* Crain’s…
After publicly labeling the former Michael Reese hospital site as unsuitable for the new venue, the [Chicago Bears] team is said to be reconsidering the 49-acre property south of McCormick Place in hopes of jump-starting discussions with politicians to keep the team in Chicago, according to sources familiar with the talks. […]
While it’s unclear how far discussions have advanced, the softened stance on the property is the latest twist in the team’s stadium pursuit after previously announcing their intention to decamp to Arlington Heights before shifting their focus back to staying on Chicago’s lakefront. […]
The mayor’s office and local Ald. Lamont Robinson, 4th, said they are aware of the discussions. The potential development was also broached at a breakfast meeting between Pritzker and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle last week.
Pritzker’s office said a more palatable financial request has not been discussed but declined further comment. Preckwinkle’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
Nothing in there about what sort of government money the team would seek. As far as I can tell, that’s still off the table in Springfield.
…Adding… Sun-Times…
State Sen. Robert Peters, the South Side Democrat whose district includes both Soldier Field and the Michael Reese site, said he hasn’t gotten details on the latest proposal, but he suggested it could get a warmer reception from Springfield legislators who have flatly rejected publicly financing the Bears’ lakefront aspirations.
“If they’re bringing something to the table with broad economic development benefits and affordable housing, that sure beats what the Bears had been proposing before,” Peters said.
“They were asking for billions of dollars from the state to have their own little playground next to their current publicly funded stadium, with little economic benefit to the surrounding community. Here, there is at least an argument to be made around building a community center and bringing affordable senior housing to an area that has needed development for 20 to 30 years now.” […]
[Civic Federation President Joe Ferguson] noted the Reese site is eligible for tax increment financing subsidies “to accommodate — not only the stadium, but the building of a whole new economic anchor point that is the gateway to the South Side,” Ferguson said.
He added: “It could be done as an economic development project … that includes a stadium that keeps the Bears in Chicago that involves far more creative, less taxpayer-burdensome funding sources…It actually brings back online one of the most valuable pieces of urban property that, right now, is not performing at all from a tax perspective.”
…Adding… Senate Republican Leader John Curran was asked about the new Bears development today…
I think the public has expressed their frustration with the high cost of living. They’re looking for relief. So any entity, including Chicago Public Schools and the CTU, coming to Illinois looking for dollars or surplus dollars, they are not here. We have this $3 billion deficit in front of us, and that’s what we have to focus on.
- ChrisB - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 10:33 am:
Can’t wait to tell my kids I was born somewhere on the 400 level.
- Homebody - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 10:35 am:
Hey, if they want to buy city or state owned land, good for them! But they should expect to buy it near market value, and not expect any handouts.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 10:46 am:
The Bears seem to be floating as many trail balloons as possible with the hope that one might land on a pot of gold. It’s about as sad as watching a defensive lineman pick Caleb Williams up off the turf for the 9th time.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 10:46 am:
This reminds me of a Marc Trestman offense. Lots of people running around in circles, but not actually doing anything.
- curtis - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 10:47 am:
===While it’s unclear how far discussions have advanced===
If its anything like the offense, it’s behind the line of scrimmage.
- TJ - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 10:56 am:
Next to Soldier Field, over in Arlington Heights, this location, or somewhere else, they might as well go to Gary or the moon if they want public funding.
- SouthLoopGuy - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 10:57 am:
This would be a solid spot for them. Almost as good as exactly where they are now! But that ship seems to have sailed.
I’m all for it if they stay in the city and don’t seek significant public money. Everyone except our esteemed mayor seems to realize that’s a no-brainer nowadays.
- Socially DIstant watcher - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 10:57 am:
How long before they realize, it’s not about the location, it’s about the money?
- H-W - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 10:58 am:
Two thoughts. First, what makes the Bears think politicians are simply waiting for the Bears to find a suitable site with the same price tag as the other sites?
Second, I am reminded of OW saying, ‘not one penny’ when this idea started coming up a couple years ago. So far, OW has won the day.
- DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:00 am:
Do the McKaskeys have any idea what they are doing on any level?
Why did they buy in Arlington Heights? What is the big push for a site in Chicago? Who is actually in charge? Warren?
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:02 am:
===After publicly labeling the former Michael Reese hospital site as unsuitable for the new venue, the [Chicago Bears] team is said to be reconsidering the 49-acre property south of McCormick Place…===
Once again, false start on the Bears offense.
- Commonsense in Illinois - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:08 am:
Considering the Bears’ recent annual performances, I hear Stag Field would be an ideal spot.
- levivotedforjudy - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:09 am:
I’m with 47th Ward on this. I distinctly remember this site being dismissed outright because the footprint/configuration did not work for a football stadium. What happened?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:11 am:
===What happened?===
Click the link.
- lake county democrat - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:13 am:
@DuPage Saint - possibly because Arlington Heights was during Ted Philips’ reign, and now they have Warren. The thing with AH is that they didn’t pay through the nose for it given its value for residential housing and such. And I still can’t imagine how they thought traffic from the East would work - the main feeder to the stadium is one land for miles (lined with homes with small front yards).
- Just Another Anon - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:19 am:
@homebody
I’m pretty sure the EPA has designated it as a superfund site for radium, uranium and a bunch of other glow in the dark elements. I know the City was talking about abating the site back in the 2010s for the Olympics and then again around Covid times, but I don’t know if it was ever completed and certified by the EPA. If its still a superfund, I’m not sure what the market rate is on radioactive property. My guess is it costs about 40 or 50 million just to abate, and who knows what they find once they start digging.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:27 am:
Building a stadium over Metra tracks was a safety concern for the NFL, but is suddenly not anymore. The close marshalling yards are a competitive advantage for McCormick Place. Like many things with MBJ’s administration, this proposal is fishy when you think about it for a bit.
- Roadrager - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:35 am:
==Bears float yet another stadium location idea==
This is where I once again suggest that the Bears’ new stadium be built on a man-made island in the middle of Lake Michigan, right where the borders of Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan intersect - about 10 miles due north of Ogden Dunes - so it’s always another state’s problem.
- Annonin' - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:35 am:
We are getting closer to the One Central site — IC tracks across from Soldier Field. You dump could Reinsdorf’s refugees there too. Both the Reese site and Rezko’s Land (aka ‘78) are polluted and costly to clean up.
- Sox Fan - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:36 am:
Certainly feels like a major step back at this point. You have to wonder if the current ownership has any real intention of building a new stadium, or if they are buying time until the post-Virginia McCaskey ownership structure takes shape
- Jerry - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:42 am:
Note to President Warren: as long as the Bears pay for it themselves. No guv’mint handouts!
- WLDS News - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:45 am:
They could always move back to Decatur and stink it up with the rest of the soy smell.
Seriously, the downstate incentives in some of the counties’ enterprise zones and open space would be optimal to help with a new stadium. I know they tried Arlington Heights…but if they want to stay in Illinois or Chicago-ish, Gary, Indiana could possibly be looked at. The Giants aren’t technically in New York, but they still say they are.
Anything but another referendum.
- Langhorne - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:53 am:
Let’s see if I have this right. A moribund family owns a $5+ billion asset, which would be worth even more with a new stadium. They want a significant share of public funding to build it, and will use the stadium 8 to 12 times a year. Gotta be a dome for greater usage by others.
In the words of old time orator Senator Hudson Sours, “who wants this bill? “. Read the room.
- very old soil - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:54 am:
I still think Cairo is the best place for the Bears. Cairo Bears would soon become the Care Bears and, most appropriately, the Don’t Care Bears,
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 11:59 am:
- radium, uranium and a bunch of other glow in the dark elements. -
Perhaps the team owners and leadership have slowly been cleaning the site up by ingesting these contaminants. It would explain some things.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 12:04 pm:
===While it’s unclear how far discussions have advanced, the softened stance on the property is the latest twist in the team’s stadium pursuit after previously announcing their intention to decamp to Arlington Heights before shifting their focus back to staying on Chicago’s lakefront.===
Illegal motion, offense. Five yard penalty. Repeat first down.
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 12:10 pm:
At this point the only way I would support public tax dollars being used to build a new Stadium for the Bears is if it is in Des Moines or Omaha.
- Give Us Barabbas - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 12:13 pm:
Is this a sports team or a real estate investment company?
No. State. Money.
- H-W - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 12:21 pm:
Omaha makes sense.
- Telly - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 12:30 pm:
Looks like they have finally learned to take “no” for an answer on their previous proposal.
The Bears have said they can kick in $2.3 billion already. The new NFL private equity rule could enable them to collect another half a billion by selling 10 percent of the team. That would put them real close to having $3 billion to build a stadium on their own. Do that and then we can talk about real actual infrastructure costs being covered on the government side (maybe through a TIF or McCormick Place?)
- sim1 - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 12:30 pm:
=== I know the City was talking about abating the site back in the 2010s for the Olympics and then again around Covid times, but I don’t know if it was ever completed and certified by the EPA. ===
That’s an easily searchable question. Site cleanup was completed Spring 2023.
https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/sites/carnotite-remediation/home.html
- Its Just Me - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 12:33 pm:
Dear Chicago Bears,
Why not focus on building a consistent winning team first?
Yours truly,
It’s Just Me
Onion News Network - Breaking News
Chicago Bears respond - Lol
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 12:55 pm:
===So any entity […] coming to Illinois looking for dollars or surplus dollars, they are not here.===
That’s going to be another sack given up by the Bears, moving them out of field goal range.
- low level - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 12:56 pm:
I guess their contract lobbyists are cleaning up. They are the only ones benefitting from the constant changes that I can see.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 1:02 pm:
=if it is in Des Moines or Omaha.=
@Candy Dogood- Those sites are a bit too close, may I suggest Bozeman or, even better yet, Albuquerque? Also, Furnace Creek is real nice this time of year.
Respectfully submitted.
- Save Ferris - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 1:26 pm:
“I still think Cairo is the best place for the Bears.”
Yes. The one in Egypt.
- low level - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 1:48 pm:
Im a lifelong Bears and Sox fan. Both of them can leave the city now as far as Im concerned. Ive given up on either of them ever being good again.
- Rahm's Parking Meter - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 1:54 pm:
You still own the land in Arlington Heights. We want you as long as we don’t have to pay it. Warren’s folly needs to end.
And while you’re at it, cut the ‘Flus loose.
- granville - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 2:06 pm:
==Is this a sports team or a real estate investment company?==
They’re becoming the same thing. The new technique, as shown up north in Milwaukee, is to buy a team, leverage goodwill of fandom for a publicly-funded stadium and then exit the deal with a sale for a 6x return over about 10 years. It’s like Bain Capital buying a distressed tool company with an overfunded pension, but better, because there aren’t millions of people cheering for the tool company’s 2025 profits and their hot new 18 year old rookie lathe operator.
You also buy tons of real estate around the government-funded stadium project. That? That you keep.
- Homebody - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 2:21 pm:
@low level: Pro sports teams have the huge benefit that we let them take over our personalities, and they literally capitalize on our tribalism and regional identity. If you were buying a terrible brand of dish soap that never worked, you’d just stop buying that soap.
We need to stop letting these for profit companies try to pull at our heart strings to steal money from our neighbors.
- Peanut Gallery - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 3:03 pm:
What the bears *need* is to fire their coaching staff
- thisjustinagain - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 3:19 pm:
Warren and the Family have misread the situation on the political field. And they still think they can massage taxpayer support and funding after the AH debacle??
- Frida's Boss - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 4:05 pm:
If GOMB is correct and there is a $3 billion deficit, the Bears have an even bigger mountain to climb.
Past coaching/team play decisions are part of the conversation but really shouldn’t be. The pendulum always swings with sports teams. Bears just happen to be dragging in the dirt.
Pro sports teams and their public-financed stadiums are having a rough time. The Chiefs, two-time Super Bowl champs, couldn’t get a referendum passed. The public appetite is not there.
- 44 - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 5:39 pm:
Not sure these stadiums are the development anchor they claim. Basically stadium can cost up to 6billion. For 9-10 home games! Turn the suites into housing for the rest of the year and now we are talking…
- Huh? - Tuesday, Nov 12, 24 @ 10:45 pm:
Wasn’t there some big residential development proposed in this same area? As I recall, the idea was to construct residential and mixed use towers over the rail yards.