* NBC in December…

An advocate group for Chicago parks has responded to reports that the Chicago Bears are surveying the viability of Soldier Field’s South Lot as a potential new stadium site.

The group’s board chair, Bronwyn Nichols, released the following statement Wednesday on behalf of Friends of the Parks:

“The Bears’ viability study about building a new structure on protected lakefront land absolutely should include dealing with a lawsuit. Friends of the Parks most certainly will continue in its historic role of fending off attempts to develop real estate on the people’s lakefront for private interests.” […]

“We had that period where we were focused on Arlington,” Bears CEO/President Kevin Warren told NBC’s Peter King on his podcast. “We have some issues to work on. There’s a possibility there. But one of the things I promised myself and promised the McCaskeys is that I would come in and take a fresh look at what’s the right thing to do.

* Friends of the Parks and the Bears sat down in March. Crain’s…

At the meeting, Friends of the Parks continued to advocate for the Bears to instead build a stadium at the former Michael Reese hospital site, but team executives explained their concerns, including that the Reese site is too narrow and could potentially involve pushing residents out of their homes to make way for the stadium. […]

After the meeting, both parties issued statements acknowledging the meeting but did not provide specifics on what was discussed.

“The Chicago Bears met with Friends of the Parks to discuss our mutual dedication to Chicago and our deep love for our city’s parks and lakefront area. We look forward to continuing to work together to strengthen our city,” a Bears spokesman said in a statement.

“Friends of the Parks had the opportunity to sit down with the Chicago Bears and hear their vision for a new stadium. They also had an opportunity to hear our values. We look forward to future meetings and conversations with a broader group of stakeholders,” Friends of the Parks said through a spokesperson.

* Yesterday, Friends of the Parks responded to the Chicago Bears news conference…

The “Chicago Way” was on full display at the Chicago Bears news conference today. Once again, Chicago taxpayers are being told what is good for them. We are told that a new domed stadium on protected lakefront land will make Chicago a great city. We are already a great city—in large part due to our protected lakefront. As is so often the case in Chicago,the powerful and wealthy are demanding that our entire city stop and fast track their plans to expand operations on the people’s lakefront.

Meanwhile, the communities we work with who are addressing immigrant issues, homelessness, school closures, affordable housing, public safety, equitable transportation, and lack of jobs are fighting for parity–including at our Chicago Park District parks.

We are all being asked to trust the process and accept that it will, in fact, be Bear-a-dice. Yet, Chicago has a long history of, closed-door planning and rushed decision-making that does not end well for taxpayers. Just look at The Lincoln Yards, The 78, a Chicago casino, and the infamous parking meter deal. Each of these was going to make Chicago into a “world class” city and be a “win-win-win” for residents.

The questions everyone needs to ask of the Bears organization and our elected officials are:

1.What is the actual rush? Do rushed processes in Chicago ever end well? Our city takes decades to build a grocery store in a food desert, but we are being asked to jump as high as the Bears tell us to and fast. Yet, Bronzeville, home to the former Ida B. Wells Projects, and other public housing sites that were promised replacement housing after their communities were demolished in the early 2000s, are still empty in 2024.

2.What about the other parks in Chicago that have waited for equitable investment in their communities? Does a rushed process for an NFL team make more sense than, say, rushing the restoration of a South Side field house? Or expansion of programs to meet demands in North Lawndale? Or restoration of obsolete equipment across the city?

3. What other sites were vetted by the Bears and the City of Chicago, and what was thespecific decision not to proceed with each of those sites? Violating the public trust doctrine should require a rigorous vetting process for alternatives.

4.What about Soldier Field? First, its history was all but obliterated with public funds,which we are still paying off, but now it is set for demolition? What message are we sending to our veterans and their families?

5.How does this plan demonstrate an investment in the people that Mayor Johnson promised to Chicago when he ran for office? How have the people been engaged in dialogue throughout this process? What is the process? Is it transparent? Is it inclusive? It is honest?

6. Why does it always come down to “we want our playground on the lake, or we will go somewhere else?” Is that fair to the rest of Chicago? It’s business as usual to have wealth and power dictating public policy, but is that a best practice for Chicago to follow?

7. It is a good business practice to trust and verify. It is sound business practice for the city of Chicago to hire independent contractors to objectively assess the economic impact the Bears have had since their bond deal in the early 2000s, which we are still paying off today. And to evaluate the return on investment if we put billions into this project directly or indirectly. What level of permanent jobs will this plan generate? Are they trade jobs with a track for career development?

8. Does it seem reasonable that the Chicago Bears should get their wants satisfied immediately while poor neighborhoods suffer from benign neglect?

9. We have seen no evidence of broad-based community engagement or community-led planning. We look forward to asking our questions about process to the stake-holders who participated with the Bears leadership at today’s news conference.

This is a time for some thoughtful, deliberate and civic engagement. A civil, community-driven conversation should be at the forefront of any action the city of Chicago takes regarding the lakefront.

We did not hear anything at the Bears news conference that could not take place at another Chicago location. We have too many questions to make any decision about the value of these plans. We encourage the Bears and the administration to act with “honor, integrity, transparency, wisdom and to be forward thinking and collaborative” and not repeat past mistakes.

* WTTW…

A city ordinance prohibits private development east of DuSable Lake Shore Drive. But, Mayor Johnson told reporters Wednesday at Soldier Field that he is confident a new lakefront stadium would not violate that rule.

“Bringing the open space better access to the museums, providing better traffic flow, in and out, creating jobs, making opportunities for our young people, that of the vision that I have for the city of Chicago is very much tethered to Burnham ,” Johnson said. […]

Johnson was also hit with questions about the potential for lawsuits from Friends of the Parks, who previously sued to help prevent a George Lucas lakefront museum.

“What we’re preparing to do is continue to invest in people,” the mayor said. “We’re prepared to put 23,000, 24,000 people in the city of Chicago to work.”

* Daily Herald…

In an email to supporters, Touchdown Arlington leaders wrote that they still believe an Arlington Heights stadium is very much on the table, since there are significant issues facing the proposed development on the lakefront. They include opposition from groups like Friends of the Parks — which successfully fended off filmmaker George Lucas’ museum on the same Soldier Field parking lot site — questions over funding, public ownership of the stadium, and a lack of public interest in contributing taxpayer dollars to the project. […]

Citing “difficulty” with the tax situation in Arlington Heights, Warren said his staff considered up to a dozen other locations for a new stadium, including the former Michael Reese Hospital property in nearby Bronzeville — which was suggested by the parks group. But Warren said that site is narrow and would have to be developed over train lines.

In response to early opposition from state leaders, Warren said he looks forward to having more conversations with them. He still hopes to get approval during the General Assembly’s current session, citing building cost estimates that could rise $150 million to $200 million “every year we wait,” he said.

* More…

* Crain’s | Parks advocacy group blasts Bears’ stadium pitch: In its written statement, Friends of the Parks cast a skeptical eye on the ambitious architectural renderings touted today by Bears management and an array of City Hall supporters, including Mayor Brandon Johnson, questioning not only the aesthetic impact of the design itself but the economic impact claims as well as the pace at which the Bears and the Johnson administration are moving.

* Tribune | Chicago Bears’ flashy game plan for lakefront stadium project greeted with questions: Joe Ferguson, president of the fiscal watchdog the Civic Federation, said the presentation raises the need for an independent analysis of the public costs and revenues. “It begs a lot of questions,” he said. One key question is whether the hotel tax could pay the debt, since it has not been enough to pay current stadium construction debt. The other big question is where the city would get money for transportation and lakefront improvements.

* WTTW | Bears Ask Taxpayers for $2.4B Subsidy to Build $4.75B Domed Stadium Along Lakefront: The new Bears stadium is set to be built on the same site that former Mayor Rahm Emanuel wanted for the Lucas Museum, on what is now a parking lot south of Soldier Field. Star Wars creator George Lucas dropped his plans in 2016 in the face of unrelenting opposition and built the museum in Los Angeles.