No more state legislators introducing Chicago Bears stadium-funding bills even they don’t support this week, but there have been a couple of new-ish developments-ish:
- A telephone poll of Chicago voters found they overwhelmingly oppose the team moving to suburban Arlington Heights (duh) by a 52-23% margin, and they oppose spending public money on upgrades to Soldier Field as well (also duh), by 51-42%. “The city voters want to keep the team, without a doubt, but they’re not crazy about going into their own pockets to keep the owners happy,” said pollster Brad Coker, which, well, what part of “duh” didn’t you understand?
- A Chicago TV-sports-reporter-turned-YouTuber says that according to “multiple sources connected to Arlington Park” that racetrack employees are being told they need to vacate their offices by end of day tomorrow, in anticipation of the Bears closing on the property sooner than later.
All of which is a good opportunity to step back and ask: What, exactly, are the Bears owners doing here? They appear to be moving full speed ahead with plans for a move to a new stadium, but have said they only want to build one if they can get “property tax certainty” — i.e., kickbacks of property taxes above a certain level — to pay for infrastructure at the site, along with maybe special business taxes or parking taxes or other tax money. That seems like it will be a heavy lift, given that a property tax kickback would require state legislation, and lots of state legislators are from Chicago which would be losing its team, and lots of other state legislators are from downstate and don’t have any reason to help Arlington Heights provide tax kickbacks to the Bears, and the governor is opposed to the plan, and also as noted even the bill’s sponsor isn’t sure she’s in favor of it.
(Still no estimates of how much tax would end up being kicked back in total, incidentally, but here’s the language of the bill that would establish a payments in lieu of taxes system for “megaprojects,” which is crafted to apply specifically to the Bears proposal. Yes, the language exempting megaprojects from regular property taxes is amended to a section establishing tax exemptions for breast pumps, there is nothing amusing about this, I don’t know why you’re laughing.)
There are several possible theories here: 1) The Bears owners know the Arlington Heights project isn’t going anywhere, but are just using it as a threat to shake loose renovation cash from the city of Chicago; 2) They know they’re unlikely to get tax breaks, but they’re willing to go ahead with borrowing $5 billion to build a new stadium and an entire new neighborhood because it’s such a great business deal; or 3) They think that by making PILOT money available to all “megaprojects,” they can lure in legislators from the rest of the state who might want to use a similar financing scheme in their own districts. I would characterize those as 1) possible but risky, though it’s not like the Bears can’t re-sell the racetrack property if the stadium thing doesn’t work out, 2) almost certainly idiotic but hey, it’s their money, and 3) optimistic to say the least, but all are conceivable explanations, as is 4) Throw as many stadium plans against the wall as they can, and hope that it shakes some public subsidy money loose from somewhere. Dumber Hail Marys have worked before, so why not?
The Bears aren’t staying or moving, but they’re going to get really weird with it.
With the way things shake out in Illinois/Chicago politics (recall Governor “Big” Jim Thompson “stopping the clocks” to allow the legislature to pass a bill to give the White Sox and Reinsdorf what he wanted for a new White Sox toilet bowl of a stadium), I am 100% certain the politicians in Chicago & Illinois will come to some kind of an agreement to give taxpayer money to the Bears organization.
Ah, but the White Sox had a somewhat believable move threat (even if they were bluffing). The Bears don’t have that luxury. No available market is anywhere close to Chicago in size and wealth. And if they wanted to move to a smaller market like the Rams once did, they’d still need someone to build them a stadium.
Well, I mean, time is relative…
This is where I am on the matter, that the Bears will utilize all the tricks of the trade to get it done. I look forward to reading the quotes from legislators about how they had a change of heart and now realize this is a great project to support. Going to be a tough message to craft because, as mb said, the Bears aren’t leaving the state (or even the county).
Also, I have a theory that the City of Chicago would love for the Bears to move to AH. Many/most people who visit for events will stay in the City and take the train to AH. So Chicago gets the tourist revenue without paying for the stadium.
As a born in Arlington Heights person a few decades ago, and an avid Chicago sports fan – I fail to see the benefit of a New Bears Stadium in Arlington Heights. I knew when the Bears organization pitched such an idea referring to NO Taxpayer money required, to maybe a little Taxpayer money could be required to now – yes we need Taxpayer money will be necessary! The Bears organization has never been efficient at doing many things from a management standpoint. There are far too many better uses on where to spend a billion or two of Taxpayer monies in Arlington Heights and surrounding towns & villages other that to line the pockets of a NFL ownership. The Bears need to quickly move into the 2023 year and beyond with a new deep-pocketed vibrant young ownership, which can put an exciting winning team on the field! Traffic is quite slow in the AH area and the infrastructure is deteriorating, let alone the noise, the inferior road system, and the list goes on and on. Spend the Taxpayer money where it will help the most people, and it is not on a new NFL Stadium. Wake up Taxpayers in Arlington Heights & surrounding areas- tell your City Planners to let Chicago have all these headaches!
Option 5: The patsy was Arlington Heights all along.
I had dismissed them before as too small to afford to fully pay for a stadium (which is true), but it seems they could be suckered into $500 million bond payments and full tax breaks at this point.
Which might be enough for the Bears to build just the stadium. Sell them the idea of Wrigleyville in the suburbs, and then yank the rug.
Probably the most valid strategy if you are 90% certain that Chicago and the rest of Illinois won’t cough up a dime anymore after previous stadium shenanigans.
Pretty clearly this amendment needs to be attached to bill that covers vampirism in the greater Chicago area, but the breast pump thing is semi apt all the same.
I can understand why some regions want to use PILOTs for certain types of development. Whether or not that is a reasonable choice to make depends very much on what other options exist for a given parcel of land. Using a PILOT scheme to subsidize the operation of a sports stadium on land that has other and more viable uses is not a good decision, for example, but there are circumstances where using them might be reasonable.
Just as an example, if a given billionaire (or designated failson) wants to put $500m into a stadium instead of a shopping centre, for example, there are actually reasons why the property taxes on the stadium can and should be lower than that of the shopping centre/big box store development. For one, the big box store development will likely be open or mostly open for business 12-16 hours a day 350 days a year or more. The sports stadium will be lucky to be in operation any more than 5 hours a day for 120-150 days a year (and that is if it is an arena, not a football, baseball or soccer stadium). Of course, these are also reasons NOT to invest cash in a sports stadium at all unless it can generate enough new revenue to pay it’s construction mortgage.
Nevertheless, I can accept a property tax reduction if it is in step with the lower usage and or revenue potential. But not a complete tax waiver or abatement (and certainly no reduction or redirection of taxes generated by non-stadium spaces or commercial/residential developments).
It seems to me that most of these types of developments are intended to create a business environment in which other business owners in the area are effectively paying their taxes not to the municipality but effectively to the sports team owner… and sometimes paying surtaxes to their new competitor as well.
Maybe expecting the Bears ownership to deploy anything that approaches strategy is asking a little too much…
oooo… repetition error, sorry… proofreaders of the world untie!
Craine’s Chicago Business is reporting the sale has been completed today.
I’m waiting for the article on the Domed Soldier Field concept art. Did I miss it? That looks simply insane. And you know the city’s $2.2 billion estimate is completely “best of all best-case-scenarios” so it’d probably cost twice that.
Yes, you missed it, and yes, it’s insane:
https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2022/07/26/19054/cavalcade-of-vaportecture-chicago-unveils-plan-for-2-2b-soldier-field-roof-that-bears-owners-dont-even-want/
Also this:
https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2023/01/09/19538/chicago-developer-floats-2-2b-bears-stadium-remodel-that-would-let-fans-fall-to-their-deaths-in-new-and-exciting-ways/
Thanks for posting the links! Glad I’m not the only one who came away from those thinking it was a pure fantasy. It appears like those few new pillars would be carrying 100% of the weight of everything since I highly doubt they could just build straight on top of the existing stadium when it was never designed to carry extra loads. Might as well just say the dome will be held up by anti-gravity devices.