Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Free clinic warns it can’t replace state health insurance program for undocumented residents
Next Post: False alarm - Pritzker will not be traveling to Utah on May 31
Posted in:
* Tribune…
The Chicago Bears are shifting focus to a new stadium in Arlington Heights, a project that would depend on state legislation allowing for negotiated financing of large-scale development projects.
“Over the last few months, we have made significant progress with the leaders in Arlington Heights, and look forward to continuing to work with state and local leaders on making a transformative economic development project for the region a reality,” the team said in a statement to the Tribune on Friday.
The Bears said they will not seek state funding for the stadium.
I’m told the Bears finally figured out they couldn’t obtain state funding for a new stadium and it would have to be privately funded. The Arlington Heights site would not require government funding.
* However, the Bears would still likely have to pass a bill through the General Assembly…
But the team will likely still look to state lawmakers for help with the project, even if it’s in the northwest suburbs. […]
The Bears agreed late last year to pay a reduced property tax bill of $3.6 million to settle the issue, but the team and the local taxing bodies also agreed to lobby state lawmakers for legislation that would deliver more certainty on real estate taxes for decades into the future.
The legislation is Rep. Mary Beth Canty’s HB2789, which wouldn’t be Bears-specific. But that’s still a heavy lift because it would trigger a Bears Chicago exit (Bexit?). And, keep in mind, Canty will need 60 firm House Democratic votes to move it forward.
But Sen. Mark Walker (D-Arlington Heights) told Isabel that a proposal would be “negotiated among the Governor and Legislative leaders.” We’ll see if that even happens. Such a bill could cause a lot of intra-party division at a crucial spring session point. Again, we’ll see.
“Members will support what works for them,” Walker said. “The Bears are a valuable asset for Illinois, and I will support whatever’s best for them and the state overall. It now appears what’s best will be the Bears moving to Arlington Heights.”
* From Mayor Brandon Johnson’s press office…
The Mayor spoke with executive leadership from the Chicago Bears, who indicated they intend to prioritize the development site located in the Village of Arlington Heights. As the Mayor has said several times, the door remains open in the city of Chicago.
Background info…
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 16, 25 @ 12:30 pm
Previous Post: Free clinic warns it can’t replace state health insurance program for undocumented residents
Next Post: False alarm - Pritzker will not be traveling to Utah on May 31
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
We welcome them into the neighborhood, as long as they pay for it
.
Comment by Rahm's Parking Meter Friday, May 16, 25 @ 12:33 pm
==I’m told the Bears finally figured out they couldn’t obtain state funding for a new stadium and it would have to be privately funded. The Arlington Heights site would not require government funding.==
Classic Bears, teeing themselves up for an obvious loss and being the last people to realize it.
Comment by Roadrager Friday, May 16, 25 @ 12:35 pm
Aside from how boneheaded such a move would be without an extended 53 that by the way will probably never happen, Arlington Heights courting the Bears will remain completely laughable to me as long as Arlington Heights remains a village and not a city.
Comment by Macon Deliberations Friday, May 16, 25 @ 12:36 pm
Great, now let’s turn Soldier Field into a dedicated concert/event/festival venue. The Chicago Fairgrounds at Soldier Field.
Comment by Homebody Friday, May 16, 25 @ 12:39 pm
=HB2789=
The link in the post takes you to HB3717 - the community College bill
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, May 16, 25 @ 12:39 pm
===The link in the post===
Oops. Had two bill tabs open. That one is for another post coming soonish.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 16, 25 @ 12:46 pm
Not 1 cent of Welfare for the for-profit, privately owned corporation cka the Bears. Pay for it yourselves.
Don’t mooch off of taxpayers especially with Federal Sales Taxes up 145% (“tariffs”) in some cases and government mandated allocation of children’s toys!
President Warren knows this I’m sure.
Comment by Jerry Friday, May 16, 25 @ 12:48 pm
=Boneheaded=
Not if you want to be attractive to more suburban and out-of-state Bears fans, the improved parking alone will bring them in. Additionally, the Bears are looking at a mixed-use facility, and the Arlington Heights location has plenty of room that is not feasible on the lakefront. Sure, 53 needs to be expanded, but if there is one thing we are good at in Illinois, it is road programs - so that will be fixed in due time.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, May 16, 25 @ 12:54 pm
The lack of a price tag for the state helps the Arlington Heights proposal a bunch, but it’s still a heavy lift in the legislature. Why would Chicago members vote for a tax incentive designed to encourage a business to move out of the city they represent?
If Rivian asked for a property tax break to abandon their current facility and build something bigger somewhere else in the state, all the legislators who represent the Bloomington-Normal area would obviously vote against it. But that’s probably not enough votes in the GA to kill it. Chicago has enough votes to kill the Bears’ proposal, particularly given the 60 Dem-vote rule in the House.
Comment by TNR Friday, May 16, 25 @ 12:56 pm
It always made the most sense for the team to build a stadium that they would own, so when Papa Bear’s grandkids cash out they have more to sell than just the team. Now that Warren is done playing games, maybe they can start moving forward on this project.
Comment by Henry Francis Friday, May 16, 25 @ 1:04 pm
Please stop taking my money to coddle billionaire sportsball owners.
Comment by Irreverent Friday, May 16, 25 @ 1:12 pm
Macon,
Arlington Heights is a village of 77,000, Rolling Meadows is a city of 23,000. I suppose they could switch designations.
Comment by Proud Sucker Friday, May 16, 25 @ 1:14 pm
== the improved parking alone will bring them in. ==
One thing about being in the city is folks could take transit in to see the Bears.
Since everyone would be driving now, traffic and pollution is going to be a nightmare in Arlington Heights.
Comment by Incandenza Friday, May 16, 25 @ 1:25 pm
I’ve wondered if the late Virginia McCasky was the reason they pushed a city site. I’ve always thought the Arlington option was a no-brainer. Imagine you could have a Beyonce or Taylor Swift concert in February or a Super Bowl or Final Four. It sure would up Metra usage to get there.
Comment by levivotedforjudy Friday, May 16, 25 @ 1:27 pm
== One thing about being in the city is folks could take transit in to see the Bears.==
Most people don’t take the bus to Bears games, the closest L stop is about a mile walk to Soldier Field, and there’s a Metra stop at Arlington Heights.
Comment by fs Friday, May 16, 25 @ 1:31 pm
=transit=
Suburban season ticket holders like tailgating - they drive. The current piecemeal parking between Waldon, McCormick south, the north lot, and surface museum campus lots is a nightmare - having new parking lots that are designed/planned by the Bears will be a huge improvement - for the transit folks they still will have Union Pacific Northwest (UP-NW) line.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, May 16, 25 @ 1:33 pm
Just get this done. Maybe it was the late Virginia McCasky who wanted Chicago but Chicago is a challenge. Go west and go soon.
Comment by Center Drift Friday, May 16, 25 @ 1:34 pm
=== One thing about being in the city is folks could take transit in to see the Bears. ===
=== Most people don’t take the bus to Bears games, the closest L stop is about a mile walk to Soldier Field, and there’s a Metra stop at Arlington Heights. ===
There is also a dedicated Metra stop at “Arlington Park”, which you would thing would be right across the street from the new stadium. This is closer than any train line could get you to Soldier Field.
Also, I don’t have numbers to prove this, but I suspect that there are just as many suburbanites that go to Bears games than city dwellers - if not more.
Comment by Remember the Alamo II Friday, May 16, 25 @ 1:52 pm
Everyone keeps saying “oh there’s Metra there”, but last I checked Metra and UP weren’t exactly best friends- with UP wanting more money than Metra wants to pay and UP pushing for binding arbitration. And that’s just for the normal been-in-existance-forever schedule.
There’s no guarantee that UP wants to play nice when it comes to more trains tying up their freight line.
Comment by jimbo Friday, May 16, 25 @ 1:56 pm
===Most people don’t take the bus to Bears games, the closest L stop is about a mile walk to Soldier Field, and there’s a Metra stop at Arlington Heights.===
The Metra Electric is fairly convenient to the existing Bears site, but probably serves no more than a few hundred of the fan base, judging from who we perceive as Bears fans riding our train on game day. We’d probably figure out a way to catch the UP Northwest line if the Bears move there. There are 7 stops in Chicago proper, counting the Ogilvie terminal, in addition to all those suburban stops all the way to McHenry and Harvard; the Bears may attract more Metra ridership at Arlington Heights than they do now, if they relocate.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, May 16, 25 @ 1:57 pm
===There’s no guarantee that UP wants to play nice when it comes to more trains tying up their freight line.===
On game days, the Metra Electric usually adds one train each direction to accommodate Bears fans. I don’t think it will make much difference one way or another.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, May 16, 25 @ 1:59 pm
“It always made the most sense for the team to build a stadium that they would own”
49ers just sold a piece of equity at a 8.5B valuation, without owning their stadium.
“Imagine you could have a Beyonce or Taylor Swift concert in February”
US stadium concerts are held in the summer. If you’re Beyonce, would you rather hold a concert on the Lakefront at Soldier Field, or 25 miles inland?
I don’t believe that AH will become the entertainment destination that the Bears believe it will become. AH is not Lincoln Park or the Lakefront
Comment by The Farm Grad Friday, May 16, 25 @ 2:12 pm
=== AH is not Lincoln Park or the Lakefront ===
That actually might make it more attractive for some people. Getting down to the lakefront is a pain in the rear end for a lot of suburbanites.
Comment by Remember the Alamo II Friday, May 16, 25 @ 2:14 pm
== 49ers just sold a piece of equity at a 8.5B valuation, without owning their stadium.==
But it would have been worth more if they owned the stadium.
Comment by Henry Francis Friday, May 16, 25 @ 2:22 pm
Looks like what the Bears called a “Payment In Lieu Of Taxes” a couple of years ago in their initial Arlington Heights proposal is now a called a “Mega Project Assessment Freeze and Payment Law.” Doesn’t seem to be a substantial difference between the two.
As Rich points out, having the first designated “mega project” be a stadium changes the political dynamics. This will be the Bears stadium bill, whether the legislative language says it or not. I also wonder if an incentive package is needed for a highly attractive property that could probably be developed without a big property tax break. I mean, Arlington Heights is an economic thriving community. But if that’s what the local property tax entities want, I’m okay with it.
Comment by Tammy Friday, May 16, 25 @ 2:37 pm
The Route 53 extension is dead and has been for few years. Of course The Bears can try and do it and gift it to the state.
Comment by Jerry Friday, May 16, 25 @ 3:05 pm
The selection of Ramirez-Rosa as parks chief was the final nail in the coffin.
Comment by Face It Friday, May 16, 25 @ 4:03 pm