Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Pritzker claims local governments have the ability to lower property taxes “right now”
Posted in:
* Press release…
State Rep. Kam Buckner issued the following statement in regards to the Chicago Bears reported plans to pursue a state subsidy to build a new stadium.
The demands the Bears are making boil down to a $6 billion privately held company that doesn’t want to pay taxes.
As more and more Chicagoans and Illinoisans struggle to pay their bills and make ends meet, the Chicago Bears are hatching a plan to put their profits over the people.
I was a high school student working part-time at Soldier Field in January 2002 when Chicago taxpayers gave the Bears $432 million to upgrade the Stadium, at a time when the team was worth $550 million.
I remember just how quickly the wrecking balls began to swing the moment the game against the Philadelphia Eagles was over. I was literally still in the stadium as the crew began work. Twenty years later, profits have ballooned for the Bears, but Chicago taxpayers still owe over $640 million on that 2002 Soldier Field renovation even as the Bears prepare to ask for more public funding to leave Chicago.
Springfield has done the tough work of moving the State to financial solvency and dealing with the issues that affect the everyday lives of our 12.8 million residents. Giving the Bears another gift-wrapped subsidy should not be on our list of priorities. Are the Bears ready to look taxpayers in the face and say why they deserve funding that could be going toward public safety, education, and essential services? They wouldn’t dare, so they should stop asking for it behind closed doors.
I do not yet see a way that the the Bears can convince Chicago-area Democrats (and pretty much anyone else) to vote for a tax break proposal which helps move the team out of the city and into the suburbs.
* Related…
* What the Chicago Bears Can Learn About Arlington Heights From SoFi Stadium
* Palatine weighs impact of proposed Bears stadium as village updates long-range plan
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 8:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Pritzker claims local governments have the ability to lower property taxes “right now”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Taxpayers subsidized the Soldier Field renovations. If the Bears don’t think that’s good enough, then they can fund their own new stadium.
Comment by cover Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 8:59 am
Usually, owners use the threat of moving the team to strong arm legislators to cough up money for a new stadium. The State of Illinois is not in danger of losing the bears with the Arlington Heights project. Not sure why the State should consider giving a dime to the bears.
Comment by Sox Fan Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:06 am
Let them move out of state. Subsidizing businesses like this doesn’t net generate economic activity. Let the Bears rip-off someone else.
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:10 am
Still angry over Churchill Downs Inc selling Arlington Park to Bears and destroying Illinois Racing. So Give them No Taxpayer Money. None.
Comment by Red Ketcher Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:14 am
I am an Arlington Heights resident. They need to look at this objectively and read the room.
Also, not working to this point with the local state reps and senators at all in this process (Walker, Morrison, Soon Canty and Gillespie) is a dumb move from the Bears, but I don’t expect anything less from this team.
Comment by Rahm's Parking Meter Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:14 am
Sell the team to capable owners who know how to evaluate and hire talent and then we’ll talk about tax breaks. Even bad teams win occasionally. The Bears can’t win at all right now. How many coaching regimes and quarterbacks has this team been through compared with their arch rivals in Green Bay?
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:20 am
The analysis is quite simple. The Bears bought the Arlington Heights property because they thought it was in their financial best interest. The taxpayers had no say in that transaction. If the Bears are having second thoughts it seems that they have a perfectly acceptable alternative in continuing to play in the tax payer funded stadium they currently occupy.
Comment by Pundent Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:22 am
== I do not yet see a way that the the Bears can convince Chicago-area Democrats… ==
That’s the whole ball game. Can’t pass a subsidy without Chicago Dems and which Chicago member is going to vote to effectively move any business, let alone the Bears, out of the city?
The big question: is the Arlington project a no-go without the “payment in lieu of taxes” or some other government support and if so what is plan B for the Bears?
Comment by Roman Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:31 am
I hope Mayor Lightfoot realizes this means she doesn’t need to give away the store to keep them in Chicago. Let them make their decision on their own.
Comment by Excitable Boy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:34 am
If the Bears organization wants a new $6B Stadium built by the State or city, they can give the State (or city) a $6B ownership stake in the Bears.
Or build it on their own dime …
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:34 am
Buckner is spot on.
Keep in mind:
Winning does not equate to profitability in the NFL.
With salary caps and guaranteed revenue through television rights, each and every franchise is profitable on March 1st, every year. The dollars we are all talking about are pure profit dollars, unnecessary for the franchise to run or exist.
It’s a business model that only needs an a Kung for an EFT to land, and the functionality of the product’s (players) wrapping (uniforms, equipment, etc) and the line management (coaches) to keep the product available
Money, making money, is not a worry or concern. Ever.
That’s the business model of 32 franchise of one company (NFL) where the franchisees earn and make by merely existing for the other franchisees.
Some call it a monopoly…
Not one dime.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:35 am
The Bears should build the new stadium on their own dime. The franchise cost about $500 when it was new, and has stayed in the same family for 100 years. The McCaskey’s have billions in the bank.
I would think there are endless sponsorship opportunities to help defray the cost of building and operating the private stadium.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:37 am
IMHO, Bears and the City of Chicago would be wise to convert the little-used Lakeside East portion of McCormick Place into a modern indoor stadium. Current infrastructure (sewer/rail/parking/roads) are there, and it could be used for year-round athletic & cultural events.
However, if the Bears decide to go to Arlington Heights, they can do so on their own dime. AFAIC, the temperature for every Bears game I’m watching is a comfy 67 degrees, no lines for concessions or the loo, parking is free and the sightlines are PERFECT!
Comment by Chicago Resident & Bears Fan Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:39 am
===(and pretty much anyone else)===
It’s jut odd that some are forgetting this.
True, the Republicans are wholly irrelevant by any measure…
…as voters wanted, given the GOP choices…
But here’s the thing, what GOPer is clamoring for the Bears to move? What GOPer is “demanding” the Bears stay in Chicago?
The Bears, and their “un-shared largest media market” has no better alternative for the franchise. The Bears want this market, they want it unshared, they want to leverage… yet there’s nothing to leverage, as the Bears won’t let any other franchise in this market… nor will the NFL
So, it’s about the dollars, and how easy the franchise can get them from Illinois.
The rest is performance art by the very profitable franchise
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:40 am
In 2003 Taxpayers were responsible for 432 million in renovation costs
Bears were responsible for 200 million
20 years later taxpayers somehow still owe 640 million and the Bears have the worst least in the NFL and the smallest stadium
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_Field#2002-03_renovation_and_landmark_delisting
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:40 am
Like it or not, governmental agencies are going to pony up a bunch of money to pay for infrastructure improvements associated with the new development.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:41 am
Not only do the Bears/McCaskeys not want to pay taxes, they also don’t want to Win either. Or even be at least competitive against Detroit, unlike we had to endure last Sunday.
Comment by Stuck in Celliniland Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:41 am
==What the Chicago Bears Can Learn About Arlington Heights From SoFi Stadium==
It was brought to you at the expense of St. Louis (thank you Stan Kronke).
Comment by Stuck in Celliniland Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:43 am
===they also don’t want to Win either. Or even be at least competitive against Detroit, unlike we had to endure last Sunday.===
Winning does not equate to profits.
===It was brought to you at the expense of St. Louis===
About that?
The Rams paid STL and the county $419 million in the lawsuit won by the locals.
Plus, the Rams were going “home”, as the franchise originated in Los Angeles.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:47 am
Apologies, my phone recycled, commented in the wrong place as it went “back”
The Los Angeles building is not “apples to…”
First, two franchisees, the Rams and Chargers share the facility.
Second, the NFL and it’s own cable network share space in the facility.
Third, the NFL, along with Jerry Jones leading, worked out financing.
The Bears have none of the advantages or partners as of this comment.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:58 am
Since he apparently owns the Bears, maybe the State can stick Aaron Rodgers with the entire cost of building the AH stadium, taxes, construction, and all.
Comment by Stuck in Celliniland Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:03 am
1) No handouts to billionaires.
2) The NFL needs the Chicago market more than the Chicago market needs the Bears.
3) Buckner is saying all the right things to have the initial top spot on the “Who is Homebody preferring in the Chicago mayoral election” horse race.
Comment by Homebody Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:07 am
===Plus, the Rams were going “home”, as the franchise originated in Los Angeles.===
“home” is right … they started in Cleveland.
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:14 am
===they started in Cleveland.===
Or the Baltimore Ravens, or why Paul Brown started the Cincinnati franchise…
We can look at… Chicago Cardinals, Baltimore Colts…
For the city of Los Angeles, you only need to look at expansion as Brooklyn lost the Dodgers, Queens lost the Giants… “why”… the West Coast market. Only the Mets came to fill the two.
In actuality, can an argument be made that the only Los Angeles football team to actually return is the Chargers?
To bring this back to the post, NFL expansion isn’t about adding teams to existing markets, but expanding the number of markets.
How the Bears leverage leaving is silly as, less the 4 NY/LA markets, the Bears have the largest unshared market.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:21 am
A nine-game losing streak and the Bears want taxpayer subsidies? No thanks. [Banned word] the Bears.
Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:22 am
The Kenosha Bears? The Gary Bears? Not gonna happen.
So hold the team accountable and let them figure out the finances. Looking at that rendering the Bears almost look to shift from an NFL team to a land holding and development company.
Go for it, I’m sure they can pull that off as well as they can roster development.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:24 am
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:21 am:
Brooklyn lost two Dodgers. The baseball Dodgers to the West and the football Dodgers to the pages of history.
Comment by Google Is Your Friend Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:27 am
With respect OW, I don’t agree the Rams should have returned to LA because that’s where they originated. You support the Bears moving back to Decatur? I suppose you can try to get the Chicago Cardinals back too.
The Rams returned to LA because Kroenke lied to St. Louis and colluded with other owners to make a larger profit for himself and the other wealthy NFL owners. And tanked the team during that process.
Comment by Steve Rogers Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:29 am
The Chicago Bears ownership has managed to operate as demanding stadium “tenants” rather than as “owners” for more than a century.
When the league demanded that all teams increase their seating capacities to accommodate a minimum of 50,000 fans, George Halas met with Philip Knight Wrigley to discuss remodeling Wrigley Field to add 3,500 more seats. At the time, the Bears played a fourteen game schedule, so there were only seven home games per season.
To his credit, Wrigley directed Halas to exit his office without agreeing to remodel the ballpark.
Evanston residents scotched plans for the Bears to relocate to Dyche Stadium for 1971. So the Bears moved to Soldier Field as the tenant of the Chicago Park District.
After a century, one would think the Bears could pay their own way.
Comment by Gravitas Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:29 am
===You support the Bears moving back to Decatur?===
Did the Bears franchise suddenly buy land in Decatur that I was unaware of?
Let’s stick to real questions to real movement.
The NFL wanted, not one, two franchisees in the 2nd largest media market in America.
The NFL leveraged against San Diego, San Diego’s bluff was called with SoFi being built, and staying in the region to boot.
Further? Easy.
The Raiders moving to Las Vegas, the Niners loved that, giving the Bay Market to them, and expanding the NFL in a new untapped market.
I don’t see Decatur in any of this.
===The Rams returned to LA because Kroenke lied to St. Louis and colluded with other owners to make a larger profit for himself and the other wealthy NFL owners. And tanked the team during that process.===
It cost them all $419 million.
The STL market can try to lure another franchise, but the Bears aren’t looking to share the media market any time soon.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:35 am
===The STL market can try to lure another franchise, but the Bears aren’t looking to share the media market any time soon.===
As an original member of the National Football League, the Bears organization can veto expansion of a team in their market. The ONLY way this would occur would be if the Bears wanted a second tenant to help defray the cost of operating the stadium (with the rental monies going to Bears Inc.)
Comment by Chicago Resident & Bears Fan Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:41 am
The Bears were given $432,000,000 in “Free Stuff”. If they want to buy some land and build a new house do so on their own dime.
Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:44 am
The NFL is a very profitable operation. The new streaming revenue makes it even more profitable. The Bears deserve no dollars from the taxpayers. Nothing. No tax breaks. Let the Bears own and build their own stadium. If not: sell the franchise to someone who can. Illinois taxpayers have much more pressing problems like funding public pensions.
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 10:50 am
The Chicago Park District owns Soldier Field not the Bears
The Bears were not given 432 million in “free stuff”
They paid the Park District 6.48 million rent in 2021
It’s not an unusual arrangement, only 4 teams own their stadiums
The Cowboys pay 2 million to the city of Arlington to play in a state of the art stadium that can be expanded to seat 100,000.
They are investing 295 million to improve a stadium built in 2009 to accommodate the World Cup
The Bears pay 6 million to play in the smallest stadium in the NFL
Maybe the legislators can acknowledge world class cities have world class sports venues, dial down the rhetoric and work with an important business to the area like every other city and state with an NFL team manages to do
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2019-08-07/rams-chargers-stadium
https://frontofficesports.com/dallas-cowboys-jerry-jones-nfl-super-bowl-att-stadium/
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:01 am
= I hope Mayor Lightfoot realizes this means she doesn’t need to give away the store to keep them in Chicago. =
She’s given away the store to Lollapalooza and Nascar. So I wouldn’t hold my breath that she’ll do the right thing and tell the Bears to enjoy Arlington Heights.
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:04 am
===Maybe the legislators can acknowledge world class cities have world class sports venues, dial down the rhetoric and work with an important business to the area like every other city and state with an NFL team manages to do===
Meh.
“Where ya gonna go, Decatur”
Sounds like socialism. The “state” owning something that should be controlled by the free market…
… then again, isn’t it a monopoly that franchise are controlled as closed to free market rules?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:14 am
I am old enough to remember my “downstate” Rep wearing his Cardinal cap to the vote for the new Comiskey Park. But truth be told he was more loyal to Jim Thompson and would have vote yea if needed.
I don’t begrudge them their hand and think the new location is great. It will longer be an Uber ride away but that’s ok with me.
Comment by Annon Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:22 am
Mayor Richard M. Daley did give the Bears that in Free Stuff. Taxpayers are on the hook for $640,000,000.00 of it. The Bears could repay the money.
Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:24 am
Amazing mischaracterization of basic indisputable facts by Kam Buckner that the taxpayers gave the Bears 432 million to renovate Soldier Field.
The Park District owns Soldier Field. The Bears pay rent like every other tenant does.
Where are they going to go?
Sure sounds like a familiar refrain from Illinois residents to successful businesses and residents.
How is that attitude working out according to the most recent US census numbers?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:31 am
Between nimby suburban reps that don’t want this in their backyard and Chicagoan and downstate reps being gifted an easy no vote to pump their chests about, this was so damn obviously DOA that it’s laughable to think anyone remotely thought this had a chance.
The second the Bears announced a plan to move to the suburbs, they committed themselves entirely to a 100% privately funded stadium.
Comment by TJ Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:31 am
Jerry in what world would a tenant pay the $640 million dollar mortgage off for a landlord when they don’t own the property?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:36 am
===in what world would a tenant pay the … mortgage off for a landlord when they don’t own the property?===
Friend,
That’s how rental properties work.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 11:49 am
Not one more penny for pro sports. Chicago owes more on Soldier Field now than it did when the Bears moved back in after the flying saucer renovation. And for the comedy act you see on the field, and at a time the city is seriously fiscally stretched and property taxes are rapidly going up. That’s not acceptable.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 12:00 pm
The McCaskey effort to extort Illinois taxpayers is going to be the most unifying political issue in 2023.
Don’t let Lucky Pierre’s expected contrarianism on the issue distract from the fact that even avid life long Bears fans are not supportive of it. Complaining about the McCaskey family’s greed will be the best way to reach across the aisle.
Comment by Candy Dogood Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 12:04 pm
Having been to both soldier field and Cowboys stadium in arlington this year, (and 13 other stadiums in the last 5 years) Soldier Field is a dump.
Longer lines at security check points. Terrible chokepoints slowing down walking in and out. Terrible parking and highway options in and out.
Narrow walk ways so that at breaks you can barely move to a vendor or bathroom.
EVERY bathroom is packed so full as to require 10-15 min waits to use a urinal.
In Arlington the walk ways are huge, even at halftime I got in and out of the bathroom and back to my seat in under 5 minutes. Food delivery to your seats if you want it. Extra “stores” in the stadium for buying useless stuff, bigger jumbotrons and of course a convertible dome.
I don’t think that state should pay for the stadium, but on the flip side Soldier field is a joke compared to most NFL stadiums built since the soldier field remodel.
Comment by Ron - In Texas Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 12:06 pm
I agree that the Bears should not receive public subsidies for a new stadium. However, as Rep. Buckner points out, the Bears are worth a lot of money. The family probably owns the team outright without any debt. They likely can find financing to build the stadium if they really want to. I don’t think the rhetorical saber rattling is the best way to keep the team in Chicago if that is the goal.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 12:20 pm
I must disagree with Lucky Pierre. My reason is because the Bears had a major say in the remodeling of Soldier Field (this occurred while George Ryan was Governor and I think part of the political bargain was that the team relocated its training camp to Bourbonais). Since the stadium was rebuilt to the specifications that the Bears asked for, it seems hypocritical for the team to complain now.
Comment by Gravitas Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 12:32 pm
Disagree with me all you want but the Soldier field remodel was a bargain between the City of Chicago, the Chicago Park District the Bears and the NFL.
It mirror’s the decline in the city and state’s finances.
Overspend, kick the can down the road and don’t even make the minimum payments and then shift the blame and play class warfare
https://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/taxpayers-still-owe-640m-on-2002-soldier-field-renovation/2981068/
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 1:07 pm
Lucky Pierre, please. If Chicago gave the Bears a blank check you’d be citing CWB as a resource saying Chicago Democrats are stealing money from the CPD to fund a stadium for the laughingstock of the NFL.
Comment by Almost the Weekend Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 1:12 pm
- You support the Bears moving back to Decatur? -
Given the quality of their play I think Decatur would be a great fit.
Comment by Excitable Boy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 1:14 pm
===the Soldier field remodel was a bargain between the City of Chicago, the Chicago Park District the Bears and the NFL.
It mirror’s the decline in the city and state’s finances.
Overspend, kick the can down the road and don’t even make the minimum payments and then shift the blame and play class warfare===
How can it have been a “bargain” and also all that it mirrors… which is… bad.
Think on that for a minute.
Also… like folks who left “Potter’s Field” and went to “Bailey Park”… they went and owned their own houses.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 1:15 pm
@OW: good response.
Daley might have been able to make a better case for a domed or retractable roof stadium with more seating.
Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 2:05 pm
Its a much different climate than 2000 when the Soldier Field bill was passed. They will find zero support for any taxpayer assistance.
Comment by low level Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 2:13 pm
(Tips cap to - Jerry -)
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 2:32 pm
Is Kam Buckner familiar with the world class indoor stadium public/ private partnerships other progressive cities like Minneapolis and LA have built that now host Super Bowls and the Final 4 and now reap the hundreds of millions in increased economic activity these events will generate for decades to come?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 2:51 pm
===the world class indoor stadium public/ private partnerships===
But - Lucky Pierre -…
We have “the largest pension crisis in America”
How can you be supportive of this debt with the state so deep in debt… I hear people are leaving in record numbers.
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 2:56 pm
The other stadiums have more than 61,000 seats with some type of roof.
Besides “Stuck in Celliniland” at 1003 made a great point. Aaron Rogers owns the Bears….can’t he pay for it?
Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 3:09 pm
Daniel Burnham said it best
“Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably will not themselves be realized. Make big plans, aim high in hope and work, remember that a logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing asserting itself with ever growing insistency.”
The current Soldier Field was never a logical diagram and was a flawed project from the start.
Chicago is a world class city/ region and should start acting like it and not play second fiddle to Indianapolis, Minneapolis and Detroit in the Midwest.
The World Cup’s Midwest games in 4 years are in Kansas City?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 3:13 pm
Long decades ago, the Chicago Bears fielded a competitive team almost every year as befits a major market franchise. I often speculated that this was due to the fact that Chicago formerly had two professional football teams. The Chicago Cardinals also played at Wrigley Field for a number of seasons, by Comiskey Park was generally their home field. A decade after winning their sole NFL title in 1947, the Cardinals were in trouble and Halas managed to block an attempt to move the Cardinals north.
Since having the Chicago market exclusively, the Bears have produced only two titles in 63 years. In the forty years of intra-city competition, the Bears won seven titles.
My guess is that the ownership is indifferent to winning provided that the money keeps rolling in.
Comment by Gravitas Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 3:21 pm
===Chicago is a world class city/ region and should start acting like it and not play second fiddle to Indianapolis, Minneapolis and Detroit in the Midwest.===
You don’t believe that.
Which quote of yours do you wanna read about how Chicago is…
crime ridden, unsafe, worst taxing city, worst schools, highest debt, highest unemployment…
You are a fraud, bud.
Which quote of yours do you want.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 3:26 pm
Unlike you I actually have been educated and lived and worked in Chicago for decades.
For anyone with common sense those issues are real and are only solved by economic growth, better public safety and a public private partnerships like the CEO of Mc Donald’s wants to be apart of.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 3:37 pm
===Unlike you===
I don’t think you know me, I certainly don’t know you, but in this very instance, you are an utter fraud to your caricature.
I’m sorry.
You can choose, if you wish, which Chicago “bad” you d like to read where you wrote.
You think Chicago is a corrupt, poorly run city, in near financial ruin with debt, crime ridden, and lacks anything of worth for business to stay.
You think that.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 3:45 pm
How about you try speaking for yourself instead of putting your words in other’s mouths.
Like all cities, Chicago has huge problems many elected leaders are completely ignoring. Many residents and civic leaders think it’s worth fighting to fix Chicago.
Rising violent Crime in Chicago is a huge issue
The Governor admits property taxes are a huge issue in Chicago
Do you ever recall a more unpopular Mayor in the history of Chicago?
Go ahead and send in your suggestions to improve Chicago from seats and hour and half away.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 3:58 pm
Another interesting observation is that after years of futility in professional sports, the major Chicago franchise with the longest dry spell is the Chicago Bears. The White Sox, the Cubs, the Bulls, and the Blackhawks have all celebrated championships more recently than the Bears.
As a general rule, I am opposed to subsidizing sports franchises. The owners of the Bears annoy me no end with their demands.
Can any of the wiser commenters here refresh my memory? Wasn’t there a plan for the Bears and the White Sox to share the new stadium on 35th Street? Didn’t the Bears refuse to agree to play their games in a multi-purpose stadium back in the day and elected to have Soldier Field renovated?
Comment by Gravitas Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 3:59 pm
===How about you try speaking for yourself instead of putting your words in other’s mouths.===
Last warning.
You want me to show your comments where you believe Chicago *is*…
…corrupt, poorly run city, in near financial ruin with debt, crime ridden, and lacks anything of worth for business to stay.
It’s your whole persona.
LOL
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 4:07 pm
===Go ahead and send in your suggestions to improve Chicago from seats and hour and half away.===
Narrator: an anonymous commenter believes they have the moral high ground.
You’re so funny, - LP -, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 4:09 pm
Should the state pay any money to help them build this stadium? No. Not until (and that time may well come) the McCaskeys realize no help is coming. Remember, unlike nearly every other NFL owner, these people didn’t make money in their own business venture or series of companies - they made it because their dad was George Halas.
As to the comment made by Steve @ Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 9:10 am:
“Let them move out of state. Subsidizing businesses like this doesn’t net generate economic activity. Let the Bears rip-off someone else.” - I can tell you as a former bar owner, if you don’t think the Bears being in this city/region, with their fanbase and the money they spend, doesn’t generate economic activity, you need to rethink the business model of your company if you have one.
Comment by Just a guy Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 4:53 pm
=== I can tell you as a former bar owner, if you don’t think the Bears being in this city/region, with their fanbase and the money they spend, doesn’t generate economic activity, you need to rethink the business model of your company if you have one.===
There’s a bar in my neighborhood that caters to Iowa Hawkeyes fans. They watch the game on that modern contraption called television.
Comment by Betty Draper’s cigarette Tuesday, Jan 3, 23 @ 6:14 pm
=== I can tell you as a former bar owner, if you don’t think the Bears being in this city/region, with their fanbase and the money they spend, doesn’t generate economic activity, you need to rethink the business model of your company if you have one.===
I can tell you the sports team doesn’t have to physically be in an area to have fans and generate income. Near me is a bar for Iowa Hawkeye fans. They watch the games on that newfangled invention called a TV.
Comment by Betty Draper’s cigarette Wednesday, Jan 4, 23 @ 6:16 am