Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Poll: 65 percent of Illinoisans oppose public funding for new Bears stadium

Posted in:

Illinois
Polls

A majority of Illinoisans oppose the Chicago Bears’ latest stadium proposal, according to an exclusive new survey conducted for Crain’s — but, deeper down in the data, team leaders may find reason to hope the public is persuadable.

By a 2-to-1 margin, Illinois voters oppose the team’s lakefront stadium plan, one that would include $1.2 billion of public financing. A majority of voters do not support any public funding going to the stadium, which the Bears envision as being part of a broader reboot of the city’s Museum Campus.

* Crain’s is always looking for a silver lining on this topic, but the numbers are nothing to write home about…

* Take note of the “Does not matter” and “Makes no difference” responses…

More here.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 12:38 pm

Comments

I wish the Bears had another option….if only……

Comment by Frida's boss Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 12:43 pm
“Super Bowl in Chicago” Ok, so they play it here once every 20 years or so? That’s supposed to convince me?

Comment by Skeptic Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 12:45 pm
T Swift doesn’t make a difference?

Now we got Bad Blood.

Comment by George Ryan Reynolds Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 12:46 pm
Bezos could fund a stadium himself and is in the market for an NFL team.

Comment by ChicagoVinny Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 12:46 pm
Getting 47% total indifference to their super inflated $500M in economic impact of a hypothetical future Super Bowl is kind of a surprise. Outrageous lies not even getting civilians excited for this boondoggle.

Comment by ChicagoBars Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 12:47 pm
To paraphrase Regina George: “Stop trying to make [public giveaways to billionaires] happen!”

Comment by Homebody Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 12:49 pm
I would oppose the proposed stadium on the lakefront even if the Bears paid 100% of the costs. The stadium is HUGE and can be placed in another location.

I favored the Lucas museum in the same location. I draw the distinction that it was a museum and made sense to be in the museum campus. Additionally, it was a much smaller structure.

Comment by City Guy Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 12:53 pm
“but, deeper down in the data, team leaders may find reason to hope the public is persuadable”

Sorry Crain’s, I know how traumatic it is to see wealthy people not get what they want. That’s a crime against nature for most editorial boards.

Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 12:56 pm
53% in the Chicago area are “strongly opposed” (48% in the rest of IL). That’s quite a hill for MBJ, Warren & Co. to climb.

Comment by Riversidian Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 1:12 pm
“But this worked 10 years ago in Minnesota!” - Kevin Warren

Comment by Save Ferris Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 1:13 pm
I’m actually surprised opposition isn’t higher than 65%.

Comment by Excitable Boy Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 1:14 pm
===surprised opposition isn’t higher===

Also take note of the dismally low 8 percent who “strongly support” the idea.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 1:15 pm
“Reboot of the Museum Campus”. The Museum Campus is doing very well. The rerouting of Lake Shore Drive changed the whole dynamic. No “reboot” is needed.

Second, the whole benefit of being on the lakefront is the views that are provided. A domed stadium defeats the purpose.

If you really want a stadium to stimulate economic development, put it in a part of the city that needs it. The lakefront is definitely not a disadvantaged area.

Comment by low level Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 1:15 pm
Someone needs to tell President Warren that the Bears have complained about being squatters in Solder’s Field since they started playing there.

They bought some land for the HQ in the suburbs. George and Ginny have enough money stashed under the mattress to pay for it. Or they could go to the bank and get a mortgage like other private citizens do. Maybe even President Warren has some extra “bling” to contribute.

Comment by Jerry Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 1:18 pm
Only 65%?

Comment by TJ Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 1:19 pm
== That’s quite a hill for MBJ, Warren & Co. to climb. ==

To be fair, it’s more akin to inexperienced plans making preparations to climb Olympus Mons when they’re a) not good enough to climb any high mountain,* and b) aren’t even on the same freaking planet.

* for the pedantic types out there, I am aware that Olympus Mons apparently has a gentle slope and is actually just an enormously long gentle climb up a face the side of France. Let’s just go with it.

Comment by TJ Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 1:22 pm
It is like Machiavelli said: “just listen to flatterers, you’ll be fine.”

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 1:24 pm
==T Swift doesn’t make a difference?

Now we got Bad Blood.==

My vote for best comment here. Also great username.

==Bezos could fund a stadium himself and is in the market for an NFL team.==

Upvote for second-best comment. Time for billionaires to stop crying poverty. If they can’t fund the stadium themselves, there is 100% a market of billionaires looking to own sports teams who can.

Though it is clear that they are trying to socialize the cost onto taxpayers and have this shiny stadium asset raise the value of the team, at which point they would sell the team for a much higher price than its current valuation, enriching themselves and adding to their wealth then getting out of dodge before taxpayers get saddled with more bonds to cover debt payments after tax/fee revenue assumptions fall short.

Comment by DuPage Dad Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 1:36 pm
- dismally low 8 percent -

Lol, I’m also surprised that number isn’t lower. Who are these people?

Comment by Excitable Boy Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 1:37 pm
==- ChicagoVinny - Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 12:46 pm:==

Bezos could have built the infamous Amazon HQ2 himself as well. Instead, there was a nationwide charade soliciting special tax breaks.

Comment by Google Is Your Friend Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 1:41 pm
“George and Ginny have enough money stashed under the mattress to pay for it.”

They don’t.

“Or they could go to the bank and get a mortgage like other private citizens do.”

They can’t. NFL has debt caps of $750 million per team. They need about $3 billion more than they can borrow. They could sell stock, but that would reduce their ownership share to under 50%. They don’t want that.

Comment by Save Ferris Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 1:50 pm
===They don’t want that===

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 2:00 pm
How much would this number change if they Bears were putting a better product on the field the past few years (i.e. KC Chiefs)?

Comment by Stones Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 2:01 pm
(I have no idea if this link works but I’m in concurrence with Rich)

Comment by Save Ferris Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 2:05 pm
Hard to find anyone note squarely in the “absolutely not” column in Central IL.

Comment by Um, no Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 2:06 pm
@Save Ferris

=“George and Ginny have enough money stashed under the mattress to pay for it.”

=They don’t.=

I know they aren’t the typical billionaire NFL ownership group. But I’ve looked at this before.

The Halas family has owned the team from the start. They have an operating income north of $200 million on a revenue of $550 million.

They “owe” nothing on the team, or Solider Field or Halas Hall or anywhere. They have had the ability to clear hundreds of millions of dollars
a year, for decades. And tens of millions of dollars before that.

The Halas/McCaskey’s aren’t Kroenke loaded. But they have or have had the ability to, pay for and then pay off, any thing they want for a very long time.

Comment by Cool Papa Bell Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 2:14 pm
“But they have or have had the ability to, pay for and then pay off, any thing they want for a very long time.”

The trick is that the NFL limits how much debt can be secured with the trademark. It’s not that they can’t cash flow the debt. They don’t have the collateral to back the loan. The $6 billion asset they have can only be leveraged with an advance rate of 12%.

As to “hundreds of millions” for years, operating income only broke $100mm 8 years ago. I don’t have full financials, but my guess is that their payments to Chicago Parks are classified as a financing lease and are below operating income. Only $6.5 million per year, but it’s a deduction.

I also think they still have debt from redoing Halas Hall, but I’m not 100% sure of that.

Comment by Save Ferris Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 2:31 pm
Make a realistic public/private partnership deal in Arlington Heights, get it done already.

Comment by Rahm's Parking Meter Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 2:44 pm
I have a feeling that if the Bears had more than ::checks notes:: one winning season in the past 10 years this wouldn’t be a question. You gotta win first before you get a first-rate facility, kids.

Comment by Tony DeKalb Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 3:08 pm
=How much would this number change if the Bears were putting a better product on the field the past few years (i.e. KC Chiefs)?=

Doesn’t matter to the Kansas City voters and I doubt it would to Chicagoans or others in this state. I’m opposed to public financing of professional sports teams win or lose. The City and State have far more pressing issues to address with limited resources.

Comment by Pundent Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 3:16 pm
“Lol, I’m also surprised that number isn’t lower. Who are these people?” How many McCaskeys are there?

Comment by Skeptic Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 5:00 pm
I know some of the 8 percenters. They’re folks who a) think money grows on trees, b) put sports above everything else and c) believe press conferences equate to done deals.

Comment by Proud Papa Bear Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 6:24 pm
N.O.P.E. (Taylor’s version)

– MrJM

Comment by @misterjayem Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 7:04 pm
What’s the Venn diagram of 8% strongly support and CTU members? Stacy, Jackson, and Brandon?

Comment by pragmatist Monday, Jun 24, 24 @ 8:15 pm