The Chicago Tribune reports this morning that Bears management is expected to “publicly present their latest plans for a new stadium” in Arlington Heights sometime between now and November, according to Arlington Heights Mayor Jim Tinaglia. How will this differ from the last set of plans team execs issued (with nightmarish giant bear sculptures) in early 2023, or from their demands for property tax breaks on the site plus possible “billions” in additional infrastructure funding? We’ll just have to wait and see!
It’s a weird article overall, mentioning early on that “more than 130 studies have come to the consensus that the economic benefits of new stadiums fall far short of the public investment” but then insisting that this one is different, because “the Bears have decided to finance their stadium themselves, which is rare.” It’s also not at all true: The whole reason the Arlington Heights plan has been sitting around for years now is that the Bears owners have been holding out for what they’re calling “tax certainty,” which means a guarantee that property taxes on the former Arlington Park racetrack won’t rise even after they build a multi-billion-dollar stadium development on it. To a sports team owner, property tax breaks are every bit as good as a government check, which is why we don’t (or at least shouldn’t) say that the owners of Madison Square Garden have “financed renovations themselves” when it’s now received about a billion dollars in city tax breaks since the 1980s.
The Tribune could have found someone to explain that concept had it interviewed any of the authors of those more than 130 studies, but instead it chose to limit its quotes to:
- Tinaglia, who called the project he himself is negotiating “a win-win for everybody, including Chicago.”
- Marc Ganis, identified as a “sports business consultant” but actually someone who’s worked for so many NFL teams he’s been dubbed “the 33rd owner,” calling it “an outright gift of epic proportions” by the Bears to taxpayers.
- An unnamed team official, saying “our plan to finance a new state-of-the-art stadium requires zero state dollars for its construction.”
- State Rep. Mary Beth Canty, sponsor of a state bill to allow tax breaks for “megaprojects,” saying it “creates real opportunities.”
That’s four pro-subsidy sources, though Canty did say “We want to focus on getting it right, not getting it fast,” which I suppose makes her a relative skeptic in this context. How much would a freeze on the Bears’ property taxes, plus any added infrastructure expense, cost Illinois taxpayers? What do economists say about whether funding stadiums through tax breaks pays off any better than funding them through up-front public spending? What is the likelihood of Canty’s bill passing, and would it then automatically allow Bears execs to get the property tax kickbacks they seek? Sorry, the Tribune has fewer than 80 newsroom staffers left in the wake of its takeover first by leveraged buyout goons and then by hedge fund goons, the reporter on this story has to cover the entirety of “news and trends in Chicago’s suburbs” as his beat, he doesn’t have time for actual reporting, you’ve clearly watched too much Lou Grant.
From my very limited knowledge of Illinois state politics I read Rep. Canty’s quote: “We want to focus on getting it right, not getting it fast.” as an acknowledgement that this bill isn’t likely to pass during the fall veto session. Which would mean this gets to drag on at least another 6 months. Fun!
“… the Bears owners have been holding out for what they’re calling “tax certainty,” which means a guarantee that property taxes on the former Arlington Park racetrack even after they build a multi-billion-dollar stadium development on it.”
I think a couple of words may have dropped out there? Is it a guarantee that property taxes won’t go up?
Yep, fixing now, thanks!
Loved Lou Grant. Was so happy to find it on YT a few years ago.
I see just one actual fact in the presentation… namely that this could be a win for the city of Chicago (in that they no longer have to host the Bears. It would be a bigger win if they could repurpose the land on the lakefront, but with others using/holding leases for the stadium now that seems unlikely).
A possible second fact would be that “this creates opportunity”.
It might. But probably not for the people the author of that statement was thinking about.
If Arlington Heights really wants to jump into bed with the laughably incompetent McCaskeys, they are welcome to them. Bears fans from the city can still go watch the team – hopefully without being forced to pay the (likely crippling) subsidies that Arlington Heights residents and taxpayers will face going forward.
It’s probably not too much of an exaggeration to say that I first thought about becoming a journalist because I wanted to be Billie and/or Rossi.
Can’t wait for the next pandemic so I can binge on these episodes on YouTube!
apologies if it’s too much info, but yeah, had a big crush on Linda Kelsey as a youth… Seems quaint in this era where fans just download/purchase stolen pics/sex tapes of celebrities, but whatever… the world moves on, I guess…
Maybe if da Bears move to Arlington Heights or Naperville or wherever, then they can take that hideous flying saucer with them. Then the even more hideous McCormick Place East can be demolished.
Da Bears looked like 1985 for 30 minutes. Then da Bears crawled back into hibernation for about the 30th season in a row. Maybe they’ll do better in Greensboro. If da Bears can’t figure out how much time the Vikings can run off the clock, how can they do the financial math for a multi-billion stadium development?
Remarkable that the Chicago Tribune’s ownership has been so bad that you can completely overlook the TRONC era and it still looks like a horror show.