* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…

Illinois House Democrats were told last week that a state capital projects plan designed to assist Arlington Height’s bid to lure the Chicago Bears away from their Indiana stadium gambit would cost up to $895 million.

None of the money would be used to directly build the new Bears stadium or the surrounding commercial district envisioned by the team’s ownership. Gov. JB Pritzker insisted to reporters earlier this month that the projects would be done to help enhance the area. Capital assistance has been on the table since the Soldier Field teardown proposal, but now we have an idea how much the team wants for this project.

A portion of the capital funding would be used for things like moving water mains to allow for the stadium’s construction. Other improvements, including a major tollway project, would benefit the surrounding area, but, like the water lines, also probably wouldn’t be done without the new stadium.

Politically, it’s imperative that the state not be seen as giving the billionaire Bears ownership a taxpayer-funded stadium. If they can give themselves enough cover, then maybe they might possibly find enough votes for this. But it’s still a straight uphill climb even after Indiana has begun putting its cards on the table.

Lots of meetings have been held at the legislative and executive levels with the team and local government officials. Whether this is motion or actual movement remains to be seen. But some previously recalcitrant Chicago legislators do appear to be considering an Arlington Heights plan to prevent the team from crossing the border.

You’ve probably already seen that an Indiana Senate committee unanimously approved a bill to attract the Bears across state lines last week.

Before they passed the bill, the committee stripped out minority and women contract goals and protections, which is not a good look for the Bears here.

According to the bill, the stadium’s construction funding includes “proceeds of local excise taxes” and “applicable proceeds of food and beverage tax and innkeepers [hotel] tax.” Those local sales taxes would pay the lease, which would in turn pay off the bonds for building a new stadium.

Right now, there’s no state limit on the amount of bonding authority to finance the complex, which will definitely run into the billions of dollars.

The size of the taxing district or whether tax increases or even new taxes would have to be imposed are not specified in the bill, either.

Lots of local governments over a wide swath of Indiana could be frozen out of receiving increased sales tax collections, and/or taxpayers could feasibly be hit with new taxes or higher rates.

The legislative calendars in each state may give Indiana an advantage. Indiana state law requires adjournment by March 14, but Hoosier legislative leaders have said they want to adjourn by Feb. 27.

Indiana’s House speaker said last week that he won’t run a bill unless the Bears commit to moving to his state. If he sticks to his guns, he could force the team to pick a state well ahead of the Feb. 27 deadline.

The Illinois Legislature doesn’t usually do much until after the March primary, so getting something done or on the table this month would be way out of character.

And some Illinois legislative higher-ups want to wait and to see what Indiana does before moving forward.

Indiana’s governor has engaged in open warfare with key Republican state senators, including its top leader, after the chamber rejected his proposal to redraw congressional boundaries to help Republicans. It’s also doubtful that Indianapolis will welcome competition from another domed stadium for major sports and concert events, and the House speaker represents some Indianapolis suburbs.

The Bears also want a payment in lieu of taxes bill from Illinois. The legislation would let them lock in annual payments to local governments for decades, rather than be subjected to the ever-increasing payments under the property tax system. From what I’m hearing, however, quite a large number of legislators don’t yet have a decent understanding about what that bill would do. But the bill is seen as attractive to state leaders because it puts the onus on local governments and doesn’t cost the state a dime.

The bottom line is that the Bears’ Indiana gambit has managed to change the public tone of leaders like Pritzker, who is no longer openly hostile to the idea. House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch recently posted photos of himself hanging out in the Bears owner’s skybox.

For both states, motion is one thing, actual movement is another.

Discuss.

* Related…

* Daily Herald | Would tax break for the Bears mean tax hike for homeowners?: Illinois Sen. Mark Walker, an Arlington Heights Democrat who is sponsoring the so-called megaproject legislation, said its key provision is formation of a review board of local taxing bodies — including school districts — that would negotiate directly with the Bears and approve the amount the team pays each year, for up to 40 years. “The school districts get significant amount of power here to set what that rate is, and we’ve all agreed that they will negotiate fairly. And it’s only a win for them. It’s only significantly more money than they would get if there were no project.

* Americans For Prosperity Illinois | Briefing: Oppose the Illinois “Megaproject” Bills (HB 4058, HB 2789, SB 1514): The Megaproject bills (HB 4058, HB 2789, SB 1514) would authorize long-term assessment freezes and other tax incentives for select large private developments. However, under new Section 10-960 of HB 4058 and similar provision in the other bills, those same megaprojects would still be valued at their full fair cash value for purposes of calculating property-tax extension limits and general obligation bond limits even though the megaproject itself would not pay taxes on that value. This represents an enormous and unprecedented risk to the non-megaproject property taxpayers of Illinois, unlike any economic development program in the history of the state.

* The Beacon News | ‘The numbers are just not credible’: Kansas used flawed math to estimate economic impact of Chiefs relocation, experts say: Now that the deal is done, The Beacon asked the state for every economic impact report, study or piece of data they used to calculate the team’s benefit to Kansas. The Beacon then showed that data to four economists, including one who said the state’s calculations were “incredibly optimistic, to be polite.” “I laughed for quite a while after I saw (their math),” said J.C. Bradbury, a professor of economics at Kennesaw State University. “It’s just insane,” said Dennis Coates, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. … Of the 3.7 million people expected to visit the Chiefs’ projects, 532,000 would visit for non-team related activities such as concerts, corporate events and other sports, the state said. That suggests almost 3.2 million people would go to the stadium projects for Chiefs games. The Chiefs can host, at most, 15 home games in a season. That would include two preseason games, nine regular season home games, three playoff games and the Super Bowl — which doesn’t happen every year. That means the state estimated at least 215,000 fans will show up each game, whether they had a ticket to watch the game or were at a nearby establishment. Economists say those numbers are ludicrous for a 65,000-seat stadium.