“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.