Super Bowl tickets? I’d love to see a Super Bowl and not have to travel for it. I might be the only one, but I support a world class facility in Chicago. I like the jobs it would create, and the revenue it would bring into Chicago for an occasional Final Four… an occasional Super Bowl… might even support an Olympic Bid.
Great parking options for tailgate and quick egress - ample washrooms - transparent deal with school and the public in terms of paying off bonds. No PSL for season ticket owners so for the first 20 years.
Not a whole lot short of me getting a significant ownership stake in the Bears so I personally profit. But if I owned the Bears I wouldn’t put their new stadium on the lake because that’s dumb. Put the new domed stadium in the space the Nashville White Sox will never occupy.
The bigger issue is not turning over public property to private control, period. It is one thing for the city or state to own public property used for the public good. It is something else entirely for the city or state to give up control over that property or related facilities, while still being on the hook for costs. Especially when the property in question is lakefront parkland which is necessarily finite.
If this were some random piece of state owned property (say, the Thompson Center) all I would care about is achieving maximum dollar value for the state and maximizing investment. I don’t care about what Google does with the Thompson Center, I care about the state getting max value.
An independent, credible study demonstrating that the incremental benefits to taxpayers are likely to be substantially greater than the amount taxpayers put in. I don’t mean an industry white paper that says “for every construction job, five more are created, which means the state will enjoy new tax revenues from all those people’s salaries.” I mean a study from the same constellation of researchers who have been showing for decades that public investment in sports stadiums tend to be a bad deal for taxpayers. If they say this time’s different, that’s worth consideration.
Chicago to QC passenger rail that will transport QCitizens to the Bears games
- Don't Bloc Me In - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:29 pm:
No stadium or any such monstrosity on the lakefront. Protect that lakefront and its open areas at all cost (the cost in this case is just saying no.)
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:29 pm:
A realistic presentation that would show economic and financial benefit to the city and state, and not a losing investment.
The Sox attendance was very low yesterday. Many fans don’t want to support a bad team. The Bears don’t seem to have that problem, as their stadiums may be full even though they are long-term bad. What happens if this draft and rebuild is a bust, like the others before, and fans finally stop coming? The team would have to improve, to warrant investment. May this be the time for true improvement.
- Bruce( no not him) - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:32 pm:
Sorry, pretty sure there isn’t anything that will make that acceptable.
Though just for fun, define “smallis.”.
- Bruce( no not him) - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:32 pm:
Taxpayer dollars only for infrastructure improvements in the area (which will improve access to the museum campus). It certainly is a nicely done design, albeit very pricey, but the new stadium really is a monolith on the lakefront, meaning the Bears still have to win the approval (and lawsuits) from Friends of the Parks, which will increase stadium costs even more.
On the lake front? I’m more and more against them building their than ever. I really think the best place for them is in AH.
Smallish - less than $250 million? To remain on the lake?
Some sort of direct revenue share off events to the state. And a time table to pay it off, nothing over a 10-15 year note.
I’d also balk at a blanket extension of the 2% hotel tax. That’s a lot of money (but not enough for new stadiums) that IF the tax should stay I would much rather see it fund schools, parks, or something more worth wile in the city. That change I’m sure needs a state law passed, but I don’t want that tax extended 40 years for the Bears.
It must remain a publicly owned asset, and the Bears must payoff the remaining debt from the last football stadium they begged the taxpayers to build for them.
- thechampaignlife - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:48 pm:
Assuming snark is allowed, and taking the question literally: a free water taxi to conveniently reach the first domed stadium built offshore in state-owned waters.
Taxpayer dollars only for infrastructure improvements in the area (which will improve access to the museum campus). It certainly is a nicely done design, albeit very pricey, but the new stadium still is a monolith that dominates the lakefront. This means the Bears will have to win the approval (and lawsuits) from Friends of the Parks, which will increase stadium costs even more, so any approval must require an ironclad guarantee of no taxpayer dollars expended in the inevitable cost overruns.
Infrastructure help as with many large companies but never on the lake. Maybe more if they moved to another area in Chicago that needed help but I can’t see it. They got the money both Bears and Sox if they can’t figure it out they can ask Cubs for ideas
Because I live three and a half hours away at a minimum, I have never been to a Bears game (or Sox or Cubs game). These are properly, Chicago teams, not Illinois teams.
I could not be convinced to accept the state to offering any money to (either Chicago) team. Those would be tax dollars I spent, but never would see a return on, nor see the benefit of investing.
A state investment for the CHICAGO Bears? Find some benefits for those in the South….Marion, Carbondale, Cairo, Vienna, etc. I see no reason why everyone south of I-64 shouldn’t be offered season tickets, free, for the next the years.
The only things that I can imagines supporting would be infrastructure improvements to the area that will be a benefit at all times and not just when the stadium is being used.
If thing like intersection improvements or maybe on/off ramps would assist both the stadium and the neighborhood, that might make sense.
Actually constructing a stadium? No. Nothing would get me to support it.
“What would it take for you to support a smallish state investment in a new Chicago Bears domed stadium on the lakefront?”
To have every child in Illinois fed, housed, clothed, and educated to the same degree that Virginia McCaskey’s children and grandchildren have been fed, housed, clothed and educated.
The Bears being sold to someone else and the new owners footing 99% of the bill. If they do all of that, okay sure… fine. The state can toss in ten or twenty million bucks.
Many of the same business people who want a new stadium at the public’s expense when there are so many more important priorities are the same people who worked so hard to defeat the fair tax. If they wish for the state and city to help (read taxpayers)they need to commit to a fair tax now.
A small percent of the gross revenue stream from all revenue sources (gate, streaming/broadcast contracts, betting, merchandise, etc.) for entertainment events (sports, music concerts, etc.) with more than $1M of revenue per event such that at least a $100M (maybe $500M) could be distributed through ISBE to support extra curricular programs. (This is in addition to revenue to pay of loans and capital investments)
=To have every child in Illinois fed, housed, clothed, and educated to the same degree that Virginia McCaskey’s children and grandchildren have been fed, housed, clothed and educated.
– MrJM=
It just cannot be said better that that. I stand with MrJM.
- thisjustinagain - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 6:08 pm:
I’m standing next to MrJM on this one. Now for hypotheticals…1) Infrastructure-only deals (no tax giveaways). 2) Private money pays for the stadium and any related (hotels, casinos, Wally Worlds, etc.). 3) IF any bonds issued by Devel Authority, Income from non-football uses (concerts and other sports, etc.) is split between Bears, Inc and the Devel Authority to pay off those bonds. In short, don’t fall for the “partership” that the rich investors make all the money, while taxpayers bear all the risk.
In exchange for public financing, the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago are given a ownership stake in the Bears. The annual profits from the ownership are divided equally between paying off the bonds used in the new stadium and as bonus pension payments (NOT as a substitute for other funding). Once the bonds are paid off and the pension systems are at least 90% funded, then the profits can be used for whatever Illinois and Chicago decide.
- Proud Papa Bear - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 7:28 pm:
Part of me says to do the Green Bay model, but most of me doesn’t support the state owning a professional franchise.
On the lakefront? Never. But…if this stadium were somehow built in a neighborhood closer to working folks who could benefit from all the infrastructure improvements and jobs, then maybe that could work.
A facility that is also able to house all the downtown music festivals, therefore allowing that green space more access to the public. And better infrastructure to access the museum campus. And not putting that shiny new stadium right on the water.
- Save Ferris - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:10 pm:
A lobotomy.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:11 pm:
A “smallish” state investment into my mortgage
- Huh? - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:12 pm:
Buy my house so I can move out of state.
Not
One
Penny
Ever
- vern - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:14 pm:
Same as any public park - free admission.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:18 pm:
Taking this seriously, a plan that acknowledges that two other teams want a new stadium would be a good start.
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:18 pm:
Super Bowl tickets? I’d love to see a Super Bowl and not have to travel for it. I might be the only one, but I support a world class facility in Chicago. I like the jobs it would create, and the revenue it would bring into Chicago for an occasional Final Four… an occasional Super Bowl… might even support an Olympic Bid.
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:19 pm:
Great parking options for tailgate and quick egress - ample washrooms - transparent deal with school and the public in terms of paying off bonds. No PSL for season ticket owners so for the first 20 years.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:19 pm:
Not a whole lot short of me getting a significant ownership stake in the Bears so I personally profit. But if I owned the Bears I wouldn’t put their new stadium on the lake because that’s dumb. Put the new domed stadium in the space the Nashville White Sox will never occupy.
- Annonin' - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:20 pm:
How about rebuild Arlington Park … first
- JoanP - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:21 pm:
Nothing. No public money for billionaires, ever. And no stadium on the lakefront, ever.
- Steve Goodman's Ghost - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:24 pm:
Trade union support for Bring Chicago Home
- Homebody - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:26 pm:
The bigger issue is not turning over public property to private control, period. It is one thing for the city or state to own public property used for the public good. It is something else entirely for the city or state to give up control over that property or related facilities, while still being on the hook for costs. Especially when the property in question is lakefront parkland which is necessarily finite.
If this were some random piece of state owned property (say, the Thompson Center) all I would care about is achieving maximum dollar value for the state and maximizing investment. I don’t care about what Google does with the Thompson Center, I care about the state getting max value.
- W44 - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:28 pm:
An independent, credible study demonstrating that the incremental benefits to taxpayers are likely to be substantially greater than the amount taxpayers put in. I don’t mean an industry white paper that says “for every construction job, five more are created, which means the state will enjoy new tax revenues from all those people’s salaries.” I mean a study from the same constellation of researchers who have been showing for decades that public investment in sports stadiums tend to be a bad deal for taxpayers. If they say this time’s different, that’s worth consideration.
- This - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:28 pm:
Chicago to QC passenger rail that will transport QCitizens to the Bears games
- Don't Bloc Me In - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:29 pm:
No stadium or any such monstrosity on the lakefront. Protect that lakefront and its open areas at all cost (the cost in this case is just saying no.)
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:29 pm:
A realistic presentation that would show economic and financial benefit to the city and state, and not a losing investment.
The Sox attendance was very low yesterday. Many fans don’t want to support a bad team. The Bears don’t seem to have that problem, as their stadiums may be full even though they are long-term bad. What happens if this draft and rebuild is a bust, like the others before, and fans finally stop coming? The team would have to improve, to warrant investment. May this be the time for true improvement.
- Bruce( no not him) - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:32 pm:
Sorry, pretty sure there isn’t anything that will make that acceptable.
Though just for fun, define “smallis.”.
- Bruce( no not him) - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:32 pm:
Dang it. Smallish
- Soxfan - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:43 pm:
Taxpayer dollars only for infrastructure improvements in the area (which will improve access to the museum campus). It certainly is a nicely done design, albeit very pricey, but the new stadium really is a monolith on the lakefront, meaning the Bears still have to win the approval (and lawsuits) from Friends of the Parks, which will increase stadium costs even more.
- Benjamin - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:44 pm:
Perhaps a smallish stake in the team for every governmental body that kicks something in…with a commensurate share of the profits, of course.
No, the NFL won’t allow this. But as long as we’re postulating one fantasy, what’s a little more?
- Cool Papa Bell - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:44 pm:
On the lake front? I’m more and more against them building their than ever. I really think the best place for them is in AH.
Smallish - less than $250 million? To remain on the lake?
Some sort of direct revenue share off events to the state. And a time table to pay it off, nothing over a 10-15 year note.
I’d also balk at a blanket extension of the 2% hotel tax. That’s a lot of money (but not enough for new stadiums) that IF the tax should stay I would much rather see it fund schools, parks, or something more worth wile in the city. That change I’m sure needs a state law passed, but I don’t want that tax extended 40 years for the Bears.
- Just Me 2 - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:47 pm:
It must remain a publicly owned asset, and the Bears must payoff the remaining debt from the last football stadium they begged the taxpayers to build for them.
- thechampaignlife - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:48 pm:
Assuming snark is allowed, and taking the question literally: a free water taxi to conveniently reach the first domed stadium built offshore in state-owned waters.
- Common Sense - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:48 pm:
I get to play QB for the Bears one series a game. Opposing team agrees not to rush the passer.
- Soxfan - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:51 pm:
Taxpayer dollars only for infrastructure improvements in the area (which will improve access to the museum campus). It certainly is a nicely done design, albeit very pricey, but the new stadium still is a monolith that dominates the lakefront. This means the Bears will have to win the approval (and lawsuits) from Friends of the Parks, which will increase stadium costs even more, so any approval must require an ironclad guarantee of no taxpayer dollars expended in the inevitable cost overruns.
- DuPage Saint - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:01 pm:
Infrastructure help as with many large companies but never on the lake. Maybe more if they moved to another area in Chicago that needed help but I can’t see it. They got the money both Bears and Sox if they can’t figure it out they can ask Cubs for ideas
- clec dcn - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:13 pm:
I want no part of any of it let them build a stadium with Bears money not mine.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:19 pm:
Seizure of the team from the McCaskeys.
- H-W - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:26 pm:
Because I live three and a half hours away at a minimum, I have never been to a Bears game (or Sox or Cubs game). These are properly, Chicago teams, not Illinois teams.
I could not be convinced to accept the state to offering any money to (either Chicago) team. Those would be tax dollars I spent, but never would see a return on, nor see the benefit of investing.
- In The South - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:27 pm:
A state investment for the CHICAGO Bears? Find some benefits for those in the South….Marion, Carbondale, Cairo, Vienna, etc. I see no reason why everyone south of I-64 shouldn’t be offered season tickets, free, for the next the years.
- Matty - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:31 pm:
Um, I guess put a race track around the perimeter of the field like it had in the 40s-50s. But even then… no.
- Politix - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:32 pm:
How many stadiums should 1 taxpayer be asked to pay for in one lifetime?
Perhaps the three sports teams could collaborate to figure out how to do it with fairness and equitability. Then we’ll talk.
- Dotnonymous x - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:32 pm:
Like many other taxpayers?…I couldn’t care less about football…or where it’s played…Nope.
- ArchPundit - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:33 pm:
===Taxpayer dollars only for infrastructure improvements in the area (which will improve access to the museum campus).
This. Infrastructure and perhaps some improvements that might benefit the Bears and the public as a whole.
- Crash - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 3:01 pm:
The only things that I can imagines supporting would be infrastructure improvements to the area that will be a benefit at all times and not just when the stadium is being used.
If thing like intersection improvements or maybe on/off ramps would assist both the stadium and the neighborhood, that might make sense.
Actually constructing a stadium? No. Nothing would get me to support it.
- old guy - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 3:19 pm:
reopen Meigs Field….
- JDuc - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 3:27 pm:
Nothing. Arlington Heights is the right play for many reasons.
- FormerParatrooper - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 3:29 pm:
The team pays 99.99999% of the costs, reduce ticket prices 60% and maybe I might be entertained into thinking about supporting them.
- @misterjayem - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 3:50 pm:
“What would it take for you to support a smallish state investment in a new Chicago Bears domed stadium on the lakefront?”
To have every child in Illinois fed, housed, clothed, and educated to the same degree that Virginia McCaskey’s children and grandchildren have been fed, housed, clothed and educated.
– MrJM
- Bald&Beautiful - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 3:52 pm:
When the McCaskeys agree to sell the team.
- Duck Duck Goose - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 4:13 pm:
A transfer of a majority share in the team to the State of Illinois.
- SOIL M - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 4:23 pm:
For that lakefront to be Horseshoe Lake State Park
- TJ - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 4:55 pm:
The Bears being sold to someone else and the new owners footing 99% of the bill. If they do all of that, okay sure… fine. The state can toss in ten or twenty million bucks.
- Addison Woodward Woody - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 5:01 pm:
Many of the same business people who want a new stadium at the public’s expense when there are so many more important priorities are the same people who worked so hard to defeat the fair tax. If they wish for the state and city to help (read taxpayers)they need to commit to a fair tax now.
- BigPicture - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 5:25 pm:
A small percent of the gross revenue stream from all revenue sources (gate, streaming/broadcast contracts, betting, merchandise, etc.) for entertainment events (sports, music concerts, etc.) with more than $1M of revenue per event such that at least a $100M (maybe $500M) could be distributed through ISBE to support extra curricular programs. (This is in addition to revenue to pay of loans and capital investments)
- JS Mill - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 5:35 pm:
=To have every child in Illinois fed, housed, clothed, and educated to the same degree that Virginia McCaskey’s children and grandchildren have been fed, housed, clothed and educated.
– MrJM=
It just cannot be said better that that. I stand with MrJM.
- Flapdoodle - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 5:37 pm:
Pretty much some form of mental derangement.
We need to get beyond the mythology of the downtown stadium developed with state money as any kind of economic driver. Not a nickel, ever.
https://www.cagw.org/sites/default/files/pdf/FieldsofFailure.pdf
- thisjustinagain - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 6:08 pm:
I’m standing next to MrJM on this one. Now for hypotheticals…1) Infrastructure-only deals (no tax giveaways). 2) Private money pays for the stadium and any related (hotels, casinos, Wally Worlds, etc.). 3) IF any bonds issued by Devel Authority, Income from non-football uses (concerts and other sports, etc.) is split between Bears, Inc and the Devel Authority to pay off those bonds. In short, don’t fall for the “partership” that the rich investors make all the money, while taxpayers bear all the risk.
- Ryan - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 6:23 pm:
Nothing. Hard no.
- MyTwoCents - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 7:17 pm:
In exchange for public financing, the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago are given a ownership stake in the Bears. The annual profits from the ownership are divided equally between paying off the bonds used in the new stadium and as bonus pension payments (NOT as a substitute for other funding). Once the bonds are paid off and the pension systems are at least 90% funded, then the profits can be used for whatever Illinois and Chicago decide.
- Proud Papa Bear - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 7:28 pm:
Part of me says to do the Green Bay model, but most of me doesn’t support the state owning a professional franchise.
- Boomerang - Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 8:26 pm:
On the lakefront? Never. But…if this stadium were somehow built in a neighborhood closer to working folks who could benefit from all the infrastructure improvements and jobs, then maybe that could work.
- Guy Probably - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 6:19 am:
A facility that is also able to house all the downtown music festivals, therefore allowing that green space more access to the public. And better infrastructure to access the museum campus. And not putting that shiny new stadium right on the water.
- Just a guy - Friday, May 3, 24 @ 9:52 am:
Brandon resigning. Given the Bears recent draft success, I’d rank that as a “fair trade.”