Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

PPP poll: Plurality oppose any government funding for new suburban Bears stadium

Posted in:

Illinois

About 31% of people who took part in the phone and text message survey conducted by Public Policy Polling said they think the Bears should move from Soldier Field to Arlington Heights, compared to 29% who said they think the team should stay put. About 39% said they weren’t sure.

Perhaps not surprisingly, suburban fans are more excited about the potential move, the Sun-Times/WBEZ Poll suggests, as 51% of respondents from suburban Cook County and the collar counties said the team should break ground in the suburbs. Only 19% of Chicago respondents said the team should leave the city, 44% opposed the move, and 37% were unsure. […]

But in a follow-up question, regardless of where they lived, 45% of all respondents said they would oppose any government funding being used for the stadium or any of the sewers, roads and other infrastructure costs needed to make the massive mixed-use development a reality. […]

Twenty-eight percent of respondents were open to public financing for the infrastructure alone, while 12% said they’d even be OK with giving the team money for the stadium itself — something the team has vowed not to ask for.

The remaining 15% of respondents to the Sun-Times/WBEZ Poll said they’re not sure how they feel about the prospect of public money going into an Arlington Heights stadium or the rest of the 326-acre plot that the team wants to round out with other amenities.

* This topic came up during last night’s debate…

Q: Well, gentlemen, as you both know, and no doubt most of our audience knows, the Chicago Bears are currently exploring a move to Arlington Heights. What’s your position on using state tax dollars to develop the land there and build a new stadium? Senator Bailey, we’ll start with you.

Bailey: Well, first of all, we have to back up and we have to take a look at why this situation has arisen. And it’s because the state government, local government have failed. More taxes are not the answer. We have got to sit down at the table and come up with better solutions and there’s our our taxes. When I started running for governor, when I started running for state rep in 2017, Illinois taxes were $32 billion. And today under Governor Pritzker’s leadership they’re $46.5 billion [Editor’s note: It’s actually $41 billion, plus another $2 billion in transfers, lottery, gaming, cannabis, etc.]. Now I want you to think about that, if more money is the solution to everything, why are we talking about this? Why do we have the problems that we have in Illinois? We have got to start being responsible with our money. We’ve got to start saving tax dollars money, we’ve got to start bringing business into the state of Illinois and right now with all of our regulations and when our high taxes and our unsafe streets and our failed schools. Nobody’s wanting to come instead they’re all leaving.

Q: Governor Pritzker. Same question for you. What is your position on using state tax dollars to develop land in Arlington Heights for the Bears?

Pritzker: That I should meander around to other questions while I’m answering? No, that’s what Darren Bailey does. Look, I’m a Bears fan. I support the Chicago Bears. But I do not think that the state should be funding the private development of a stadium anywhere in the state.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 12:56 pm

Comments

= That I should meander around to other questions while I’m answering? =

Oh, most excellent shade [banned punctuation].

Comment by JoanP Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 12:59 pm
Only a plurality?

Comment by Nick Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:00 pm
There’s simply no appetite for public funding. The Cubs were reminded of that as the Bears surely are.

As to the debate? I’m still trying to understand what Bailey is attempting to say on this topic or pretty much any topic.

Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:03 pm
I’m a Chicagoan in the 19% of the cohort who thinks the team should pull up stakes and move. Further, I’m in the 12% that’s ok with giving the team money. Not state money. Or Cook County money. But Arlington Heights money? Fine by me

Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:09 pm
Bailey used a lot of words to not answer the question. What in the heck was he saying?

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:11 pm
Reading both answers… you can see who exactly “won” and who “lost” last night.

To the post,

I don’t see any need to assist a franchise worth $6+ billion that sits in the largest unshared media market, and will, likely, before a single ticket is sold, will acquire NINE figures in revenue with naming rights, PSLs, luxury box *fees* (not the rental, game tickets, food, none of that)… parking… and media opportunities to the facility, let alone fees to host Super Bowls, the NCAA (basketball Final Fours, college football playoffs) and concerts, with parking revenues driving (no pun intended) measurable revenue growth by every parked vehicle.

If I recall correctly “JerryWorld” paid off itself early, “SoFi” is only “on pace” because of Covid.

No need for state dollars. The Bears will make on this deal on its own.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:13 pm
Not every Illinoisan is a Bears fan- no public support. Maybe the ownership can sell some shares like the Packers do- lol

Comment by Central Ill Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:13 pm
@Nick: Yeah, but another 28% said they’d only be okay with government paying for infrastructure upgrades. That’s not my position, but I can see the logic in making sure roads are wide enough, sewers can handle halftime flushing, etc. (And since the Arlignton Heights site already has much of that, they wouldn’t be on the hook for much.)

Together, that’s 73% against a publicly funded stadium. That’s a pretty solid “no.”

Comment by Benjamin Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:14 pm
No clue what Darvin was saying. The Bears already got a Free stadium. If they’re buying a big lot in Arlington Heghts then get a mortgage and pay for it yourselves.

Comment by Jerry Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:15 pm
The site was always going to be redeveloped. The infrastructure surrounding the site has been neglected for decades. State and local government routinely improve infrastructure for new developments. It’s clear that public infrastructure investment in the area around the site is not only appropriate, but necessary.

Comment by phocion Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:16 pm
Suppose the Bears do not go to Arlington Heights. Land gets sold to another major developer but they want roads sewers water and maybe a tax break for ten years. I would bet that would be done. I think the Beats should get what any other major development would get. But I also oppose TIF districts and think that law should be changed

Comment by DuPage Saint Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:17 pm
Chicagoans are still paying on the debt we incurred for the Soldier Field renovation. We’ve already seen this movie. Fool us once… But if Arlington Heights wants to waste their money on a $6 billion, more power to ‘em.

Comment by D0 Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:20 pm
The only one you need to ask is Aaron Rogers since he owns the Bears

Comment by Lurker Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:23 pm
Maybe just maybe consider some Tax dollars if the team wasn’t a complete circus 🤡 run by clowns. If the Bears had been smart and tried building a winner the correct way ( President who is a football guy, GM his isn’t a inexperienced nobody and a HC who knew the offensive side of the ball ) maybe people would throw a bone if this team was a actual well run organization. If they brought a Super Bowl team to Illinois it would be a different conversation.

Comment by Old time Independent Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:34 pm
Bailey took the advice “answer the question you wanted them to ask” a little too literally.

He was actually set up for a perfect pivot to a version of the answer he gave “The state should not provide funding to the Bears because I believe in smaller government and lower taxes….”

Comment by Montrose Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:36 pm
==Land gets sold to another major developer but they want roads sewers water and maybe a tax break for ten years. I would bet that would be done.==
While it is possible the infrastructure could be subsidized as a public good, most developers actually have to pay development impact fees for concurrency in the infrastructure.

Comment by Nuke The Whales Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:40 pm
Wow, DBs non-answer was a sprawling mess. Does he think high state taxes are why Da Bears can’t find a QB?

Count me in the camp of those who want to see the team move to a place where they can financially succeed and field a competitive team annually. Should the state pay for any of it? No. All of the benefits (and costs) are going to Arlington Heights, and I believe there are enough funding mechanisms already in place (TIFs, special service districts, etc.) to pay for the needed infrastructure.

And if the Halas/McCaskey family can’t afford to finance the deal on their own, then they should sell the team with the AH property to someone who can.

Comment by Vote Quimby Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:44 pm
and I meant to add:

Wouldn’t the current Solider Field property be an attractive place for residential/commercial development if the city sold it?

Comment by Vote Quimby Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:47 pm
Tax dollars should have went to build a domed stadium on the lake front, that however was a long time ago and things change.. But I digress.

Hard no to state dollars going to a new Bears facility. Need some help building out a road or adding a train station - sure. More direct support than that - no need.

(fact check me here) But shouldn’t it be notable that Chicago is the only city that has all four of the top pro sports leagues and has kept all of those namesake teams actually inside proper city boundaries.

All those problems with Chicago and five teams still play in the city.

Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:51 pm
I’d love to see them build a domed stadium in AH, maybe even host the Super Bowl someday. Should the public pony up any $$ for it? No.

Comment by workingfromhome Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 1:52 pm
I remember watching this part of the debate. I remember thinking, “Geez, Bailey, it’s late. You have made your point. You blame Pritzker and the Democrats for all ills. We get this. Just answer this question. It is too simple to deflect.”

In that context, I liked Pritzker’s response a lot.

Comment by H-W Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 2:02 pm
=residential/commercial development if the city sold it?=

Museum campus, can’t build stuff on that side of LSD. That’s why the Lucas museum bailed

Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 2:22 pm
I agree with not funding the stadium or other structures themselves, but if I lived in the area I would be on board with providing infrastructure and road improvements in the vicinity. The complex will attract a lot of money and visitors to the area, and doing the necessary work to accommodate the increased traffic makes sense.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 2:23 pm
After Bailey’s continued negative Chicago’s comments, I’m surprised he didn’t finish up his mess of a response to this question and end with “by the way I’m a Cardinals and Blues fan and wish the Rams never left St. Louis”

Comment by Baloneymous Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 2:26 pm
Longtime downstate Bears fan here. I’m fine with them moving out to Arlington Heights. I’m good with tax dollars going towards infrastructure improvements. I’m not ok with state tax money going towards the stadium itself, but if the citizens of Arlington Heights decide they want to put their tax dollars towards that, then that’s their prerogative.

Comment by Scott Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 3:16 pm
Seems like this isn’t the season for pro-Aaron Rogers trash talk.

Comment by The Velvet Frog Wednesday, Oct 19, 22 @ 4:08 pm