The writing was already on the wall that a Chicago Bears lakefront stadium with a $2.65 billion public price tag wasn’t likely to get fast-tracked in the state legislature, and this weekend it became more or less official. Per the Chicago Tribune:
State Sen. Bill Cunningham of Chicago, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, said there would be no action on the team’s request before the legislature adjourns for the spring.
State Rep. Kam Buckner of Chicago, a member of House Democratic leadership, likewise said the team’s quest for a new home to replace aging Soldier Field, which lies in his district, isn’t on the legislative agenda in the waning days of session.
“It’s fair to say that there won’t be any Bears action … in this legislative session, which I think is fine,” Buckner said Saturday at the Illinois State Capitol. “I think a proposal of this magnitude deserves sunlight and scrutiny. And very often what has happened in this building is that things get rammed through at the last minute without much public input or transparency.”
Translation, probably: There needs to be a whole lot more haggling behind the scenes before we can ram something through without much public input. Or, before we can tell Bears execs not to let the door hit them on the way out. Lots of ways this can still go, but no decisions are going to be made until the fall at the earliest.
Oh, and same goes for White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf’s own $2 billion stadium subsidy demand:
Cunningham also said there would be no movement during the spring session on the Chicago White Sox requests to get public assistance for their new stadium proposal.
Another state legislator, Sen. Robert Peters, whose district covers Soldier Field, said Thursday that he wanted to see the Bears, White Sox, Chicago Red Stars women’s soccer and Chicago Sky WNBA teams to figure out a unified effort rather than all asking for the same tax money, so that may be how this plays out when everyone regroups in the fall. It’s honestly not the best negotiating tactic — hey, all you guys get your lobbyists together and gang up on us — but if it cuts the total ask, then maybe? There’s a scenario where the Bears and White Sox owners only come away with $1 billion in public money each and we’re all supposed to see that as a victory for taxpayers; maybe I’ve been doing this too long and am hopelessly negative, but my pessimism has served me well in the past, so we’ll see.
By adding the Red Stars and the Sky to the mix it seems like they’re testing a new route. “The only chance we have to upgrade our women’s professional sports facilities is to also upgrade the Bears and Sox facilities.” Kind of like hosting an olympics to get a new transit station. But again, I’m skeptical there’s much enthusiasm for this. The Red Stars have three downtown arenas to choose from. The relatively new, midsize Wintrust Arena, the United Center, which sits empty most of the summer, and the adequate UIC arena. The Red Stars have the Fire’s Bridgeview stadium to themselves now. And their owners have the money to build their own stadium as part of Lincoln Yards if they want. I anticipate articles complaining about how embarrassing it is for Chicago’s women’s teams to be playing in these college and MLS facilities. And how we should build them new facilities soon… and oh by the way, give the Bears and Sox a couple billion each too.
A couple things wrong with your post. I assume you mean the Chicago Sky “have three downtown arenas to choose from. ”
For the last two years the Chicago Hounds of Major League Rugby have shared SeatGeek Stadium in Bridgeview with the Red Stars. For a niche sport the Hounds draw well. Not much below the Red Stars attendance,
I really do not understand why the Sky would need a new place to play.
A soccer/rugby specific stadium in would do well if located near downtown Chicago. A place the Fire, Hounds, and Red Stars could share.
Ahh but to whom shall I send the construction bill.
The Sky are looking for a new practice facility, not a new arena for games. I believe they practice in suburban Deerfield, possibly at the old Bulls facility.
Can’t someone ask and get an answer to the question, “Why do you need a new stadium, and why won’t you pay for it?”
They used to have these journalist types but nowadays..
It seems like nobody is taking the White Sox veiled threats at relocating seriously, which is good because they shouldn’t. The problem the Bears face in dealing with a state legislature is that threatening to move to the suburbs holds no water: either way, they’re staying in Illinois. It’s not the same as the Wizards or Jazz squeezing their municipal governments.
Hopefully (big hope) this means the state realizes they have all the leverage. We’ll see if that materializes.
The White Sox are the worst team in the major leagues this season on merit. On that basis there ain’t no way that Illinois politicians, especially those from downstate, are going to give that ballclub government-funded sportsball palace.
As well, the Bears want to use their Arlington Park site in the northwest suburbs to shake down the state legislature for a subsidy.
Shameless is as shameless does.
I believe that the owners should pay for everything !
It should be noted that Chicago is experiencing serious and acute financial problems and taking on a billion dollars or more of debt does not strike me as necessarily the best way to deal with it.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/how-debt-ate-chicago