Rate the idea
Tuesday, Jun 9, 2026 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From Rep. Marty McLaughlin (R-Barrington Hills)…
State Representative Martin McLaughlin today announced new legislation currently being drafted, known as the TIPA (Taxpayer Investment Protection Act), aimed at providing a structured alternative to the current stadium development proposal involving the Chicago Bears.
This proposal is a business-driven approach designed to deliver certainty to the Chicago Bears organization while providing strong protections for taxpayers and the surrounding region. It seeks to restore clarity, accountability, and fiscal balance following recent legislative failures at the state level.
Representative McLaughlin noted that while he supported early-stage discussions of the original initiative, he believes the proposal requires further refinement to ensure taxpayer protections are fully in place while preserving a major regional economic development opportunity.
Protecting Taxpayers While Advancing Economic Growth
McLaughlin reaffirmed his commitment to fiscal responsibility, emphasizing that Illinois must carefully balance private investment incentives with protections for property taxpayers.
He stated that the overall development concept represents a potential $8 billion regional investment opportunity, with significant long-term economic impact if properly structured.
Structured Investment Framework
The legislation introduced by McLaughlin establishes clear financial benchmarks, including:
• Up to $2.5 billion in private investment from the Chicago Bears organization and development partners
• Approximately $1.2 billion in state-supported infrastructure investment, tied to defined project milestones
• Accountability provisions ensuring both public and private commitments are met
• Safeguards to protect taxpayers should investment thresholds not be achieved
The framework is intended to create measurable standards and reduce uncertainty for all parties involved.
Economic Development Vision
McLaughlin described the proposal as a disciplined, accountable approach that could unlock transformative regional development, comparable in scale to major entertainment districts such as Rosemont, while delivering broader statewide benefits.
He cautioned that failure to properly structure the agreement could jeopardize the opportunity altogether, stressing the importance of legislative precision and transparency.
Statement from Rep. McLaughlin
“This is about bringing structure and accountability back into the process,” McLaughlin said. “We have a chance to secure major private investment while protecting taxpayers—but only if we get the framework right from the beginning.”
He added, “We’ve seen what too many politicians in the room can do. Now let’s get some business leaders in the room and get this thing done for the benefit of all Chicago Bears fans. Illinois cannot afford to lose a major economic development opportunity.”
Representative McLaughlin was first elected to office in 2020 previously serving as Village President of Barrington Hills. He is a business owner and financial expert.
That infrastructure money is a significantly higher commitment than Democrats were willing to make.
Anyway, I won’t go on because I’m interested in your thoughts about this.
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 8:49 am:
As a concept, a theory, sounds good.
That two and a half bill from the Bears and other “development partners” is dead as a kipper on a cracker.
I can hear the McCaskeys gettin’ the vapors way down here in southern Illinois.
- NormalRepublican - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 8:52 am:
It’s nice to see someone on the GOP side putting out a proposal of their own rather than just complaining.
- Benniefly2 - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 8:53 am:
Without specifics on how a proposed act would ‘protect property taxpayers’, it is impossible to evaluate. Allowing corporations to negotiate a fixed, reduced annual property tax amount that would be frozen for forty years certainly was a terrible idea in the previous house bill. If it is to be a negotiated, reduced tax, it should at a bare minimum be indexed to inflation and certainly not locked in for four decades.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 8:54 am:
McLaughlin’s proposal makes no mention of taxes while claiming it’s designed to protect taxpayers. The Bears claim this won’t work without “property tax certainty” and McLaughlin ignores the topic completely?
It was always expected that the state would be footing the bill for some infrastructure. But $1.2B with no details or justification? That’s a whole lot of unexplained infrastructure. I guess it takes a businessman to come up with a plan short on details but with a massive price tag.
Saying no is looking better all the time.
- high level - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 8:55 am:
JB needs to get off the sidelines and get a deal done. Will forever be remembered as the Gov who lost the Bears.
- Roadrager - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 8:56 am:
If you are promising any part of the store to the Chicago Bears as an elected official in the state of Illinois, you are announcing yourself to the world as a sucker at best and in on the con at worst.
On a scale of Craig Krenzel to Caleb Williams, I rate this proposal as a Moses Moreno.
- StarLineChicago - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 8:59 am:
For that price tag, we should have assurances that ten figures’ worth of public investment in vague “infrastructure” has year-round uses rather than just a couple dozen event days.
- Steve - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:00 am:
-JB needs to get off the sidelines and get a deal done.-
Actually JB is looking after the taxpayers here. The onus is on those looking to subsidize private, profitable businesses. NYC doesn’t have any teams playing in their city. L.A. didn’t for over 25 years. Life goes on.
- Steve - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:02 am:
Let me correct something here: NYC doesn’t have any NFL teams playing in their city.
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:10 am:
“Will forever be remembered as the Gov who lost the Bears.”
Twenty years ago, maybe.
Tax money to billionaires’ pet projects aren’t really in vogue at the moment.
- Braceville Brad - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:15 am:
Just saying that these projects “create regional economic development” does not just make it true. When peer reviewed study after peer reviewed study shows the exact opposite….
- high level - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:17 am:
- Actually JB is looking after the taxpayers here. -
JB can spend billions on illegal immigrants but won’t move the needle to keep the Pride and Joy of Illinois in the state? Okay.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:25 am:
1.2 Billion? What infrastructure do they need? It’s by an expressway exit already.
Seriously not getting the need for that much infrastructure , I would assume once you get “inside” the current property footprint it’s all going to be owned by the Bears.
- Homebody - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:25 am:
== Will forever be remembered as the Gov who lost the Bears. ==
I’ll remember him as the Gov who didn’t give handouts to the multi billion dollar, extremely profitable entertainment company.
Stop letting for profit corporations engage in emotional blackmail for tax dollars.
- Indiana is a Football School - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:30 am:
If the entire project is 8 billion and there are ~9 home games a year for 40 years that is $ 22,000,000/per game. I could find something better to do with that money. Taylor Swift can still play Soldier Field. GO BEARS! GO STRAIGHT TO INDIANA!
- Casper the Ghost Bus - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:30 am:
What’s his roll call look like for this idea of a proposal for a draft?
- Steve - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:39 am:
Good luck to the Bears. They are going to need some new fans. Their Indiana location is even less convenient than Soldiers.
- ChrisB - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:39 am:
Can we add a stipulation that the Bears must maintain a .500 record over the life of the tax break?
- Soccermom - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:40 am:
Pop quiz: Name all the governors who allowed NFL teams to leave their states.
- Chicagonk - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:46 am:
I don’t understand why the infrastructure need is so high. Also, shouldn’t Arlington Heights issue bonds paid back by the property taxes on the mixed-used development portion?
- Louis G Atsaves - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:47 am:
We can’t have billionaires building or expanding what they own. This is Illinois where we have a billionaire governor who promises to protect us from shiny, sparkly objects he once adored, like those massive data centers. Rep. McLaughlin actually has a few built in guard rails the Bears may be able to live with and even not one penny Governor JB may agree to, now that reality rears its ugly head on the Bear situation and they remain front page news going on two weeks post legislature session. Lots of angry, snarky comments on both sides of the fence since then, that still doesn’t seem to be going away. Five years of fiddling around is not a good look for anyone on this issue.
- train111 - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:55 am:
Without getting into the specifics of McLaughlin’s proposal let me say we need more of this.
We desperately need political competition in this state. We are worse off basically being a one party state.
That being said it is incredibly difficult to take anything seriously out of the “drive-by Facebook post party”
Any serious proposal - despite whether or not it can be implemented is much better than the exact same Press release about the Bears being copied and pasted on social media by every GOP State Senator. The whole schtick of filling everybody’s social media with 60 negative posts per day has become incredibly tiring and is a complete turn off.
Any proposal is better than the lazy cut and paste social media party the Illinois GOP has become.
- ;) - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 10:11 am:
McLaughlin’s idea is pretty good. Kudos to Marty.
- Pundent - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 10:13 am:
=Five years of fiddling around is not a good look for anyone on this issue.=
Lots of words to say you’re comfortable with the state committing $1.2B to this. But perhaps you could elaborate on why this is a better investment than say education, health care, or scores of other things that have been inadequately funded by the state. And are we to believe that the Bears, under McLaughlin’s proposal, are suddenly cool with paying the full freight of their property tax bill? Because that seems to be ignored in all of this. I know, details, details.
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 10:13 am:
“This is Illinois where we have a billionaire governor who promises to protect us from shiny, sparkly objects he once adored, like those massive data centers.”
…and instead of going full steam ahead, like your orange lord and savior, Pritzker is listening to the people and backing off.
Tuesdays come in twos in your world, don’t they Louis.
- Casper the Ghost Bus - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 10:13 am:
– Pop quiz: Name all the governors who allowed NFL teams to leave their states. —
• In 1934, the Portsmouth Spartans (that’s in Ohio) relocated to Detroit and changed their named to the Lions.
Ohio Gov. George White
• In 1937, the Boston Redskins moved to Washington. They beat the Bears 28-21 in the NFL championship game that year.
Massachusetts Gov. Charles Hurley
• In 1946, a year after winning the NFL title, the Cleveland Rams moved to Los Angeles. The L.A. Rams would be more than 2,000 miles away from the nearest team.
Ohio Gov. Frank John Lausche
• In 1960, overshadowed by the Bears in Chicago, the Chicago Cardinals relocated to St. Louis.
Illinois Gov. William Stratton
• In 1963, the AFL’s Dallas Texans moved to Kansas City, Missouri, and were renamed the Chiefs.
Texas Gov. John Bowden Connally
• In 1984, owner Robert Irsay moved the Baltimore Colts to Indianapolis on Mayflower trucks in the middle of the night.
Maryland Gov: Harry Roe Hughes
• In 1988, the St. Louis Cardinals moved for the second time — this time to Phoenix.
Missouri Gov. John Ashcroft
• In 1994, Los Angeles had two teams. By 1995, it had none. The Rams moved to St. Louis, and the Raiders headed back to Oakland.
California Gov. Pete Wilson
• In 1996, Art Modell moved his Cleveland Browns to Baltimore and renamed them the Ravens. The Cleveland Browns were reborn as an expansion team in 1999.
Ohio Gov. George Voinovich
• In 1997, the Oilers left Houston for Tennessee a year ahead of schedule because fans in Texas abandoned the outbound franchise. They played one season in Memphis before moving to their new permanent home of Nashville, where they were renamed the Titans.
Texas Gov. George W. Bush
• In 2016, Rams owner Stan Kroenke, unhappy with the team’s stadium situation in St. Louis, moved the franchise back to Los Angeles. The Rams, who are temporarily calling the Memorial Coliseum home, and Chargers, who will play at the MLS Galaxy’s StubHub Center, will share a brand-new stadium in Inglewood beginning in 2019.
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon
Sources:
The History Of Relocation In The NFL - CBS New York
Former Governors - National Governors Association
- GoneFishing - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 10:14 am:
No one said any bad things when the Missouri Governor lost both Rams and Chiefs. No one said bad things to the NY Governor who lost the Jets & Giants. It’s just how the game is played. If Indiana has tons of money to sink into this good for them.
- Think Again - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 10:36 am:
=No one said any bad things when the Missouri Governor lost both Rams and Chiefs=
Different states with different demographics, different sports mindset (the Chiefs always were condider at two state team) and politics. The flip side of what you’re saying - If the no tax support for fatcats doesn’t carry the day, and this does become a big deal with the public, watch JB make finding a last-minute deal a priority
- Cool Papa Bell - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 10:48 am:
I want more details on the “infrastructure” spending here. These $800 million, $1.2 billion figures just seem insane to me.
Rebuilding 16 miles of I-80 in Joliet is set to cost $1.3 billion. How in the heck will infrastructure in an already urban environment run $1.2 billion?
Outside of that, for every billion dollars you spend on the construction of a project (determine scope and impact of project) you can receive 20% (picked a number) off your original estimated property tax bill. The reduction lasts for 25 years and will be set to sustain increases if property taxes increase each year.
- Tony - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 10:56 am:
I’m not sure what exactly the idea is. This is a platitude-filled press release, not a bill. The Bears have already said they would fund the lion’s share of the cost and the governor has always said the state will do infrastructure funding. What’s new here?
- It's always Sunny in Illinois - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 11:18 am:
Rebuilding 16 miles of I-80 in Joliet is set to cost $1.3 billion. How in the heck will infrastructure in an already urban environment run $1.2 billion?
Come on Man…..you know the answer to that…..
- Friendly Bob Adams - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 11:24 am:
Casper thanks for the historical perspective. But I think it’s missing the New York teams that moved to play in New Jersey.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 11:34 am:
People, get back to the topic at hand. Deletions are gonna follow. We’ve been over all that other stuff before.
Stick to the topic.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 11:34 am:
===McLaughlin’s idea is pretty good===
Why?
- ChicagoBars - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 11:48 am:
I appreciate a critical GOP Rep offering a detailed proposal but I still don’t see how this gets to 60-30-1. Which business leaders are going to get enough Chicago and suburban Statehouse members to vote for this fairly stadium specific? When they have their own membership’s own economic development ideas/dreams/wishes?
- Lurker - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 11:48 am:
Two main problems for me. This statement/headline is inaccurate “Protecting Taxpayers While Advancing Economic Growth“
Tax cap not addressed.
Keeping sports teams does not spur economic growth (as many have pointed out with many attached articles/studies)
But, I am impressed there is still a person with an (R) behind their name that’s thinking/trying
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 11:55 am:
===Tax cap not addressed===
Nor is the funding source for all that capital stuff.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 12:02 pm:
- This is a platitude-filled press release, not a bill. -
Agreed. This is CYA for his constituents.
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 12:09 pm:
===Stick to the topic. ===
Sorry, Rich. I forgot the assignment.
I like the Bears. I’ve liked the Chicago Bears for as long as I can remember. The NFL Team has more than a century of history with the City of Chicago. A century of history that cannot be replaced. I always thought that the Chicago Bears and I both valued that shared history, even when they demanded that the City of Chicago update a historic landmark to suit their purposes.
The Chicago Bears effort to leave the City of Chicago, to abandon Soldier Field, to abandon their history is not something that is being done that is in the best interest of the Chicago Bears, the City of Chicago, or the fans of the franchise that have certainly endured a series of dumb and questionable decisions over the decades.
There are only two of the original NFL franchises that exist today, the Chicago Bears and the Wherever Cardinals. The Chicago Bears have a history that cannot be replaced. This desire to move to a new and incredibly expensive stadium on the backs of the the taxpayers isn’t about what is good for the Chicago Bears or what is good for Chicago or for the many thousands of people who feel like the Chicago Bears in one way or another belong to them too. We’ve got a century of history.
The only people that this is good for is the McCaskeys. The only people that really benefit from this is the McCaskeys and as this process has unfolded, this saga, it is clear that the McCaskeys must hate our shared history. They must hate the City of Chicago. They must hate that they haven’t made enough money off of something that someone else built and labor that they have never personally been a part of.
===State Representative Martin McLaughlin today announced new legislation currently being drafted===
The Rep’s framework seems like it could be a good idea. It could work. It certainly is a way for a stadium to be built on the back of the taxpayers but making sure that not all of the expense of the project is on the taxpayers. This isn’t an investment, though. An investment means we get something back. We’re not getting ownership of the Bears. We’re not getting ownership of the facilities or the land. We’re not even getting a fair assessment of property tax. This is a handout to a billionaire family to make their richer, and a GOP calling a handout an investment doesn’t change that reality.
Regardless, hundreds of millions of dollars of the public money will need to be spent to make it possible but it is an effort to secure that the Lyin’ Chicago Bears actually have to put up money, funds, and progress to continue to secure public investment. This announcement is light on specifics, but I feel like this announcement doesn’t matter because is it being made in a vacuum? Does it have 60 votes, much less 60 democratic votes? Would the Governor sign?
Why are we doing this? Why are we having this discussion? Why are we offering them a sum of money that could change the world in so many better ways than supporting a billionaire family that holds the Pride and Joy of Illinois hostage?
The Chicago Bears have made it very clear that they only care about what is good for the owners and so far this charade really seems like an effort by the owners to pretend like it is someone else’s fault that they have to destroy their relationship with the City of Chicago, the People of Chicago, and the fans of their franchise in order to make themselves richer.
I am tired of the Bad Faith Bears. I preferred when the only thing they were bad at was winning football games.
- thisjustinagain - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 12:09 pm:
Vague language does not a plan make. Homeowner taxpayer relief shouldn’t even be in this bill, because it is totally unrelated to the demands of rich team owners for freebies to build a new stadium. Here’s your tax certainty; pay your taxes like everyone else has to, or move. Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County will survive without you.
- Jerry - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 12:15 pm:
@Tony: the football club wants “property tax certainty” or in other words government handouts for a business that’s open 10-12 days a year! This is a joke of an idea for a company that has mooched off of taxpayers for decades.
- fs - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 12:35 pm:
== Homeowner taxpayer relief shouldn’t even be in this bill, because it is totally unrelated to the demands of rich team owners for freebies to build a new stadium. ==
Maybe, maybe not. The Megaprojects billed gave the team a cap on property taxes, but allowed taxing districts to use the full value of the property for levy purposes. That would absolutely impact homeowners in those taxing districts. I’m not sure if changing that is what is mean here by “protecting taxpayers”, but it would be an improvement for taxpayers compared to what was filed this Spring.
- Lisa - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 1:34 pm:
A press release doesn’t matter unless it’s accompanied by a bill.
Well, even then it still doesn’t matter. It’s wishful thinking to imagine that the Bears are still just trying to get leverage with their Hammond plans.
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 2:22 pm:
Great work Casper.
And while the idea McLaughlin has isn’t entirely bad,it would still give the Bears more taxpayer money than they should get.
Let them go to Indiana if that’s what they really want to do.
- TNR - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 2:26 pm:
I’m not really sure what the proposal is. Seems like he’s saying infrastructure spending will be tied to private investment by the Bears…I think. It doesn’t appear to address the most contentious issue — property taxes — in any fashion.
Give him credit for one thing…the media are dying to cover anything remotely tied to the Bears stadium, regardless of its lack of newsworthiness, so he’ll get plenty of free publicity in time for a tough re-election campaign.
But this is a big pile of nothing.
- Gov. George White - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 4:06 pm:
Is this it? I see nothing on his website or ILGA with any more detail than what’s here on CapitolFax.
In the McLaughlin plan, it appears the Bears up their investment by 25% ($2.5B from $2B) and the state ups the infrastructure spend by 40% ($850M to $1.2B), and somehow this is better because… “safeguards” and “accountability”?
The Bears would never meet the economic activity and employment figures in their various marketing materials, so serious accountability is probably off the table.
Is the Ugaste plan anywhere public?
Would the Bears engage with either of two members of the super-minority at this late date?
- Walker - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 4:41 pm:
Nothing much new here, at least on the surface. This is very close to what the Bears initially asked for, that we mostly agreed early on was just too much taxpayer money and risk.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 4:43 pm:
===Is this it?===
Yep. That’s all we have.
===Is the Ugaste plan anywhere public?===
Nope. Just a teevee interview.
- Fivegreenleaves - Tuesday, Jun 9, 26 @ 9:10 pm:
As a Democrat who doesn’t live anywhere near Chicago, I sincerely hope the General Assembly do what they have to do to get a deal done to keep the Bears. I’d prefer the Bears play in Chicago, I’d settle for them playing in Arlington Heights, but I do not want them to go to Indiana. They belong in Illinois.