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.
* 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.
- JS Mill - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 8:57 am:
=And it’s only a win for them. It’s only significantly more money than they would get if there were no project.=
I don’t totally agree with Senator Walker on this one.
- Sir Reel - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 9:22 am:
$895 million for a stadium that’ll be used to capacity less than 10 times a year, plus a few rock concerts. What about all the other infrastructure projects needed throughout the state?
- It's always Sunny in Illinois - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 9:28 am:
Nothing Screams Affordability Agenda like $895 Million for the Bears
- Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 9:47 am:
I think the Indiana deal may ultimately turn out to be a political “win” for Illinois office holders. Who is going to lose an election over it if the Bears move over the state line? $895 million not spent on this project won’t be a sore point for stakeholders like Local 150 if there’s plenty to go around for other high priority projects.
- Rahm's Parking Meter - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 10:07 am:
Six Degrees, forget about my AH boosting for a while and I am one, as a fan of the Chicago Bears - there still is a “I don’t want them to leave IL” even if it hurts my wallet mentality here. Think as a fan, not as a taxpayer, though both are important.
- 48th Ward Heel - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 10:15 am:
What’s the tollway project? The site’s up against Route 53, which is a state freeway. Is it the Jane Addams/Ike/54 interchange a few miles south in Schaumburg?
- Fenton - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 10:16 am:
If a manufacturing plant or warehouse is built on farm land adjacent to an interstate, road fund dollars are often spent by IDOT to build exit an entry ramps.
I have no problem with a similar expenditure to make the Arlington site more accessible from Route 53. (It was always a mess when the races drew big crowds. A domed stadium would draw twice the traffic.) And I could go for public dollars paying for a bigger and better Metra station.
Outside of that, the remaining infrastructure costs should be on the Bears and Arlington Heights.
- Pundent - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 10:19 am:
=Think as a fan, not as a taxpayer, though both are important.=
I’m a fan but a rational taxpayer. And as such, the Bears leaving doesn’t bother me one bit. I think you might be surprised if you tested your hypothesis through a referendum. The Super Bowl winning KC Chiefs certainly were.
- Sue - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 10:19 am:
All for retaining the Bears as they likely provide a net gain to the economy BUT for those advocating for tax incentives- ask the folks out in Hoffman Estates how the Sears incentives worked out- not apples to oranges comparison but taxpayers routinely wind up on the short end and the Bears have the ability to absorb whatever costs go along with their stadium
- Jerry - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 10:29 am:
Not once cent of taxpayer money. Tax Certainty for the citizens of Illinois not for President Warren.
Like any other business that wants to expand, George needs to go to the bank and get a businessman’s loan and borrow the money. Donate any improvements, like any other good businessman would do.
Sick of the Bears mooching at the public trough.
- Pundent - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 10:32 am:
=All for retaining the Bears as they likely provide a net gain to the economy…=
This has been studied extensively and tax payer funded stadium projects do not provide a net gain to the economy. They benefit the owners. And taxpayers have figured that out. And since you’re in search of specific examples ask the folks in Chicago how Soldier Field worked out.
- lake county democrat - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 10:35 am:
I’d like the context of how much money the state would save if they let the Bears move to Indiana and lowered the budget deficit by $895 million dollars with whatever taxes they levied to come up with the money over the projected life of the stadium. You could make it more detailed by 1) estimating the sales taxes from tickets when that money goes to Indiana but also 2) estimate how much revenue would be brought in when the Arlington Heights site is developed (housing, businesses, etc.)
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 11:03 am:
=== lowered the budget deficit by $895 million dollars ===
Sigh.
If you don’t know the difference between capital revenues/expenditures and GRF revenues/expenditures, perhaps don’t comment about budget matters.
- Harrison - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 11:11 am:
Can you name a single “good businessman” in America who donated the costs of the public roads and sewers lines to his business?
- Cool Papa Bell - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 11:13 am:
What is the plan to pay off the remaining hundreds of millions of dollars still owed in Chicago for the Solider Field renovation? What’s the plan to account for a new $900 million outlay?
I’ve got some ridiculous thoughts on what the state should get from the Bears if “we” help them on this. But I’ll leave those thoughts to myself.
However - doesn’t $895 million seem like way too much to bring “infrastructure” to the site?
How much is the city of Chicago on the hook for when it comes to the redevelopment planned around the United Center? That’s a 55 acre - $7 billion project. Is the city forking over $895 billion or something close?
The total spend here by the state just feels substantially out of line.
- Amalia - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 11:15 am:
Illinois, you need to go faster on the infrastructure help. and stripping out the minority contract goals, that can’t go down well with the players union, Bears players. emphasize that. Illinois will not strip those goals out.
- Lincoln Lad - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 11:18 am:
If the framework of the Indiana deal holds, I can’t imagine the Bears not making that move. Makes you feel wanted. Fan support of the team will not be affected by a move to Indiana. Voter support of politicos does not run nearly that deep. That’s why tone has changed, and that may lead to some action. But, it might be too little too late.
- Lincoln Lad - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 11:23 am:
Pretty sure the Bears have honored their lease, made their payments, did everything they were contractually obligated to do. If that were not true, we’d already know it.
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 11:34 am:
===Fan support of the team will not be affected by a move to Indiana===
LOL — Okay.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 11:39 am:
===Can you name a single “good businessman” in America ===
Local governments often require housing developers to pay for infrastructure improvements or impact fees.
- Paying Attention - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 11:39 am:
Will the Bears chip in at all for lead pipe removal/replacement? Almost $1 billion seems like it might help?
- Sue - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 11:51 am:
Pundent- I didn’t say doing a govt subsidized stadium would benefit taxpayers- I said the Bears remaining in Chicago would be a net gain to the economy- why not read the post
- Murph - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 11:52 am:
PILOT payments are not automatically locked in for 40 years. Developer and the local governments negotiate those terms.
- Pundent - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 11:56 am:
=Pretty sure the Bears have honored their lease, made their payments, did everything they were contractually obligated to do.=
You don’t generate a lot of goodwill by begging the taxpayers to build you a stadium and then bail on it the first chance you get. Soldier Field was a bad deal for everyone (city, state, taxpayers) but the Bears. No need to make the same mistake twice.
- Fenton - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 12:04 pm:
I agree that the alleged economic benefit of tax supported stadium is almost always a scam. However, I would point out that NFL players pay income tax in the state where each game is played. So Bears players pay half their income tax to Illinois and the other half to the states where they play their road games (if that particular state charges income tax.)
I have no idea what that adds up to, but I imagine several million dollars. Obviously we will lose that and sales tax revenue if they’re playing in Indiana. That’s probably not enough to justify the Bears ask, but it’s still something to consider.
- Lincoln Lad - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 12:18 pm:
Other teams have and are planning to move to other local options. Yet the seats are filled and the fanbase remains. Giants and Jets are two of the best examples. NY teams playing in New Jersey. And if the renovations were such a bad deal, why did the politicians agree to it? They negotiated a contract… the governmental entities involved had more resources than the Bears to work on that deal. More lawyers, more consultants, more everything. They wanted to keep them at Soldier Field, so they made a deal.
- Flapdoodle - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 12:29 pm:
==However - doesn’t $895 million seem like way too much to bring “infrastructure” to the site?==
Heck yeah it does, especially since it’s just a dodge to get state money involved in a stadium development project. What other infrastructure projects will go unfunded if this kind of public money is spent to support the relocation of the Bears? Especially at a time when more economic warning signs are appearing.
- Pundent - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 12:41 pm:
=However - doesn’t $895 million seem like way too much to bring “infrastructure” to the site?=
It’s roughly 30% more than the entire Soldier Field renovation project. It would put the collective city and state obligations at $1.5B.
- Woodworth - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 12:42 pm:
East Rutherford, NJ =/= NW Indiana
- Jerry - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 12:54 pm:
@harrison: Ever hear of Milton S. Hershey?
- Head in Sand - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 1:13 pm:
For those thinking a Bears move to Indiana is a political win or an event that won’t move the needle, I could not disagree more. If Illinois leaders fumble the Bears to Indiana it will be a huge issue in the next election in Chicagoland. It looks like they are beginning to figure that out.
- Jocko - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 1:43 pm:
==housing developers pay for infrastructure improvements or impact fees.==
You think developers of local subdivisions are putting in parks and water retention areas out of the goodness of their heart? /S
As far as charity, the McCaskey have donated $29 million over the last 20 years on a team worth $9 billion.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 1:56 pm:
===it will be a huge issue in the next election in Chicagoland===
For whom? Which candidate is gonna say that Illinois should’ve opened up the checkbook? Not even Darren Bailey is saying that.
Campaigns are mainly binary. Where does that messaging work and, more importantly, who’s gonna be dumb enough to try it?
- Huh? - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 1:58 pm:
I think the damage to the Bears legacy would be so devastating to the memories of George Halas and Virginia McCaskey, that it is unthinkable the Bears move to Indiana.
- lake county democrat - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 2:31 pm:
“Would cost up to $895 million.” When is $895 million not $895 million? If legislation can be passed to let it be spent on thing X, why can’t it e passed/amended/etc. to let it be spent on thing Y? I meant my original question as a theoretical exercise, but any legislator wanting my support better be able to explain why it’s not at least possible.
- Demoralized - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 2:34 pm:
==When is $895 million not $895 million? ==
Nobody said it isn’t. But it isn’t $895 million out of the budget in one big lump sum. It’s bonded.
- Loop Lady - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 2:36 pm:
I agree with Huh…besides, most people in IL despise IN.
I would never go to game to line their state coffers.
Please bite me Hoosiers.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 2:41 pm:
=== But it isn’t $895 million out of the budget in one big lump sum. It’s bonded.===
Sigh.
It would be in the capital projects budget. Different revenue streams. Completely different pot of money.
As far as bonded goes, maybe not all. Nobody knows.
- Head in Sand - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 2:53 pm:
Nobody is going to use the issue unless the move happens. It’s a good issue after it happens, not while it’s being negotiated.
If the Bears move, the issue could be framed as more government incompetence and loss of economic activity for Illinois. The opposition could use it as an example of feckless leadership.
If it doesn’t matter, why has the tone of the Governor and legislative leaders changed to being way more open to discussion in the last 4 weeks?
It matters.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 2:58 pm:
===If the Bears move, the issue could be framed as more government incompetence and loss of economic activity for Illinois===
And then the hammer would come down.
===If it doesn’t matter, why has the tone of the Governor and legislative leaders changed===
My own opinion is the absolutely false news/sports media narrative that they’ve rejected capital projects is starting to take hold.
- Head in Sand - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 3:08 pm:
The messaging moved from “not a priority” and “insensitive request” to the Governor saying rightly “I believe it’s best for the Bears to stay in Illinois” in a hurry once Indiana became an option. It is my belief the messaging changed because Illinoisans got nervous. Good to see leaders in Bears skyboxes this week. I hope we don’t find out what the consequences of losing the Bears are, if any.
- Pundent - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 3:51 pm:
=It is my belief the messaging changed because Illinoisans got nervous.=
Unless you’re hearing something on the Score (which I don’t listen to) I wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to think you have your finger on the pulse of Illinoisans. Stadium projects don’t resonate the same way with taxpayers as they do with sports junkies.
- ZC - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 5:40 pm:
I just wish they’d solved this issue 25 years ago when they sunk all that cash into Soldier Field. If the Bears aren’t happy with the seating size of their stadium, they really should have spoken up and worked a deal back when. Or were the Bears intimidated by Mayor R2D2 to not ask for more? No idea really, I’d be curious for any links or info to how the old Soldier Field revision went down. It seems like a colossal missed opportunity now.
- Rahm's Parking Meter - Monday, Jan 26, 26 @ 8:15 pm:
Pundent - I am a Scorehead and the vibe is okay whatever on the Score, we don’t want to pay for it. Now on CHGO or ESPN 1000, there is the stadium cheerleading.
- Vote Quimby - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 1:05 am:
ZC- at the time of renovations in 2002,Soldier Field was a National Historic Landmark That’s why they kept the original colonnades and shell. However, it was stripped of the designation a few years later because of the “spaceship” addition. In hindsight, demolition and replacement would have been the better option…. But it wasn’t an option at the time.