When the Illinois legislature canceled Thursday morning’s planned hearing on a property tax break bill for a Chicago Bears stadium in Arlington Heights, it turns out, it wasn’t just a bureaucratic scheduling glitch. Rather, the legislature did so at the request of Bears president Kevin Warren so that the bill could be revised — or, as Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker intimated, maybe just because “Indiana had asked them to say that they’re going to move forward with the negotiations in Indiana.” (Indiana officials had demanded some kind of commitment from the Bears before moving ahead with their own stadium financing package.) Either way, the Illinois bill is supposed to be resubmitted at a new hearing later this week.
Sports Mockery claims (citing no sources whatsoever) that Bears owner George McCaskey was “livid” with Warren for committing so heavily to Indiana, leading to the Bears president issuing a statement Saturday that “we continue to work with Illinois’ leadership and appreciate the progress being made.” All of which has led to even more speculation that McCaskey and Warren are mostly trying to play the two states off against each other to drive up the level of public subsidy, which of course they are, Chicago sports owners practically invented that game.
Indiana’s state Legislative Services Agency, meanwhile, issued a fiscal impact statement on Friday that starts to spell out how much each of the tax streams for a Bears stadium in Hammond, Indiana would cost state and local taxpayers:
- The state would create a stadium tax district in Hammond that would divert all new property tax, income tax, and sales tax within the district above what’s currently collected there to paying off the stadium, for up to the next 35 years. Since no one knows how big the district would be or what would be built within it, there’s no way to know how much this redirected tax revenue would amount to; the fiscal note observes that other similar districts in the state divert as much as $10 million a year, but then immediately adds that “the amount of revenue deposited in the fund is
indeterminable and will depend on the plan for the designated district,” which is legislativese for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. - A 1% food and beverage tax surcharge in Lake and Porter counties, on top of the state’s 7% level, would generate an estimated $12-18 million a year, or possibly more if a stadium district leads to more local food and beverage sales.
- Doubling the Lake County hotel tax from 5% to 10% would generate “at least $5.4M annually,” again possibly more if hotel stays go up thanks to a stadium.
- A 12% ticket tax would generate about $12 million a year.
(In addition, that previously reported bit that “the stadium board will retain all revenues from operation of the capital mprovement” appears to actually mean all net tax revenues from the stadium (“all excise taxes and net income from operation of the capital improvements”), which is far less exciting than it sounded when it appeared Indiana might actually get a cut of stadium revenues.)
How much would all those redirected tax revenue streams add up to? Given all the unknowns it’s impossible to say, plus the fiscal note doesn’t indicate if and how these annual tax expenditures are expected to rise over time. Discounting the ticket tax because that mostly ends up being paid by teams, we have a baseline of around $27 million a year, which would come to around $440 million in present value; but, of course, those unknown subsidies from a stadium tax district could easily add hundreds of millions if not billions more if Indiana diverts taxes from a big enough area, as Kansas is planning on doing with its infamous 293-square-mile district for the Kansas City Chiefs.
All of this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ is expected to be signed off on by the Indiana legislature this week, while Illinois considers if and how to respond. Getting some more certainty about, at the very least, how big Indiana’s stadium tax district would be before holding a vote seems like the absolute bare minimum of due diligence, but it’s unclear if anyone will attempt that in the five days left before the legislative session ends; blank checks are seldom a good way for public officials to go into a stadium negotiation, but it sure looks like where things are headed.
The Bears are totally playing Indiana off Illinois on this.
The Bears make up about 20% of Soldier Field’s revenue. Add some more big name concerts in August and September and the Park District makes that up. I cannot imagine the concerts would move to Hammond.
Add a Big 10 game or some other Fall college march up in there somewhere and it will be fine. Until 1970 Soldier Field had no regular tenant (the Bears played at Wrigley).
The AAFC’s Rockets/Hornets played at Soldier Field! ;)
Bring them back!
Why wouldn’t the concerts go to Hammond or Arlington Heights, especially if it’s a dome? Same with any college football game?
I just want to see if they can figure out a way to make Soldier Field a baseball stadium and the White Sox move in…
“Bear minimum” was cute, you should have left it that way.
Freudian slip!
Just the Bear necessities.
Is there a history of the “Stadium Sport District”? This appears to be the new “doublespeak” for opening up large swatches of state property to pay for stadiums.
I’m more convinced that the Bears are moving to Arlington Heights.
It has nothing to do with state vs private property — it’s just a TIF district by another name. Good Jobs First has a primer here:
https://goodjobsfirst.org/tax-increment-financing/
Thanks for the link. That’s sort of what I thought, but has it always been open to interpretation to how large these things can be?
Yes, very much so. And when it looks like the revenue won’t be enough to pay off the bonds that they’re supposed to cover, the local government often just expands the district to increase the tax take — even though that means you’re even more likely to be redirecting tax money that has nothing to do with the project.
I guess we can’t know what McCaskey thought (if he had any thoughts at all, of course), maybe he was mad at Warren solely because he thought the initial statement was “discouraging” Illinois from piling more cash on the table.
Overall, though, I’m with Anthony on this one:
It seems more and more obvious by the day that the Bears have no interest in moving to Indiana and are just using the good folk of that state to extract a better deal from Illinois/Chicago.
Standard scumbag operating procedure. NFL owners as used car salesmen stuff.
I can’t really feel sorry for the people doing the ‘negotiating’ on the part of Indiana…. they appear only too willing to be used. And they will be.
I believe Indiana started as a leverage play, but it’s known the Bears had to give some form of assurance of their seriousness to get the bill through Ways and Means. It’s also now apparent Illinois has little appetite for matching Indiana’s handout. Would the McCaskeys decline a blank check and go back to toiling in Springfield just because Arlington Park might bring a better fan experience? Highly doubtful, in my mind.
If the NFL is willing to alienate the big money Bears fans, then maybe the value of NFL franchises will decline. Everything is wrong with this plan, it is far from where most season ticket holders live, the area is an environmentally sensitive wetland, there is no public transportation and the Skyway tolls are insane. If this is what the Bears are willing to stoop to get leverage, professional sports addiction to public stadium funding has gone way too far.
Goodell might wonder if the Bears turning down Indiana’s package for a more measured approach in Illinois would set a bad precedent and damage other team’s future asks. The NFL operates like a cartel and other threats to shake down state legislatures would fall flat if the Bears admitted that location matters more than the amount of public funds.
The Bears will not admit that. And the Bears will get their public funding. Our ‘requests’ for funding will never fall flat.
The Bears will, in the end, graciously and in act of selfless public service, agree to accept $1.6B or so from Illinois instead of $2-3B from Indiana (whom we have already shaken down don’t forget) and remain in Illinois.
It might take a while. We’ve got time.
This Indiana nonsense is over. Except for the 3 lane Chicago Skyway, the Wolf Lake site is essentially inaccessible from the Illinois side, where 90%+ of Bears fans live. And Chicago would have every incentive to close the few residential streets that might be used on game days. Cry about it McCaskey.
Just like the Glendale Police close off the residential areas east of State Farm Stadium on game days.
Really, it’s all pretty vulgar.
Welcome to my world.
When life hands you lemons, you make lemonade.
If you can stick the taxpayer with the cost of the stand, the lemons, the water, the sugar, an upfront payment to cover change, wages & benefits for the stand operators, future stand maintenance and improvement costs, holographic signage and lemon displays (indeed, perhaps holographic lemons themselves) and a lifetime exemption on stand property taxes and/or business licenses, then so much the better.
Remember, we just ask for stuff.
If you don’t care if we shoot the hostages, well, that’s on you.
I will remind my former state legislators that I fled Illinois to escape $15,000 in property taxes and triple the income taxes in Arizona. Most people I know in Illinois are upset with the tax situation, and can’t think of anyone who would vote against a legislator if the Bears moved to Indiana. Just stuff Kevin Warren’s face with duct tape and listen to your constituents.