* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
Six days before the last day of the spring state legislative session, Sen. Bill Cunningham, D-Chicago, gave me two big reasons why it was so difficult to push a Bears stadium bill across the finish line. Cunningham, as you know, is the chief sponsor of the Senate’s Bears bill.
1) Every stadium-related legislation passed in Illinois included the Chicago mayor and the Illinois governor pulling in the same direction. This time, that didn’t happen.
2) Moving a stadium location within a state pits Illinois municipalities against each other, and you don’t want to do that “particularly when the municipality on the losing side has way more members than any other municipality in the state.” Cunningham told reporters more recently that stadiums which have moved within the same state didn’t involve their state legislatures. Instead, local governments picked up the tab.
Cunningham appeared on a WSCR radio program last week and said, “For most of the last few weeks, most senators wanted to do nothing.” But then, he said, “We thought it was important to pass something that would make it easier for the Bears to build a new stadium in Illinois,” so they started putting together a plan.
Reasons abounded for wanting to do nothing. For example, some senators didn’t want to help the Bears move to the suburbs, but some didn’t want to help billionaire team owners at all, and some didn’t like the original House plan and were ready to move on. And, as Cunningham said on the Senate floor, his constituents mostly wanted to keep the Bears here but didn’t want to give them a single taxpayer penny to do it.
But why, I asked Cunningham later, did he wait until May 30 — the day before the end of session — to pull the plug on the House-passed megaprojects bill? And what was the impetus for coming up with an alternative plan?
Cunningham first explained he’d held several meetings with caucus members after the House passed its own bill and tried out several versions of a slimmed-down proposal. None of those bills could pass.
“’Let’s do nothing’ probably had a plurality of senators behind it,” he said.
At the start of last week, Cunningham said, it became clear it just couldn’t be passed. So, by midweek, “I began floating the Municipal Stadium Authority concept to a handful of senators” to see if that could find support.
By then, however, the budget and lots of other hot topics became the center of discussion. The governor, by the way, specifically warned the Senate this could happen weeks ago when he said he wanted the legislation wrapped up well ahead of the end of session to avoid being caught in the last-minute session crunch.
“By Friday [May 29], I felt the concept had enough support to start drafting a bill,” Cunningham said. That bill didn’t surface until late Sunday night right before session was previously scheduled to adjourn.
“I regret that we got to it as late as we did, but we simply had bigger fish to fry,” Cunningham said about the budget and other topics. “And while I talked about the concept with [House Bears bill sponsor Rep. Kam Buckner] midweek, and he was generally supportive of giving it a shot, we got the bill to him too late for the House to take action.”
His timeline was generally confirmed by other insiders.
Asked why a backup plan hadn’t been formulated weeks before, Senate President Don Harmon’s spokesperson said the question would be “best addressed to the Bears.”
Cunningham and other legislators have been saying for a while that rumors about the football team having second thoughts about leaving Chicago damaged the legislative effort to help the Bears move to the suburbs.
And that was why Cunningham’s new proposal was designed to level the playing field for Arlington Heights and Chicago. The idea was to at least say the city would be on equal footing with the suburbs. But it just came way too late in the session.
And then Friday, the Bears issued a statement saying the team will “advance our stadium development project” in Hammond, Indiana, although no site was specified.
More importantly though, a Bears official spoke by phone with both Cunningham and Buckner before the announcement. Both of the legislators in charge of the Bears negotiations said they were told by team President/CEO Kevin Warren the Bears looked forward to continuing the discussion about keeping the team in Illinois.
It’s the saga that won’t die.
* The Sun-Times’ Fran Spielman and Mitchell Armentrout zoomed out…
“The Bears f—– it up by going with Johnson’s stupid thing without pulling Springfield in and having there be $2 billion in state funding required,” the source said, referring to their ballyhooed 2024 pitch for a lakefront dome south of Soldier Field. “The Bears own the first full year of failure. Then there was the second year of failure, which probably the governor owns a lot of because he didn’t get his head out of the sand until December, when Indiana became real.” […]
“They spent $200 million, which I believe is about $100 million more than the land was worth,” [State Rep. Kam Buckner, lead sponsor of a House megaprojects bill that never got a vote in the Illinois Senate] told the Sun-Times. “They negotiated against themselves to buy that land with no plan. After the fact, they decided, ‘Hey, we need to find a way to make this work.’ They did it backwards. […]
Unlike Warren, who appeared to have a budding political bromance with Johnson, the Bears’ lobbying team privately advised the politically naive Bears president that Johnson didn’t have the clout or the legislative know-how to get anything done, let alone a deal as controversial as this.[…]
Even after Indiana’s quickie approval of a sweetheart stadium deal for the Bears forced Pritzker off the sidelines, Illinois’ risk-averse governor remained at a safe distance from negotiations. […]
The tax incentives for Chicago could have been used to jump-start development at Michael Reese, The 78, a scaled-down version of the stalled One Central development across the street from Soldier Field and the South Loop Amtrak railyard being eyed by White Sox chairman-in-waiting Justin Ishbia. […]
“Johnson went hard against it. Davis Gates went hard against it. Toni was mute. Don Harmon was mute, and the version in the House … was too big to get done,” said a source close to negotiations. […]
“It really just shows you how dysfunctional things are in Illinois. The fact that they’ve been trying to get a stadium for three years, they pass a bill in the House, we wait weeks and weeks and weeks for the Senate to tell us what they think they’re going to do, and then the Senate files a bill at 11 o’clock at night? It wasn’t serious. They’re checking a box.”
Go read the whole thing.
* And USA Today really zoomed out…
September 29, 2021
The Bears announce their Purchase and Sale Agreement with Churchill Downs, Inc. for the site of the Arlington International Racecourse in Arlington Heights, Illinois – 32 miles away from Soldier Field.
July 2022
Then-Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot proposes adding a dome to Soldier Field in effort to encourage the Bears to remain in the city. However, the team rebuffs the proposal, doubling down on their intent to develop the site in Arlington Heights. […]
February 13, 2023
The sale of the Arlington Heights site goes final with a $197.2 million price tag. The Bears say at the time that their purchase of the site does not guarantee they’ll follow through with building their new stadium – and surrounding “entertainment district” – there. […]
June 2023
The Bears’ Arlington Heights development plan stalls. Chicago PBS station WTTW reports that the snag is a result of Cook County Assessor Fritz Kaegi’s valuation of the Arlington Heights property higher than the team anticipated, leading to a high property tax bill. […]
ESPN reports in March [of 2024] that the team’s new plan involves committing more than $2 billion toward building a new, publicly owned domed stadium. […]
In April [of 2024], the Bears reveal renderings of the proposed stadium project south of Soldier Field, estimated to cost $4.7 billion. While Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson openly championed the project, Illinois governor JB Pritzker was less enthused, given the expectation the Bears would request taxpayer funds to help build the stadium. […]
April 2, 2025
The Chicago Tribune reports that momentum has shifted back toward the Bears pursuing a stadium development project in Arlington Heights. […]
September 8, 2025
Warren pens an open letter to Bears fans declaring Arlington Heights “the only site within Cook County that meets that standard” in the team’s vision for a new stadium on the day of the team’s season-opening game […]
December 17, 2025
In another open letter to Bears fans, Warren announces that the team plans to explore an expanded search for a new stadium site after hitting a roadblock in negotiations with the state of Illinois over their current plan. The expanded search includes both the Arlington Heights site, but also “opportunities throughout the wider Chicagoland region,” Warren wrote, “including Northwest Indiana.” […]
May 21, 2026
The Bears declare that all plans to build a stadium within the Chicago city limits are done and that the team’s future stadium will be in either Arlington Heights or Hammond, Indiana. […]
June 5, 2026
Momentum continues toward a Bears move to Indiana. The team releases a statement saying it’s moving forward with the development plan in Hammond.
- Sox Fan - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 8:52 am:
Thanks to everyone on this site for the rational discussion last Friday. Online discourse elsewhere (especially Twitter) was a minefield of bad/uninformed takes.
I saw someone predict that with the Bears’ Indiana announcement and the need to, at a minimum pick a site in Indiana that works, the Bears might need to play the next 4 seasons at Soldier Field. “The Saga that won’t die” has a long way to go.
- Think Again - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 8:58 am:
Blame the bears all you want - but this sums things up …
“Let’s do nothing’ probably had a plurality of senators behind it,” he said.”
A waste of a Supermajority - and this nuance (City vs. suburbs, trying to broker a side deal with Chicago, no tax break for fatcats …) is lost on most folks and, for sure, the national audience. End of the day, failure to keep the Bears stadium in IL is a black eye to the State of Illinois and, by extension, JB.
- 44 - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 9:03 am:
Great accounting of the saga!! New chapter starting for da Bears after these almost comical three years. Gl to them!
- Steve Rogers - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 9:07 am:
As a St. Louis Gridbirds, then a St. Louis Rams fan, this is all eerily too familiar.
- JS Mill - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 9:09 am:
=It really just shows you how dysfunctional things are in Illinois. =
It is really more about the so called leadership in Chicago right now than the state as a whole. At least in terms of political leadership. The city is simply not being led by adults. Davis-Gates outsized and undeserved role in this process is absurd. Like her mayor, she has no clue about finances or any notion of fiscal accountability. Both Davis-Gates and Johnson are emblematic of the CTU “more more we need more, there is always more” mindset.
I don’t blame Pritzker for sitting mostly on the sidelines on this one. The idea of billions fo the Bears “because that is how everyone else does it” is ridiculous.
Let them go to Indiana, meanwhile, I would revoke any property tax deal they are getting in AH and let them pay the full cost of their property that should be valued at the $197.2 million they paid for it.
- Remember the Alamo II - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 9:13 am:
=== End of the day, failure to keep the Bears stadium in IL is a black eye to the State of Illinois and, by extension, JB. ===
Not everyone agrees with this statement.
- Pundent - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 9:19 am:
=“Let’s do nothing’ probably had a plurality of senators behind it,” he said.”=
And voters.
- ChicagoVinny - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 9:21 am:
Do you think when George hired Kevin Warren, Warren’s pitch to him was a stadium in Hammond?
Somehow I doubt that.
- Save Ferris - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 9:24 am:
@Vinny When George hired Kevin Warren, Warren’s pitch to him was a stadium paid for by the taxpayers as the McCaskey’s have less liquidity than Death Valley.
- Frida’s Boss - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 9:24 am:
What’s the point of having a stacked lineup of super duper majorities if you’re going to punt on 4th and inches?
- lake county democrat - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 9:29 am:
What Pundent said. The moment something even half the value of Indiana’s offer gets passed, the GOP will be attacking the Democrats for wasting taxpayer money for billionaires and taking from schools in order in order to steer big contracts to their union backers. Do you see anyone in Missouri upset that they “lost” the Chiefs to Kansas? And if the Bears didn’t have serious reasons beyond “team history” and “state pride” to avoid Hammond, they’d have closed on this long ago. Of the three sites that have been raised it’s the least convenient of the three. They may end up there and if they do I’ll be just fine with it.
- Distant Viewer - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 9:32 am:
Perhaps this has been referenced before but it is unwise to use public funds for stadiums, especially NFL stadiums. https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/april-2001/should-cities-pay-for-sports-facilities
- Annon'in - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 9:38 am:
This will be fun. First you have the potential Superfund w/little transportation access. Then the GOPies chirping when all were likely no votes. It the smart use of time is to relax, enjoy summer and watch 2 MLB teams with zero salary budgets(Sox & Cards play ball.
- TNR - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 9:38 am:
Missing from the otherwise excellent USA Today timeline is the Bears’ dalliance with the Michael Reese site. While the public position was the NFL thought the site was too small, the Bears met privately and repeatedly with Toni Preckwinkle, business organizations, and local officials about the possibility of building there. Another example of “be-all-things-to-all-people” posturing from Kevin Warren that cemented the Bears’ reputation as bad actors among a lot of influential pols.
- Jibba - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 9:51 am:
The GOP was going to complain either way. As for a “black eye” for Illinois, that may be a perception in some circles (and will definitely be raised nationally for JB by the GOP for their own political advantage), few are going to actually support giving billionaires another billion. Doing less was the right call even if there might have been a way to get this across the line with the right politics.
- Remember the Alamo II - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 10:00 am:
=== Of the three sites that have been raised it’s the least convenient of the three. ===
Maybe for you people “up north”.
- ChicagoBars - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 10:03 am:
Did any elected official in California or San Francisco take a serious political hit when the 49ers relocated to the suburbs for more revenue streams?
- JS Mill - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 10:12 am:
=Maybe for you people “up north”.=
You mean “up north” where the people actually live?
Or down where you people, you few people are?
- Casper the Ghost Bus - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 10:13 am:
So what I’m hearing is people wish there was some kind of super authoritarian leader who could twist lawmakers to do something a special interest wanted even if a majority clearly didn’t think it was a priority? Somewhere a smirk is curling into Michael J. Madigan’s lips.
- Irreverent - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 10:22 am:
Go! Let Indiana taxpayers build you a nice Toxic Dump stadium and neglect all the infrastructure around it. Get out of our pockets.
- Jocko - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 10:23 am:
From what I’ve read only $145 million separates Hammond from AH. That and their ridiculous request for ‘property tax certainty’ (aka have your cake and eat it too)
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 10:23 am:
The Bears lease with the Park District includes many options for an extension. I bet they move forward with Indiana and wait to see if the Chicago 2027 election changes anything. The Sox are the more pressing matter. Their lease with ISFA only has a one-year option to 2031 I believe. Do too many Sox fans wear hard hats for the Mayor and Stacy Davis Gates to care about the Sox? The negligence for the South Side team is baffling.
- West Side the Best Side - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 10:24 am:
And here I thought the Bears’ problem all these years was trying to find a winning quarterback.
- Think Again - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 10:30 am:
=few are going to actually support giving billionaires another billion. Doing less was the right call=
Yeah, right - If JB has closed the deal, he would be doing a victory lap about how great Illinois is for securing a new home for the Bears.
- Jerry - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 10:39 am:
“Property Tax Certainty” just another way of saying Welfare for the Wealthy! Looks like Indiana has government handouts. Glad the Bears are leaving. And no more free stadiums for the baseball team either.
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 10:48 am:
But, but, but they’re going to build a whole entertainment center complex around this new stadium…in Hammond, Indiana.
- Juice - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 10:52 am:
Three Dimensional Checkers, I don’t see any reason for the city or state to do much with the Sox right now. There is already a succession plan in place, so negotiating with Reinsdorf at this point doesn’t make a ton of sense.
At the same time, Ishbia is already laying the groundwork for a new stadium, but there are a number of things that need to occur with the federal government first. I think state and local government would be better off waiting to see how that all plays out before just throwing money on the table.
- lake county democrat - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 11:00 am:
Remember the Alamo: No, for up north, northwest, and west. Consider a fan in Naperville: today they can take a metra train downtown and then a shuttle to SF. Now either that shuttle has turned into a nightmare or they have to slog across downtown to the South Shore line and take that. Even Arlington Heights can at least be done without the downtown slog. Driving? I88 to 53 is far easier than I88 to I294 to the slog getting off and up to Wolf Lake in Hammond (I think that’d be faster than I88-I94-Skyway but who knows).
- Remember the Alamo II - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 11:02 am:
=== =Maybe for you people “up north”.=
You mean “up north” where the people actually live?
Or down where you people, you few people are? ===
The comment I was responding to was posted by Lake County Democrat. My comment was referring to those that live on the north side of Chicago or the northern suburbs. I live in the south suburbs, and Hammond would be much more convenient for me.
- Rivers Gently Flowing - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 11:14 am:
Goodbye Hammond Bears, though I never knew you at all.
I saw you on TV and then they changed your name.
Blow out the candle on your way out.
- 48th Ward Heel - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 11:18 am:
When this whole dumb thing started, one of the things the Bears said was that their research showed their paying fanbase lived closer to the Arlington Park site, but they followed the money as far as they could possibly go in the opposite direction.
Could the composition of the ticketholders shift closer to the new site? Sure, but it’s telling that when they had a neutral/central site fans from the Region were less likely to attend games (or at least that’s what the Bears were saying when they were trying to justify moving to Arlington).
- anon - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 11:27 am:
JB could have let the bill go into law without his signature. Seems like him signing a bill for another billionaire was never going to happen, when running for re-election and possibly Prez.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 11:27 am:
===throwing money on the table.===
I did not say that. Just compare the two leases. The Bears basically have an unlimited option to extend. The Sox do not. Even though I am a die hard Sox fan, I am also an adult and do not want the team to receive a public subsidy. At the same time, if the Cubs and Sox situation were reversed, and I was in City leadership, I would try to find some solution that is best for the City. The Mayor will not even meet with Ald. Lee about the stadium.
- Suburban Mom - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 11:31 am:
We’ll always have the time BoJo’s press conference promising the Chicago stadium proposal would cost no taxpayer money was being fact checked in real time by economists from our state’s many eminent universities. That was high comedy.
It’s not like the NFL is going to allow the Bears to leave the Chicago TV market, so what does it matter which side of the line they’re on?
- Not Convinced - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 11:38 am:
I believe the Bears trying to get a hand-out or special deal overall reflects their inability to see beyond their litle football francise. If they juse went through with AH, paid their taxes, develop the land next door, keep every penny of every ticket, drink, hot dog, parking, get a Super Bowl and a FInal Four, all on their own…they will finally be a world class sports francise, that can start expanding their wealth to get into other sports, global ones too. But no, they remain a little ole family business dependent on the local pols to strike deals with and snag a little bit of subsidy. They don’t know what they’re sitting on there with AH.
- Proud Papa Bear - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 11:47 am:
Watching this play out reminds me of the scene in The Jerk when Steve Martin is leaving his wife.
I don’t need you, Illinois. I don’t need any of this.
Just infrastructure. And that’s it.
And tax breaks, but I don’t need anything else.
Just infrastructure, tax breaks, and wealthy residents to support my entertainment district.
And that’s it.
- Travel Guy - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 11:51 am:
==I live in the south suburbs, and Hammond would be much more convenient for me.==
If you live in the south burbs and have ever been to this part of Hammond, you know what a dump with terrible infrastructure it is. Unless you live on the east side of Cal City, it will take you longer to get there than Soldier Field. Most of the season ticket holders from the North Side will spend an additional hour or more in the car and have to pay for the skyway and the indiana toll road. At least, they’ll be able to see and smell the oil refineries from their seats.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 12:03 pm:
=== If they juse went through with AH, paid their taxes,===
I think the big advantage of the PILOT idea is that companies can borrow money based on the cash they save on property taxes.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 12:06 pm:
===McCaskey’s have less liquidity than Death Valley===
And yet they were able to overpay for that land in AH.
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 12:14 pm:
This has been in discussion for five years.
I still don’t know what the Chicago Bears really want out of their engagement with the public and the government over this.
Every aspect of this has been handled poorly by the Chicago Bears. Even if I wanted to be a Chicago Bear Pawlicker and blindly support whatever is the best for the Chicago Bears ownership and help make the McCaskey family feel like billionaires instead of just being paper billionaires I wouldn’t know what I was supposed to be demanding that legislators or the Governors do.
As a protip, businesses worth billions of dollars should be able to engage the public in a manner that does not resemble a couple three months into their relationship trying to decide where to eat.
“Do you want to get a stadium and entertainment district in Arlington?”
“What about that toxic waste dump in Hammond?”
“Yeah, I’ve got a coupon for a free stadium there.”
“Oh, but we have such a great spot on the Lake Front.”
I have known a great many toddlers that are barely able to speak who can make more clear demands and are less frustrating to deal with.
- Juice - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 12:29 pm:
===And yet they were able to overpay for that land in AH.===
Don’t forget the $150m-$200m the family spent to buy McKenna’s shares from the estate at the highest share price ever for an NFL team.
- illinifan - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 12:31 pm:
Take a hard look at the addresses of the season ticket holders. Then look at travel time to Hammond. As a person who lived on the east side of Chicago that is not an easy drive into that area. AH has the expressway, entertainment and hotel infrastructure in place already as well as convenience to Rockford and Ohare airports. It makes the most sense. But god forbid the Bears use common sense as they try to pinch a penny. Somehow what makes sense is being lost with all the infighting between urban and suburban interests.
- Rudy’s teeth - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 12:37 pm:
If the State of Indiana has money to build a stadium for the Bears in Hammond, where is the money to build an overpass over the multiple freight train tracks in Hammond.
Students have been forced to crawl over stopped trains to reach their school. An article in ProPublica from March 2026 provides more information. Build an overpass rather than a stadium.
- Candy Dogood - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 1:04 pm:
===Don’t forget the $150m-$200m the family spent to buy McKenna’s shares ===
Probably got tired of trying to explain how they weren’t incompetent to someone outside of the family.
- Save Ferris - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 1:08 pm:
“And yet they were able to overpay for that land in AH.”
The NFL allows teams to borrow up to $900 million (increasing to $2 billion if a team petitions the NFL for an overage). The purchase price was $197 million.
They financed it.
- ChicagoVinny - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 1:15 pm:
The McCaskeys own the 10th most valuable sports franchise in the world per Forbes. They could get liquidity to pay for a stadium if they wanted to via private investment, they just don’t want to.
They could break ground on a stadium tomorrow in AH, they just want a big subsidy from taxpayers.
- Cool Papa Bell - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 1:15 pm:
I still believe this the Dave McGinnis’ of stadium announcements.
- Save Ferris - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 1:35 pm:
“They could get liquidity to pay for a stadium if they wanted to via private investment, they just don’t want to.”
Not via debt. They’d have to sell equity. They only own 77% of the team and they have said, repeatedly, they do not wish to give up a controlling interest.
They need $6 billion at this point to build everything they want in AH. At a $10 bn valuation (above the $8.9bn valuation given to the McKenna shares), they would need to sell 40% of the team to raise $4 bn to go along with the $2 bn they can borrow. That would dilute their ownership stake to 37%.
They don’t want to do that.
Three years of delays have added about $2 bn to the project cost.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 1:39 pm:
===They don’t want to do that.===
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUqSNbJuGOw&pp=ygUeY2FuJ3QgYWx3YXlzIGdldCB3aGF0IHlvdSB3YW50
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 1:40 pm:
===They financed it. ===
The Indiana governor says his state runs at the speed of business.
Obviously, he did not include the Chicago Bears in that category.
- Lurker - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 1:41 pm:
I agree Cool Papa Bell. Great analogy.
And for those worried this is a stain on Illinois’ reputation, no one cares about all the New York teams that play in NJ. Nor the other plethora of teams that no longer call their homes home (eg Dallas Cowboys that haven’t been in Dallas for almost two decades)
- Save Ferris - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 1:45 pm:
@Rich Re: You can’t always get what you want…
Imagine George McCaskey with frosted tips.
https://youtu.be/PS6lNDrCi88?si=QQfQZeffsa8nfN8i
- Just Me 2 - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 1:48 pm:
Rich people always think they’re the smartest person in the room, especially people born into that wealth. Bears owners refused to accept political reality and thought they knew best.
- Leslie K - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 1:51 pm:
Candy @ 12:14pm — Absolutely spot-on. I was going to quote some of your post to comment, but I would have just quoted the entire post.
- Ducky LaMoore - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 1:58 pm:
This is 100% the fault of the Chicago Bears. They had no plan, bought the AH property without any consultation with any governmental body in Illinois, told everybody what they were planning to do, and then decided to ask for a handout. Go to Indiana, build your stadium on a smelly swamp, and shut up already.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 1:58 pm:
===They don’t want to do that===
Reinsdorf does not own a majority of the White Sox shares, but he has control of the organization as the operating partner. Not my area of the law, but I think the Bears could sell the equity while the McCaskey family still operates the team.
- Rahm's Parking Meter - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 2:33 pm:
I know Rich has said to stay scientific but this has to be put out there and this is my warning - Real people and the legislature on this are disconnected.
I have seen and believe the polling that people don’t want to pay for McCaskey land whether in Arlington Heights or Chicago.
I live in Arlington Heights, my community has a bias, as does Buffalo Grove, Wheeling, Northbrook and other towns I was in this weekend.
HOWEVER - people are talking and they are MAD on this. “How can the state..” How Can the Bears…”
This has more staying power if not fixed..
I genuinely believe if the Bears stayed in the city, okay sell the land get out of Arlington, Bear down.
But Indiana - that has a WHOLE other element for a lot of people depending on where they live. If this doesn’t get recitified and Caleb Williams statue is near Horseshoe Casino, people will remember this. That is not good for any elected and that is a bipartisan thought.
- Rahm's Parking Meter - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 2:51 pm:
Rectified* typo
- @misterjayem - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 2:57 pm:
“They only own 77% of the team and they have said, repeatedly, they do not wish to give up a controlling interest.”
Sometimes you can’t get everything you want.
– MrJM
- Pundent - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 3:11 pm:
=Not my area of the law, but I think the Bears could sell the equity while the McCaskey family still operates the team.=
The Bears desire to maintain control of the team and further enrich themselves is not a problem to be solved by taxpayers. At least not in Illinois. If Indiana taxpayers decide that benevolence is in order, so be it.
- Bored Chairman - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 3:14 pm:
Why should anyone care if the taxing bodies in Arlington Heights want the ability to negotiate with a mega developer? It’s their tax dollars at issue - no one else in Illinois is “subsidizing” the Bears. There is no impact on any other taxpayer in Illinois who pays how much in local taxes in Arlington Heights. Locals use incentives to lure in developers all the time. The Governor, the House and the Senate all blew it. Legislators played a high stakes game of chicken and lost. Their arrogance is stunning.
- Pundent - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 3:16 pm:
=But Indiana - that has a WHOLE other element for a lot of people depending on where they live.=
Depending on where they live seems to be working overtime in this statement.
The Bears overplayed their hand. What else is new? Should they leave for Hammond and I’m not sure they will; the electeds will chastise them as being greedy, only thinking of themselves, and expecting a taxpayer handout. And they would be right.
- TNR - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 3:44 pm:
Good rundown here on the need for local governments in Indiana to approve several different taxes to make Hammond a reality. I’d be surprised if they don’t get approval, but at the same time, the government officials quoted in the story don’t seem to be in a hurry.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/06/08/lake-county-council-chicago-bears/
- Ben Tre - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 3:47 pm:
It kills me that everyone - Trib editorial board, especially - is describing this as a “failure of Springfield.” This was a success: no sweetheart deal for billionaires or, worse, broad ‘policy’ with $$$ in unintended subsidies for other questionable projects. Yes, Bears were clear what their price was. No shame in saying “no.”
- Juice - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 4:13 pm:
Bored Chairman, there are other property tax incentives already permitted under the law that the Bears could have sought and received from Arlington Heights, but chose not to.
In addition to that, the local taxing bodies in this case include Cook County, the Forest Preserve and the MWRD. If their tax amount is frozen, then as a Chicago taxpayer, my tax rate goes up because the taxing bodies we share with Arlington Heights no longer have access to that EAV. So I would literally be paying for them to move from the City to Arlington Heights. So its not just “local” taxpayers making that determination.
Plus, not dissimilar to the first two points, why they are expecting the legislature, which is heavily influenced by members representing parts of the City of Chicago, is a total miscalculation on the political reality of what they are wanting to achieve.
- Lincoln Lad - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 4:17 pm:
The lack of leadership in Illinois has cost the state the team… very disappointed in the Gov. Not at all surprised by the failure of the Speaker and Senate President.
- Bored Chairman - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 4:57 pm:
Juice,
Name one local incentive that exists that the Bears would be eligible for. And you’re incorrect that PILOT would impact any but the local municipal, schools, library and park districts. You would not be paying for them to move anywhere.
- New Day - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 5:33 pm:
The Sun-Times story is the first effective PR effort of the Kevin Warren era. What a complete joke written apparently from one source inside the Bears organization (that you, Kevin?). An awful lot of column inches for poorly sourced drivel.
- Boone Logan Square - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 8:42 pm:
If a move to Hammond leads to improving public transit for the region between South Shore and Hammond, then bear down Indiana Bears.
- Arvey's Legacy - Monday, Jun 8, 26 @ 10:10 pm:
Bored Chairman and Juice–
As I read the various drafts of the megaprojects bill, under a PILOT a project’s assessed value is frozen for county entity (County, Forest Preserve, MWRD) levies just like it is for municipality, school, etc levies. So it does affect all county taxpayers if the project gets the frozen value treatment. Unless you could show us otherwise, Bored Chairman?