events that would draw in money for the city and state. But the Bears have to prove they will improve on the field (and a massive test is coming with the draft/QB), or why would there be excitement to keep and help finance the team that makes the same mistakes over and over.
- Former State Worker - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 11:39 am:
So, who would buy that property in Arlington Heights? What could that land be used for? Housing?
- low level - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 11:39 am:
==revenues can’t make the multi-million dollar payments, Chicago’s share of the state income tax picks up the shortfall. ==
So Chicago would lose out on even more state income tax potentially if the hotel tax fails to cover increased borrowing. This is a bad idea. Move to AH.
- ArchPundit - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 11:39 am:
I am hoping this works and I’m skeptical of significant public support, but if it is built on public land there will be *some* public money needed for infrastructure and such so while I don’t want the state and city to throw money at them, we really need to see what the full proposal will be.
- Pundent - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 11:41 am:
=But the Bears have to prove they will improve on the field (and a massive test is coming with the draft/QB), or why would there be excitement to keep and help finance the team that makes the same mistakes over and over.=
The ownership of the Cubs invested their own money and then won the World Series. They made the investment and reaped the financial benefits as it should be.
I see no taxpayer benefit in incurring more debt for a facility that sits vacant for the majority of the year. And my view would not change if the Bears fielded a winning team.
- DuPage - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 11:49 am:
@- vern - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 10:15 am:
===I’m baffled by this development. If they have $2 billion available, why not build a stadium they’ll own on land they own?===
City owned=tax exempt, no property tax.
- Lincoln Lad - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 12:00 pm:
It seems to me that this downtown location, with a $2B private investment commitment (so far) is a plan with some legs. Time for the unions to get behind this one… I think this can be supported and be a win win.
- Juice - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 12:00 pm:
Once the Government leases property they own, legally, the lease holder is now liable for property taxes.
I have no idea of the Bears have been paying anything, if somewhere in the law they have an exemption, or if the assessor (and others) have simply been looking the other way all these years.
But even former Rep. Monique Davis was on the hook for property taxes for her district office because it was leased from CPS owned space.
- Google Is Your Friend - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 12:09 pm:
== Where is that private money coming from, and how much of it is from the National Football League?==
The NFL has a fund that owners can borrow from at low interest rates. In several recent stadium developments, the NFL has also approved exemptions for higher borrowing amounts from that fund. At SoFi in the LA area, Goldman Sachs was also involved as a funder.
Also, for everyone complaining about Arlington Heights, ask the San Francisco 49ers how moving way out to the burbs has worked for them. Not very well and they have been one of the most successful organizations in the league and in sports generally over the past 15 years and since the 1980s overall. If you think the Bears moving to the burbs is going to end up more like the Atlanta Braves than 49ers, then just stop talking and start listening and reading.
- Cool Papa Bell - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 12:12 pm:
I was fooled (again) by the Bears when they bought the AH site, I though they actually had a plan.
Moving to that site makes all the sense in the world; they could build a 70-80K seat stadium, play land developer, build hotels, housing, commercial space and lay claim to hundreds of acres of prime land along with a business that can’t fail or lose money. Brilliant.
But they are the Bears’. So I’m pretty sure they didn’t have a plan once a few million in property tax couldn’t be ignored. Now the plan is to build on land the courts have otherwise protected. On a site that might again give them the smallest NFL stadium and won’t allow for any further development or revenue.
Of course that’s what the Bears’ have settled on.
- Bogey Golfer - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 12:25 pm:
I believe the Bears are just playing as to whether Chicago or Arlington Heights will get the better deal.
They try to play the City route. If Friends of the Park balk, if the City won’t accept the stadium for maintenance, then they go to AH.
- Sports Junkie - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 12:27 pm:
Does anyone really think the McCaskeys are writing a 2 billion dollar check? Money for a new stadium, trust me, is going to come from PSLs and fans. The stories should be up front about that. The way they’re written it sounds like its coming out of the McCaskey’s personal checking account.
- ChicagoBars - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 12:28 pm:
Because I like to party I dug into the City of Chicago zoning map tool and then the Cook County property tax portal (which is awesome) and it looks like Soldier Field’s PIN is 16-14-117-003-0000 and it’s treated as fully exempt from property taxes.
Usual caveats that multiple PINs for big parcels like that can exist and be complicated to decipher.
- supplied_demand - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 12:34 pm:
==Tell me who you think is in charge of the Chicago Bears, and who serves an employee of the person or people in charge of the Chicago Bears.==
Kevin Warren is in charge of building a new stadium for the Chicago Bears. He has done it before, nobody else “in charge” has led the building of an NFL stadium.
Who do YOU think is in charge?
- Juice - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 1:45 pm:
Thanks ChicagoBars. The property being exempt was what I assumed.
I’m not sure that’s in accordance with the law though.
- Rahm's Parking Meter - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 2:13 pm:
Either buld at the track or sell the team to someone who will. I am tired of the Bears being the Springfield Monorail of Arlington Heights. And I support that project.
- Rahm's Parking Meter - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 2:13 pm:
Sorry for the typo - build.
- Chicagonk - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 2:28 pm:
I’m very curious how they would handle the logistics. It’s already a nightmare getting in and out of Soldier Field. Does this add momentum to One Chicago?
- Pundent - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 3:13 pm:
=Who do YOU think is in charge?=
The McCaskey’s are and have always been in charge. Kevin Warren is an employee just as Ted Phillips and others have been. Any desire to build a stadium in Arlington Heights or Chicago begins and ends with the McCaskey’s. They write the checks Kevin Warren does not.
This is merely an attempt to create leverage where none exists. Time and time again the Bears have overplayed their hand. The domed stadium, with no meaningful details behind it and plenty of opposition is DOA.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 3:18 pm:
===This is merely an attempt to create leverage===
Over whom? The Bears have hired a bunch of Statehouse lobbyists. That ain’t about AH.
- low level - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 4:21 pm:
==It’s already a nightmare getting in and out of Soldier Field.==
And surrounding residential streets in the South Loop are backed up significantly. How do they plan to address this?
- Jeremy Rosen - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 5:11 pm:
As always I appreciate Rep. Walker. He’s very thoughtful in his comments.
- Fivegreenleaves - Monday, Mar 11, 24 @ 8:44 pm:
I hope this plan comes to fruition. Chicago isn’t the same without the Bears, and the Bears aren’t the same without Chicago. The Bears belong in Chicago.
- semi-employed lawyer - Tuesday, Mar 12, 24 @ 8:30 am:
@Juice
==Once the Government leases property they own, legally, the lease holder is now liable for property taxes.==
Does that mean Jerry is paying taxes for 35th and Shields?