“We’re almost there” on a Bears stadium bill, sstate Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago, told some sports radio hosts on a Friday morning before the Illinois House returned to Springfield for three days of session last week. “We’re very close.”
Asked if the rumor spread by sports business pundit Marc Ganis earlier that week was true about House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch holding up the Bears bill, Buckner, the House’s point person on the state megaprojects bill that includes the Arlington Heights Bears stadium complex, flatly denied it.
“I want to be very unequivocal and clear about this: Nothing can be further from the truth,” Buckner said on WSCR Radio. Welch, he said, “has given me the green light as his representative in these conversations to bring this home, and we’re doing that.”
Buckner accused Ganis, who is widely quoted in sports media on NFL stadium plans, of “a willful mischaracterization. It’s a bad faith interpretation of the facts. It’s not analysis. It’s fabrication with confidence. … It’s a convenient fiction dressed up as expertise. It’s not helpful, and it’s not true.”
Ouch.
A few days later, Buckner told the Chicago Sun-Times he was working on a property tax relief mechanism within the megaprojects bill but wasn’t sure what form it would take.
Gov. JB Pritzker’s top staff seemed taken by surprise. An agreement had been made not to alter the deal that had already been cut with the Bears. The object was to figure out a way to attract enough votes to get it to the Senate and reassure the Bears that things were on track.
The next day, I was able to obtain an advance copy of Buckner’s bill and posted it on my website, CapitolFax.com. While Buckner had told reporters he’d been working “lockstep” with the governor’s top staff, Pritzker’s office released a terse statement saying, “The Governor’s Office is currently reviewing the draft amendment provided by Capitol Fax and does not have comment at this time.”
The new property tax component would take half of the money the Bears or other megaproject developers would pay in lieu of property taxes, give some to area local governments for property tax rebates and then give the rest to the state’s property tax relief fund.
But that would mean the Bears’ payment might have to be doubled, because Arlington Heights-area schools and other local governments would see their negotiated payment cut in half. A top source close to Arlington Heights schools said if the Bears had to pay $400 million instead of $200 million, “That’s a Bears problem,” not theirs.
And despite some comments made last week, it really wouldn’t produce significant statewide property tax relief. Two years ago, Illinoisans paid $40 billion in property taxes.
A proposed state constitutional amendment to levy a 3% surcharge on annual personal income over $1 million would’ve thrown big bucks at schools and provided a significant amount for property tax relief. But moderate Democrats and some others refused to support it, and the proposal went nowhere.
The Senate Democrats were also not made aware of the House’s changes in advance, and they weren’t happy about it.
And there was another problem. The House bill would impose a 9% entertainment tax on the area surrounding the future stadium. Everything from pickleball to pinball to zip line courses and music venues would be taxed.
Pritzker told reporters Friday the amusement tax was something the Bears “were hoping not to see in a bill like this” from the very outset. The Bears would only say that “essential” changes needed to be made to the bill in the Senate.
Whatever the case, Buckner was able to do what he set out to do: Find enough votes to pass a bill through the House.
Buckner’s proposal— House Bill 910 — received 78 votes, including nine Republicans. Speaker Welch was downright jubilant during a resulting news conference, perhaps relishing his ability to prove doubters and others like Ganis wrong.
“It’s a good night for people all over the state of Illinois because House Democrats deliver,” Welch said. “House Democrats did the work. They believed in the mantra ‘Winners do the work.’ And I want to tell you, we did the work.”
But there’s still a lot of work to do in the Senate. And then it has to come back to the House after changes are made.
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 8:54 am:
Great reporting, Rich.
- Steve - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 9:11 am:
-The House bill would impose a 9% entertainment tax on the area surrounding the future stadium.-
I find this very, very unfair. Why should the Bears be subsidized by others?
- Jerry - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 9:14 am:
I find the whole thing unfair. Why give the Bears any Government Handouts at all? Why should the Government be picking “Winners and Losers?” This IS a Bears problem. They need to find their own money.
- May soon be required - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 9:23 am:
Ganis is an NFL consultant, anytime anything comes out of his mouth on this deal it pushes me further to the “just let them go to Indiana” position.
- 44 - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 9:43 am:
Strange “winners” victory lap talk. Going to be years to see who “wins” here, though I suspect only winners will be a certain inherited wealth family…
- Think Again - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 9:47 am:
=I find this very, very unfair. Why should the Bears be subsidized by others?=
This legislation is for any so-called Megaproject - not just the Bears - and nothing novel about this funding scheme - the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (ISFA) pays its obligation via a 2% hotel tax in Chicago - the vast majority of those folks staying in Chicago hotels never step foot in a project funded by the Authority.
- JS Mill - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 9:54 am:
=Buckner accused Ganis, who is widely quoted in sports media on NFL stadium plans, of “a willful mischaracterization. It’s a bad faith interpretation of the facts. It’s not analysis. It’s fabrication with confidence. … It’s a convenient fiction dressed up as expertise. It’s not helpful, and it’s not true.”=
Buckner was being kind. As another poster stated, Ganis is and NFL consultant and will say whatever makes the NFL happy. I wish WGN would stop putting him on TV.
=A top source close to Arlington Heights schools said if the Bears had to pay $400 million instead of $200 million, “That’s a Bears problem,” not theirs.=
They are absolutely correct. First, the Bears spend $197 million on a property and then complain that it isn’t worth that much after they tear down buildings on the property. The average citizen would still pay taxes on the purchase price.
=But moderate Democrats and some others refused to support it, and the proposal went nowhere.=
REal property tax relief will tax multiple steps to achieve. First- sales tax has to be increased and the funds must be lockboxed for schools. Second, state income tax needs to be increased or, better yet, we need to implement a progressive income tax. The second one, offsets the regressive nature of the sales tax. ANd that sales tax needs to include services. That is where our tax base has moved.
Obviously neither of those actions have been successful in the past, but that is how you can spread the tax burden and not lump it all in one area. It has to be seperate from the EBF funding as well. Then it must come with a mechanism that requires school board to adopt a levy that includes a dollar for dollar decrease in the levy, the best way would be through an annual abatement process (that ensures that state actually sends the money to schools). To make it right, it would be based on the percentage of local tax burden. Districts like mine would get more since we are now 82% locally funded and CPS and districts like it that get a high percentage from the state would not get as much ( lol, we all know CPS will cry and get a huge skim off the top).
This would achieve real property tax relief and at least some of the burden would be on those that can most easily afford it.
- Skokie Man - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 9:58 am:
=A top source close to Arlington Heights schools said if the Bears had to pay $400 million instead of $200 million, “That’s a Bears problem,” not theirs.=
Yeaaaaaah… we may know exactly whose problem it ends up being by the end of the legislative session.
- Old IL Dude - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 9:58 am:
So, IMHO, if the Bears leave Chicago proper, I really don’t care where they play — AH, NWI, Rockford. I’ll watch and go to a game or two at the new stadium, but if they’re the Chicagoland Bears instead of the Chicago Bears, the actual site ceases to be of importance. I just don’t want to be stuck footing the bill.
- Downstate - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 10:13 am:
I look at the collegiate model for building stadiums and arenas. Why not make the Bears commit to a particular percentage of naming rights and/or total stadium revenue coming back to the state…beyond simple taxes.
- Felix - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 10:28 am:
== Welch was downright jubilant during a resulting news conference, perhaps relishing his ability to prove doubters and others like Ganis wrong. ==
I got the exact same impression. Most legislative leaders, here and elsewhere, are primarily focused on what their own caucus members think of them. Welch sometimes seems more focused on what the media and wider public think. The fact that he was getting blamed on sports talk radio and elsewhere for holding up the Bears deal obviously got under his skin. Last week was about proving the House could pass a bill — any bill — and little else. Welch spiked the ball on the 10 yard line.
- Homebody - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 10:29 am:
infrastructure spending to support a private development, fine whatever. Allowing private entities to enter into deals with local municipalities or counties to lock property taxes? Sure, whatever.
But the multibillion dollar wildly profitable entertainment companies always want to be subsidized by everyone else, over and over again. Just say no.
- DS - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 10:32 am:
Agreed Old IL Dude. The AH Bears are the same to me as the Hammond Bears. An out of town stadium I won’t be visiting in person. At that point we should be doing what is best for the taxpayers and that’s probably letting them cross state lines.
- Not Rich - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 10:47 am:
Don’t know what’s a worse situation
Dealing with House Dem caucus?
Dealing with Kevin Warren?
Poor Kam
- H-W - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 10:48 am:
I have a question, and I hope its not naive.
If this bill were to pass in roughly the same shape, what power would Arlington Heights have to impose their needs upon the Bears in the form of taxes? Would this bill prevent locales from imposing their own taxes by passing on such powers to the state?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 10:53 am:
===Would this bill prevent locales from imposing their own taxes by passing on such powers to the state?===
Not sure that this question makes sense. How is the town supposed to make the state do anything?
- Sue - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 11:03 am:
Truth seems to be that this is no more near fruition then is was 2 months ago-
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 11:05 am:
===Truth seems to be===
Nonsense.
- JS Mill - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 11:11 am:
=what power would Arlington Heights have to impose their needs upon the Bears in the form of taxes?=
None. Property taxes are frozen for 40 years. Inflation be darned.
- H-W - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 11:23 am:
@ Rich
I am wondering if the State passes a law that says megainvestments will be taxes according to the state formula, if that bill will also limit the ability of counties/townships/cities to impose additional taxes on the corporations.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 11:24 am:
If it was just about money for the Bears, they would have already taken the deal from Indiana. Even this bill, which is not final, does not compare to the handout Indiana is offering.
- H-W - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 11:24 am:
Sorry. Just read JS Mill’s response.
I think it answers my awkward question.
- ChicagoBars - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 11:25 am:
FWIW on creating a potential Megaprojects 9% amusement tax to subsidize project costs Rep Buckner later clarified it would only apply to projects in non-home rule jurisdictions.
I’m sure that will get clarified in the Senate hearings but if I understand it correctly that means the Bears or other Cook County projects could NOT stack a new 9% Megaprojects Amusement Tax on top of the existing 9-12% combined Cook County & Chicago amusement taxes on large events. #ymmv
- Juice - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 12:02 pm:
ChicagoBars, typically what that means is that it would be up to the Home Rule unit of government to determine for themselves whether they want to impose the amusement tax. So in Chicago, its simply the current tax that would be in place.
I can’t imagine that the intention would be to limit home rule units of government but then impose it everywhere else.
- Storm7706 - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 12:20 pm:
Lifelong Bears fan and I think this deal benefits no one but the Bears. Our economy isn’t good, Excise taxes, special fees, use fees, entertainment taxes, etc., just gut average sports fans and local communities. This is a tale of vanity and greed. Go to Indiana and save Illinois taxpayers the “ benefits “ of having a pro footbal team. Reiterating, lifelong Bears fan.
- JS Mill - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 12:21 pm:
=I can’t imagine=
Imagine, as described that is the gist right now.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 12:30 pm:
===entertainment taxes, etc., just gut average sports fans and local communities. This is a tale of vanity and greed===
Except, if you read the column I wrote, you’ll see the Bears oppose this 9 percent tax.
Try reading before you comment.
- Jerry - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 12:37 pm:
The Bears are happy to pick pocket from taxpayers everywhere else. THEY bought the land. THEY owe the taxes on it. This is the Bears problem. Please go to Indiana and leave us the banned word alone!
- Old IL Dude - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 1:33 pm:
@ Rich, do you know what Illinois residents think about supporting the Bears move to Arlington Hts? IMHO, it sounds like tix will be super expensive, traffic will be a big hassle, and aside from the construction jobs it will not be a money maker for the State or Village of AH. If that’s the case, I’m not interested in giving them taxpayer dollars and I can watch the Bears game for free in NWI. What do other Illinoisans think?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 1:36 pm:
===traffic will be a big hassle===
Have you ever tried leaving Soldier Field after a game or concert?
Absolute nightmare.
- Jerry - Monday, Apr 27, 26 @ 2:28 pm:
How about we bring back the IL-53 extension with the Bears Boondoggle?
Slightly off topic but mentioned in a previous post. I’m sure games on over the air TV in the local markets are going away with the next media rights deal.