The owners of the Chicago Bears are looking for help from the Illinois legislature for their proposed new stadium in Arlington Heights, and here’s how the Associated Press describes it:
The Bears have the plans drawn up for the indoor stadium but need a mega bill to pass in Springfield in October to supply momentum for the construction.
“The biggest item that remains, that has remained, is the fact that this mega project build that was on the docket in the spring but was not put forth for a vote, but it is very, very important that it passes,” [Bears president Kevin] Warren said. “Because without that legislation, we are not able to proceed forward.”
Momentum! Can you be a little more specific about what that means, AP?
The bill the Bears want to see passed would freeze property taxes for large-scale construction projects like the stadium.
Getting warmer, but that still doesn’t quite describe what the bill would do, which is to rule that construction projects that meet “certain investment and job creation specifications” would eligible for both a freeze on their property tax assessments and abatements of property taxes, subject to the determination of the state Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. As we covered here in May, this “would function exactly the same as a TIF that kicked back future tax increases to the team” — no one has yet done the calculations for what this would be worth to the Bears owners, but on a proposed $2.7 billion development, suffice to say that it could be a lot.
Whether Warren’s demands will get any more traction in Springfield than it did last session is unclear from the AP article, which only interviewed two sources, Warren and team owner George McCaskey. Warren did turn up the heat slightly on Friday, warning that Arlington Heights is “the only location in Cook County that will allow us to build a stadium — the new Chicago Bears stadium — with a fixed roof,” without which … okay, he left that to the imagination, he knows how this game is played. Warren also added that the Bears owners are “not trying to avoid paying taxes,” which is even more left to the imagination how that works for a bill that would only do one thing, and that’s to lower the team’s taxes. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not the best idea to write articles about a new development project that only quote the guy seeking tax breaks for it? Something to consider trying, anyway!
The Bears best hope is an economic downturn. Then there might be some momentum to “put people to work.” Because currently, “let the Bears pay for their own stadium” seems to be the popular sentiment.
The Bears’ problem is
that there are two formidable opposition groups in Illinois that make up 50% of the legislature.
Chicago won’t vote for the team to leave.
Downstate won’t vote for any benefits for Chicago and surrounding suburbs.
They’re trying to find a loophole with developers and trade unions, but except for the Bears Stadium most projects wouldn’t qualify.
Can anyone explain why the Bears can’t just go to the Village of Arlington Heights and seek a TIF? Seems a lot more straightforward than going through the State and the Village seems to be bendi over backwards to accommodate the Bears.
Because the Bears are a cash poor team and the village of Arlington heights has about 80,000 residents and an annual budget of about $230 million.
The village isn’t going to tank their finances by giving the Bears billions. While I’m sure they will be overly generous- they can’t afford a $1+ billion subsidy.
On the bears end- their owners are cash poor AF. The McCaskey/Halas family really needs a sovereign wealth fund to give them cash for whatever contribution they need to make for this $4+ billion domed stadium/real estate endeavor. There’s really no other option for them besides selling (which they should do!!!).
Or, you know, not building a $4+ billion real estate endeavor if it won’t make them enough money. Or waiting until interest rates come down and they can just borrow $4+ billion then.
I get that the McCaskey family is not cash rich. They are rich because they own an NFL team. These days people own NFL teams because they are rich.
There is a Chicago based (@chicagobars) hospitality lobbyist who has a big following on Chicago Twitter.
He has pointed out that the Bears have local minority shareholders who are rich and who might take a bigger stake in the Bears to help fund a stadium
It’s not so much finding the money to do this. If the plan has economic merit, any reasonably sized bank would loan them the money based on their projected income (if reasonable).
The problem isn’t that they can’t find someone to lend or invest in the team, it’s that they don’t want to be on the hook for paying back a loan or paying out revenue percentages to part owners.
They want somebody else to pay for it. There is not any solution to this ‘problem’ that doesn’t involve ordinary tax payers funnelling money to billionaires.
The McCaskeys have mismanaged this team for decades. They need to go.
OR better yet, maybe Bezos will develop an interest in professional football and start his own league by funding twelve state of the art 35,000 seat stadia in major media market host cities and then poaching talent from the NFL to staff the teams. That should send the NFL spiralling into bankruptcy in no time.
Yeah, I know. He’d be even less likely to fund his own playthings than ‘shorts’ McCaskey and co.
But a fella can dream can’t he????
But how would a TIF “tank the village finances” any more than the proposed state “mega bill”? According to Neil, both function the same way by diverting future property tax income to developers. I suspect it’s the ability to freeze future assessments/assessment increases.
You explained it. Diverting tax dollars means not funding the city
Remember, the Bears turned down a domed stadium with Super Bowl option, built on the south side of Chicago, with all of the information about location, cost, drawings, and timing fully displayed on the cover page article of The Chicago Tribune at that time.
That option is still available today, as previously presented in the Chicago Tribune article.
The Bears continue to avoid the south side options which achieve the most benefits for the City of Chicago and the Chicago home-grown Bears fans.
That option should be placed before the citizens of Chicago and let that option be considered by all.
The Chicago Tribune should reprint that article to bring to life the balance of benefits and costs to the City of Chicago and others.
The Bulls and Blackhawks sought State zoning guarantees to protect against the locals getting greedy in the future… to ensure Financial viability the Bears need the same protection.
The United Center is zoned by the state.
It’s so insulting…as is the play of the Bears for DECADES.
So, if I need to make renovations to my house anywhere in Cook County, I should get my property taxes frozen because???
The argument that a billion dollar organization makes for tax relief makes ZERO logical sense…yet the moron politicians will fall all over themselves to justify why they vote to give the Bears whatever they want, despite the fact that they could fit the entire bill themselves.
Can someone explain to me what this is?
https://youtu.be/9seG4utADAY?si=ItPnH_7v0c0utdEg
Personal finance podcast trying to gin up clicks by presenting a ragecast about the Bears moving to Arlington Heights.
Bears owners are “not trying to avoid paying taxes”
Hmmmn. Interesting. Well, if they are trying to get Arlington Heights/the State to effectively exempt the parcel from taxation (at least at it’s ‘developed’ value) in perpetuity, well, I guess they aren’t avoiding paying taxes… they are having their taxes quashed.
I guess that is just enough difference to convince a shady lawyer that there is a difference… but most people won’t see the dividing line.
Something I’ve been wondering about with some of these deals for some time Neil…. are the ‘tax credits’ on which some of these deals based saleable/transferrable? I ask as it seems to me like some of the proponents of this type of deal don’t necessarily have the kind of income that would make billions in tax credits over 20 or 30 years ‘useable’.
Now, the credits themselves likely wouldn’t be… but is it possible for someone to effectively transfer the benefit they provide to very wealthy third parties for up front cash payments?
They’re not transferrable, but they’re property tax credits, so don’t depend on team income. Assessed value will go up even if the Bears build an unsuccessful development.
Chicago state legislatures will never vote to give the Bears a tax consideration to leave Chicago. Chicago residents would be furious not to mention lose of business and tax revenue to the city
The Ohio legislature literally just did exactly that for the Browns.
Not saying the Illinois legislature is likely to approve this — it doesn’t seem to have much support, and requires a three-fifths vote in favor — but “state legislatures will never piss off the big city” is historically untrue.
Well the difference is Cleveland isn’t Ohio’s biggest city nor is it 50% of state AND their was a partisan divide. Cleveland is a Democratic city but the Ohio Legislature is Republican majority and the Gov is Republican.
3% of Ohio’s population lives in the city of Cleveland. 21% of Illinois’ population lives in the city of Chicago. That’s a lot more automatic “no” votes.
Okay, fair. My point was just that not wanting to “lose business and tax revenue” for a city is seldom the sticking point in deals like these. (The partisan divide issue is far more important.)
Not sure your central premise is correct. So far polling has shown people would be furious if the city did give money to the Bears. Thats why the Bears threats are hollow. No one, other than a couple publicity hungry suburban mayors, has shown any appetite for giving the Bears money or large tax breaks. And if you give them tax breaks all that tax revenue you talk about goes away.
how tf are you even qualified to write anything ,anywhere,about anything? you clearly have zero idea what you’re talking about,the Pilot program they’re asking for benefits an entire scope of people beyond the bears. and yet no mention of it or the specifics,just your “hot take” article . you’re a hack.
Thirty years of writing about corporate subsidies, for starters.
Yes, the megadevelopment bill would provide tax breaks to a ton of developments, many of which would probably be just as wasteful as tax breaks for a Bears stadium, as it would subsidize project that would happen somewhere in the state even without the public spending. (See the long, sad history of TIFs in Chicago.) But this is a site about sports stadiums, so mostly we focus on the sports impact here.
There is no economic interest in the state or county for investing in the Bears stadium. Let them pay for it themselves. If they want money so bad, then it will be at the cost of allowing an AFC team to move or a new AFC team to expand to Chicago.
Like they can’t afford it. Stfu and pay your bills and don’t play like absolute trash.
Oligarchs with blank checks in hand would be at Halas Hall ready, willing and able to make the McCaskeys an incredible offer for the historic charter member of the NFL.
The bidding would start at 10 billion.
That is the real solution.