It’s just a bill
Tuesday, Oct 14, 2025 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Rep. Buckner press release…
Buckner Introduces Measure to Ensure Transparent Spending on Sports Stadiums, Responsible Use of Taxpayer Dollars
CHICAGO — State Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago, has introduced the Stadium Transparency and Responsible Spending (STARS) Act to ensure that any taxpayer-backed deal for a professional sports stadium is transparent, fiscally responsible and publicly vetted.
“Illinois families want and deserve responsible, transparent spending of their tax dollars,” Buckner said. “The cost of living is high, we have a president determined to take our economy in the wrong direction, and sending tens of millions of dollars to major sports teams in the hopes of a financial return that is far from guaranteed has to come with guardrails. We can’t take that risk and expect working people to bear the economic burden if it doesn’t pay off. That’s unacceptable.”
Continuing his track record of fighting for responsibility, Buckner filed House Bill 4152, the Stadium Transparency and Responsible Spending (STARS) Act, which makes a number of reforms to ensure transparency in state spending on sports stadiums. These include requirements for:
-A full public online disclosure of any stadium subsidy or tax incentive agreement at least 30 days before approval;
-An independent, franchise-funded cost-benefit analysis conducted by the Commission of Government Forecasting and Accountability (COGFA) of the 20-year fiscal impact;
-At least two public hearings in the affected community to hear from residents, school districts, libraries and first responders to testify on local revenue impacts;
-Full reimbursement by the franchise for any lost property tax revenues for public schools, libraries and emergency services; and
-Full repayment of all subsidies plus 5% annual compounded interest if a franchise relocates or fails to meet other economic commitments.
“Building up our state’s economy and securing long-term prosperity is about putting our money where it will do the most good, not spending it on magic beans and hoping for the best,” Buckner said. “I appreciate what great sports franchises have the potential to do for Illinois communities, but that doesn’t mean they get a blank check.”
Thoughts?
- Just Me 2 - Tuesday, Oct 14, 25 @ 1:24 pm:
nice press pop.
- Overbay - Tuesday, Oct 14, 25 @ 1:34 pm:
The Bears aren’t asking for state money so they should get behind this and help Leader Buckner get it passed.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 14, 25 @ 1:40 pm:
===The Bears aren’t asking for state money ===
Yes they are.
- Jerry - Tuesday, Oct 14, 25 @ 1:44 pm:
No Welfare for the Bears. Tax Fairness for everyday taxpayers.
Not subsidized entitlements for elitist billionaires who happen to have inherited a football club or bought a baseball team years ago at the franchise garage sale.
Hard no.
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Oct 14, 25 @ 1:50 pm:
===The Bears aren’t asking for state money===
If they aren’t what makes you think this bill is about them?
===Thoughts? ===
Not only does their general manager clearly hate Chicago, he also apparently has no idea what lobbying is or what a lobbyist does.
All manner of folks should be co-sponsoring this.
- Jocko - Tuesday, Oct 14, 25 @ 1:52 pm:
==The Bears aren’t asking for state money==
Um. They still owe $500 million on the existing lakefront stadium and want $855 million for AH. I spit out my coffee at their suggestion of 370 events per calendar year.
- Harrison - Tuesday, Oct 14, 25 @ 1:55 pm:
The Bears are not asking for State money to construct a stadium, that would be 100% privately financed.
They are asking for state money for infrastructure improvements for roads, sewers and Metra upgrades all of which are municipally owned.
Basically asking for the same deal every other large scale development receives.
Senator Buckner’s bill is names the Stadium Transparency and Responsibility act not the Infrastructure spending Act.
- Jerry - Tuesday, Oct 14, 25 @ 2:09 pm:
Taxpayers built them a stadium to their specifications about 20 years ago. They should pay for roads, sewers, and the train depot as a gift to their new community.
- Think again - Tuesday, Oct 14, 25 @ 2:15 pm:
=$500 million=
The Governor has linked the $500 million to the Bears - but legally the Bears are simply a tenant and if they leave early they would owe an early termination fee of $84 million (2026)- the remaining $500 million would be owed by the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority.
The larger point that is often lost is that even if the Bears skip to Arlington Heights- the ISFA will still be able to pay its obligation as the majority of their revenue comes from hotel taxes that will still be large if the Beas move to the burbs.
https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2023/02/07/what-happens-to-chicago-if-the-bears-leave-for-the-suburbs/
No, the Chicago Bears do not owe a lease payment for Soldier Field; however, they may owe a penalty to break their current lease early, with estimates around \(\$84\) million for 2026. The Bears are a tenant and do not own the stadium, which is owned by the Chicago Park District. There is also public debt from the 2002 renovation, but the Bears are not legally required to pay off the remaining bond debt themselves
- Interested Bystander - Tuesday, Oct 14, 25 @ 2:35 pm:
=The Bears are not asking for State money to construct a stadium, that would be 100% privately financed.=
They are asking for property tax breaks for the parcels the stadium will be sitting on. The Mega Projects proposal, which would give them 40 years of property and other tax breaks, would include those parcels. So, while they may not be asking for state money for the physical construction of the stadium, they are definitely asking for state and local money for the ongoing operation of the stadium.
- Sue - Tuesday, Oct 14, 25 @ 3:07 pm:
“Think again” is right — just because the city and state made a profoundly foolish decision in 2002 does not create a legal obligation now.
But here’s what irks me about all of these games of special tax agreements and subsidies: the Bears (or their ticket-purchasing fans, to be precise) pay a 9% amusement tax to the city. There seems to be an additional amount going to the county, but the AI answer doesn’t know how much. Rather than contemplate complex deals with tax breaks that get clawed back under some circumstances, but with the city still taking all the risk, if there is to be a tax break, it makes a lot more sense for that break to be a reduction in the amusement tax paid in the future, rather than up-front cash or promises right now.
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Oct 14, 25 @ 3:54 pm:
===The Bears are not asking for State money to construct a stadium, that would be 100% privately financed.===
Ah yes, the “stadium” will be 100% privately financed. They just what $3 billion dollars to develop all of the land around the stadium that they own, and which I hope is a figure that includes the more than $800 million they want in infrastructure investment.
I don’t think the folks that have been framing this conversation on behalf of the Bears organization has the appropriate level of respect for the people they are communicating with if they are trying the kinds of gimmicks you’re trying to pass off here.
- Juvenal - Tuesday, Oct 14, 25 @ 5:40 pm:
=== legally the Bears are simply a tenant ===
If you want to get technical, legally they are the “Chicago Bears” not the “Bears,” and therein lies the rub.
When an auto maufacturer recieved state tax incentives meant for redeveloping brown fields for a cornfield outside Normal, a lot of people thought that was an abuse of taxpayer resources.
But atleast they were bringing manufacturing jobs *to* Illinois.
The Chicago Bears proposal would move 91 jobs from Soldier Field to Arlington Heights. 28 miles.
Unlike Rivian, the Chicago Bears cannot choose Arkansas or Georgia instead.
What is in this deal for the public? Nada.
=== The majority of their revenue comes from hotel taxes that will still be large if the Bears move ===
The ISFA only collects hotel taxes in Chicago. i dont have data on hotel rooms for Bears games, but anyone flying from out of state and anyone driving would probably stay in Rosemont, its less than half the distance.
So yeah, in the Chicago Bears minds, they are asking for what “any other company” would ask. But they are not like everyone else. They are so different from every other employer in every way imagineable.
- H-W - Tuesday, Oct 14, 25 @ 6:02 pm:
Perhaps the State should offer a profit sharing model.