Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: Glass houses, stones, etc.
Posted in:
* Tribune…
Legislation was filed in Springfield on Monday that could help the Chicago Bears finance their proposed development in Arlington Heights by freezing the property tax assessment on the former Arlington International Racecourse property for up to 40 years.
The plan, which would require the Bears to invest at least $500 million in converting the 326-acre site to a stadium and surrounding mixed-use development, has been floated for weeks and is being met with some skepticism, even from the state lawmaker who filed the legislation.
“I’ve expressed my doubts about whether this is an approach … we really want to open the door to,” state Sen. Ann Gillespie said Monday.
The Arlington Heights Democrat said she is sponsoring the proposal in part because she wants to see the concept, which she said mirrors a proposal from the Bears and other business interests, incorporated into a broader conversation about reforming a separate form of tax assistance for development known as tax increment financing. TIFs are a frequently used economic development tool that she contends often results in homeowners and small businesses paying higher real estate taxes.
The bill is here.
* Pioneer Press…
[Arlington Heights Mayor Tom Hayes] said he spoke with Gillespie about the measure before she filed it and was surprised to hear that it had officially been submitted in Springfield.
“I did not know that she was going to submit the legislation today,” he said. “I did talk to her about it tonight.”
He said their conversation left him optimistic.
“She and as well as I, and everyone involved in this, wants to make sure that it is something that’s going to address everybody’s concerns,” he said.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:18 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: Glass houses, stones, etc.
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Gosh dangit, if Aaron Rodgers wants a second home he definitely has the deep pockets to pay for it.
Comment by Flying Elvis'-Utah Chapter Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:21 am
“She and as well as I, and everyone involved in this, wants to make sure that it is something that’s going to address everybody’s concerns”
And some of those concerns are going to be addressed by telling folks to go pound sand.
– MrJM
Comment by MisterJayEm Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:24 am
A forty year property tax freeze. Wow, just watching the opposition to a tax-payer financed stadium for the Bears millionaire owners evaporate in 10, 9, 8….
Comment by froganon Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:26 am
===“I’ve expressed my doubts about whether this is an approach … we really want to open the door to,” state Sen. Ann Gillespie said Monday.===
This is horrific. That’s not hyperbole, it is horrifying
The sponsor of a bill, bailing out a business that has as its business model, “collect revenues passively from media contracts”, it’s sadly, and I say this not lightly… it’s embarrassing that Gillespie is sponsoring this bill, as her own reservations to bailing out the Bears are quite apparent.
This type of bill, welp, I can’t recall the Cubs or the Bulls/Blackhawks getting this type of “sweetheart deal” where local taxing will (or likely could) hurt schools, emergency services, even opportunities for other infrastructure.
Why even file a bill that needs further study?
Even - Lucky Pierre -, who despises “last minute bills, dropped in the 11th hour, hundreds of pages, rammed through the GA” has made clear even -LP - would be fine with that type of passage if the Bears get their windfall at the expense of taxpayers.
If the Bears are required to…
* Open the books, completely, for the past 5 years, all revenues, all profits, all expenses, all losses
* Provide 3 business models for the 5 years of revenue, costs, expenses, and debt
* Secure loans AND provide terms of the possible loans.
… show these items, and submit to further financial scrutiny, I’d be more willing to *listen only* to a Bears Bailout
Sounds like the mayor, speaking for himself, would like more details too
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:28 am
@OW: The number of bills that get filed clearly at the specific request of special interest groups, that will clearly go nowhere, is always weirdly impressive to me. So many legislators seem to exist solely to be performative on behalf of donors.
That being said: no handouts for billionaires, thanks.
Comment by Homebody Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:30 am
Assuming OW’s comments in the Morning Brief are accurate, gifting a business tens to hundreds of millions of dollars seems irresponsible. This is especially the case for a government that is still deeply in debt.
If Illinois is only in the past two or so years, climbing out of Junk Bond Status, borrowing to give money to the Bears is irresponsible. Let the Bears borrow that money.
Alternatively, what exactly are the plans for Soldier Field? The way this usually works, is after the transition, the state is left holding the bag on a piece of property that was created to serve a purpose it will never serve again.
Will the Bears own Soldier Field, or the citizens of Illinois who will also be holding the financing debt, simultaneously assume the lost value of soldier field?
Comment by H-W Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:33 am
- H-W -
Some links to peruse…
NYT…
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/sports/football/nfl-tv-contracts.html
Forbes…
https://www.forbes.com/teams/chicago-bears/?sh=4eae309f5979
How about the NFL itself…
https://www.nfl.com/_amp/nfl-completes-long-term-media-distribution-agreements-through-2033-season
Not one nickel. Not ONE.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:39 am
It seems like freezing the property taxes for 40 years takes a huge chunk of the benefits of the move off the table. I guess there’s still sales taxes, maybe? But if I’m the state, I don’t care if those sales are made in Chicago or Arlington Heights, do I?
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:41 am
“what exactly are the plans for Soldier Field?… the state is left holding the bag on a piece of property that was created to serve a purpose it will never serve again”
Soldier Field was built and flourished for decades before professional football teams called it home. I’m sure city hall and local economic development folks can come up with lucrative new uses for the stadium/land.
Soldier Field was designed in 1919 and opened on October 9, 1924, as Municipal Grant Park Stadium.
https://www.isfauthority.com/facilities/history-of-soldier-field/
Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:44 am
Once again, State government arranging for tax breaks on revenue they don’t receive, and potentially shorting local government of needed revenues needed for additional services (security, fire protection, streets maintenance) that local government will have to pay for.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:46 am
I also would like the state to give me millions of dollars to build something no one wants after ruining a historic landmark. I can also guarantee I will win no Superbowls and, if necessary, I am prepared to alienate the entire city of Chicago.
Comment by Suburban Mom Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:48 am
And let’s not kid ourselves, or pretend otherwise.
All this Bears Bailout Bill does is maximize profits for a billion dollar entity that has as its revenue stream EFTs from lucrative television/media outlets… and this franchise WILL build on the Arlington Heights site, bailout or not.
The rest is how much Gillespie is willing to support as sponsor of a bailout for the Bears.
Not one nickel, not one.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:53 am
@Donnie Elgin: Don’t forget that the Chicago Fire currently use Soldier Field as their home stadium. And they have more home games than the Bears–17 vs. 10.
So, to your point, Soldier Field will be fine one way or the other. That shouldn’t factor in to whether or not the Bears stay on the lakefront.
Comment by Benjamin Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:56 am
“will win no Superbowls”
Bears will be the Bears. But a new domed stadium would be able to host a Superbowl; that’s where the real money for both businesses and tax coffers comes in.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:58 am
===that’s where the real money===
Once.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 9:59 am
Soldier Field only hosts about 10 Bears games a year anyway. We basically already know what to do with it without the Bears.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:01 am
No way. This stadium is gonna be a boondoggle. TIFs are the bane of local taxing districts as well as back door property tax increases for local communities. No welfare for the well off.
Comment by Stormsw7706 Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:11 am
==Bears will be the Bears. But a new domed stadium would be able to host a Superbowl; that’s where the real money for both businesses and tax coffers comes in.==
That’s two weeks. And look at the history of Super Bowls in cold-weather venues. The big game goes to the new stadium once, the event surrounding it goes poorly, and everyone says “Well, we’re certainly not going to do that again.”
Comment by Roadrager Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:14 am
== …but team executives say they won’t go forward with the development without a government subsidy of the infrastructure costs. ==
I’d like to see someone ask the Bears to clarify that. By government subsidy do they mean their PILOT program or some yet-to-be-offered proposal to share road construction costs?
The latter is plausible, but the former seems like a real long shot in Springfield. If legislators from Arlington Heights aren’t for a Bears PILOT, who the heck is?
Comment by TNR Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:20 am
What ever happened to capitalism?
How about living within your means? If the bears cannot afford a new stadium, I guess they just need to save up until they can.
And, to RNUGs point, of course the legislature floats something like this bill. it does not cost the state anything and it is worse than a TIF, TIF’s only go for 23 years.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:22 am
I’m not an insider knowing how “the sausage is made”. But this seems like the wrong route for starting the conversation on an alternate to TIF or other “deal” making.
The other part that troubles me is Arlington Heights recently passed expanding all their elementary schools so they accommodate full-day Kindergarten in a couple years. So there is already a commitment to increased funding for the schools.
I understand some need for cost sharing on public infrastructure improvements, but let’s not go overboard here.
Comment by From DaZoo Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:25 am
== something that’s going to address everybody’s concerns==
Talk about an impossible dream. The concerns involved are so massively contradictory that to address one set will be to dismiss others. Give up this notion that “everybody’s concerns” can be reconciled. There is one narrow set of concerns that is looking for financial advantages and a much larger, more diverse set looking to avoid getting financially shafted. You can’t reconcile them.
As OW says, nothing, not one nickel.
Comment by Flapdoodle Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:27 am
===I did not know that she was going to submit the legislation today,” he said. “I did talk to her about it tonight.”===
The lack of communication between all of the parties is pretty odd. The Bears should’ve had Gillespie, Walker and the village all on board before rolling out any of this. It was already going to be a tough haul because of the opposition from Chicago legislators, but if Arlington Heights is also skeptical the Bears might have a real problem.
Comment by vern Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:28 am
===need for cost sharing on public infrastructure improvements===
A privately owned stadium and “village” is not public infrastructure.
Any and all bailout monies take away from infrastructure, schools, police, fire…
This is not anything “public”… and the Bears can pretend to threaten, but they are building there, it’s about…
…how much of a windfall Gillespie is pushing for the Bears
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:28 am
O.W. There you go, in your 9:28 post, saying “Beetlejuice” three times again. Now you-know-who will just have to appear.
Comment by West Side the Best Side Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:29 am
- West Side the Best Side -
The silence to this by “Beetlejuice” is deafening, no?
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:35 am
===Bears should’ve had Gillespie, Walker and the village all on board before rolling out any of this===
They’re trying to pretend that this isn’t a “Bears” bill.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:40 am
Again, out of step Charlie here. I don’t live in AH. If the residents of AH want to give up their property taxes, no skin off my nose.
I do agree that not one nickel of state money should go to this. I suppose nothing from Cook County should go to this, either. Carve that out. But if the AH library and schools are OK with this, then go ahead. Doesn’t have any effect on me.
Comment by Save Ferris Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:41 am
I seem to recall the Bears playing in Champaign-Urbana 20 years ago, when Soldier Field was being remodeled to accommodate the desires of the Bears and their investors. Now they want to walk away.
Who paid for that and why did that solution only last 20 years are questions and discussions that speak to the social responsibility obligations of the tax exempt franchisees. They have no sense of social responsibility to the state, to Chicago, and to Arlington.
Comment by H-W Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:43 am
===this isn’t a “Bears” bill.===
The want is to keep the idea of a $5.8 billion dollar business attached and milking taxpayers for something they can easily and readily afford, and get financing on the promise from the NFL.
Gillespie deciding to put her name to a bill to bailout the Bears at this point as others hope to detach the Bears from the reality is quite the public decision.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:44 am
===If the residents of AH want to give up their property taxes, no skin off my nose.===
Until AH in 5 years needs upgrades to police due in large part to the stadium as *ONE* example.
The town has its law enforcement visiting other NFL stadiums to see the challenges first hand. Now. They (AH) are already aware of real challenges ahead, and now the Gillespie Bears Bailout could give the Bears a windfall where local services already know they will need upgrading?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:47 am
=== They’re trying to pretend that this isn’t a “Bears” bill===
I’m just the peanut gallery here, but “pretend it’s not your bill and don’t talk to legislators” seems like a bad way to get a bill passed. But I’m sure whoever’s running their lobbying knows what they’re doing, the Bears have a great track record of picking quarterbacks. /s
Comment by vern Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:50 am
If the “Bears” want to live the ‘Murican Dream with a new house in the suburbs, then they get a mortgage at the bank and pay for it themselves. That includes building the driveway and hooking up to
the sewers. Pull yourself up by the bootstraps. Don’t mooch off of others.
Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:54 am
“Once”
SB, Big Ten games, College Football Playoffs, NCAA Final Four….
Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 10:59 am
“Until AH in 5 years needs upgrades to police due in large part to the stadium as *ONE* example.”
I’m not following. Won’t the AH police use money from AH constituents and not non-AH constituents? Unless I’m missing something, as a non-AH constituent that burden won’t fall on me.
Again, I just see this as a mega 6B deal. Unless we want to end 6B tax deals across the board, I really don’t see the issue with this type of proposal. I kind of like the 6B model when used appropriately.
I fully admit I haven’t read the bill so I could be missing a lot.
Comment by Save Ferris Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 11:03 am
(Sigh)
===SB, Big Ten games, College Football Playoffs, NCAA Final Four….===
SB?… once every 7-10 years, maybe.
Big 10? … B1G will pay rent with NU already using Wrigley for a novelty? You think Indianapolis is willing to give up the B1G Championship game with that locked in too?
College Football Playoffs?… with SF and LA already been hosts, the Bears stadium would/could be on a rota of every 6-10 years hosting, while taking away from actual Bowl sites, even with an expanded CFP
Final Fours?… that rota is in that 6-10 year cycle, so in “40 years” they may get it 4-5 times, more likely “Regional Championships”
It won’t be as busy as the windfall hopes.
===I’m not following.===
The stress of resources, the lack of taxing monies from the Bears they won’t pay with the Gillespie Windfall, Arlington Heights will as legislators for help. “You passed this thing they tied our hands” they’ll say…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 11:11 am
Or… LOL
===SB, Big Ten games, College Football Playoffs, NCAA Final Four….===
With all that business, a private loan should be real easy to secure, amirite?
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 11:13 am
Incentives are useful and acceptable if there is a net increase in taxes, but that needs to be sooner, rather than much, much later. 40 years is absolutely unacceptable. 23 years for a TIF is just too much.
5 or 10 years is a yes. A few thousand dollars per job created is a yes. For long durations, most or all of the benefit is given up and it becomes immoral corporate welfare on the backs of regular taxpayers. I bet the Bears move again before that 40 years is up. No thanks.
Comment by Jibba Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 11:22 am
How about the State of Illinois help with some highway infrastructure. That’s it. That’s all. For profit business can spend their own money. They don’t spend it on the field so why not for a field.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 11:23 am
I wonder how much of this has to do with the McCaskeys being relatively (in the context of sports owners, not in the grand scheme) cash poor. Their only real asset is the Bears, so the vast majority their net worth is tied to the paper value of the franchise alone. When Virginia passes, there is going to be a significant crunch trying to keep the team in the family’s hands (conventional wisdom as found in numerous reports is that much of the generation below George is lukewarm about the family business and would just as soon cash out), and I imagine trying to do that and finance a stadium is going to require some pretty substantial and complex financial wizardry.
If you’re a legislator, the appropriate answer to that (and the financing issue in general) is “that sounds like a McCaskey problem, not a state of Illinois problem. We have our own problems to take care of. If AH and the surrounding communities want to subsidize a billion dollar closely held company, there’s enough money in that area that they can do it without us.”
Comment by Anon324 Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 11:28 am
“a private loan should be real easy to secure, amirite?”
Not really. The NFL has debt limits for their teams. This is done so there’s minimal risk of bankruptcy which would allow a court to sell a team to the highest bidder, which would allow access to the ownership group to a person or persons not approved by the other owners.
It’s a way of keeping the ownership club closed.
This comment has nothing to do with my previous comments about PILOT/6B. Just explaining why loans aren’t a slam dunk.
Comment by Save Ferris Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 11:29 am
How does freezing the assessment impact the evidenced based funding formula in the state’s funding for all school districts?
Comment by Eyeball Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 11:36 am
The key is what are the numbers on the overall project, not just the stadium. That is where the tax generation could come. Plus if it does lure a Super Bowl or an NCAA Final Four, the taxable revenue and impact on hotels, restaurants, etc is tremendous. As far a Soldier Field is concerned, that is City of Chicago property run by the Park District. Man, people really, really hate the McCaskey’s.
Comment by levivotedforjudy Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 11:39 am
==Big Ten games, College Football Playoffs, NCAA Final Four==
All of those things still come up relatively rarely, and could well be held at Soldier Field (except if we’re talking about Basketball for the final four, but that’s not going to be held at an AH stadium, either).
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 11:42 am
==Big Ten games, College Football Playoffs, NCAA Final Four==
OW touched on a lot of this, but I’ll tack on a little.
- Big Ten games? Indianapolis. Unless you’re talking regular season ones, in which case, our state is home to two of the smallest football draws in the conference. Northwestern vs. Iowa at Wrigley got announced today, and the only way they get 40,000 to show for that is the plethora of Hawkeye alums on the North Side.
- College Football Playoffs? All the games save the championship are spoken for, and even if/when they expand, the extra games will be doled out to the Old Boys Network running the “non-profit” bowl games. The championship game will not come here for the same reasons I have noted the Super Bowl will come here exactly once.
- NCAA Final Four? Again, Indianapolis. The NCAA headquarters is there. So is its Hall of Champions. And the major venue is actually in the middle of a mid-sized city that has infrastructure designed for the convention/event crowd. Your stadium village, if fully realized, will accommodate some of these people in Arlington Heights, though they will want to actually be in Chicago anyway. The rest? Good luck with the one Metra line, running a train an hour off-peak.
- International soccer friendlies? You have two venues to compete with, one of which serves as Mexico’s home away from home, and both of which have real grass.
- Top-tier concerts? Everyone would rather be outside in the summer for them, and the biggest acts don’t run their biggest shows in the Midwest in winter even where the domes are.
- Wrestlemania? Okay, maybe. Once a decade.
Comment by Roadrager Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 11:50 am
===The NFL has debt limits for their teams===
That’s inaccurate
The debt limits are for controlling interests in the clubs, which was raised to $1 billion (with a b)
===To make it a little easier, the league has relaxed its rules for borrowing when buying the controlling interest in a team.
As reported by Mike Ozanian of Forbes, and confirmed by PFT, the NFL has increased the debt limit from $500 million to $1 billion, for someone purchasing controlling interest in a franchise. (To get controlling interest, an owner must hold at least 30 percent of the team.)===
Cite? https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/07/28/nfl-increases-debt-limit-for-purchasing-controlling-interest-in-teams/amp/
Further? Easy.
The $100+ million in naming rights, that down payment, added to PSL (personal seat licensing), along with “corporate sponsors and partners”, the Bears for a $1+ billion building could generate 10% plus of a”down payment”, backed by the NFL.
Also, looking at Jacksonville, lol, no team is going to go bankrupt anytime soon, like this Gillespie Bears Bailout, it’s about how big the profit is going to be.
The Bears are more likely to move to STL to be on any verge of any bankruptcy with self-financing a building.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 12:05 pm
And if the “Bears” move you can bet there will be a new store (or team) to replace it here in Chicago.
Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 12:15 pm
A 40-year giveaway to billionaires? Nope. The new facility will need an array of public services (police/fire/medical/public works/transit/etc.) that need to be paid for. Let the Bear’s partners put their money at risk, not the taxpayer’s.
Comment by thisjustinagain Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 12:18 pm
=The town has its law enforcement visiting other NFL stadiums to see the challenges first hand.=
Sounds more like a paid vacation for some heroes. Don’t we have a few sports franchises that they could touch base with locally?
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 12:22 pm
I don’t necessarily agree with everything you posted, Road Ranger, but your post is still excellent.
The large concert part to me is the biggest problem for the AH stadium. As you said, people would rather sit outside near the lake in the summer (when these massive concerts usually take place). Just having to compete for concerts with Soldier Field will be a major issue for maximizing revenue in AH
Comment by Sox Fan Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 12:39 pm
“That’s inaccurate”
Fine. My info is a little stale. What that PFT report doesn’t clarify is if the debt can be secured by the franchise trademark. That is what the NFL is trying to prevent: The mark ending up in a court where the judge gets to pick the next owner, not the 31 other owners.
The debt caps and the salary cap make it nearly impossible at present for this to happen. Which is exactly what they want.
It also makes the NFL the perfect model for how socialism can work.
Comment by Save Ferris Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 12:56 pm
As an AH resident, I would rather have Sen. Gillespie being the point person, as she knows what is best for our Village and what is best of the community. I trust her judgment and she is the one the Bears will have to deal with if they want help, along with Reps. Walker and Canty. The three of them are going to stay united and if the Bears want any help, even for a sewer or for the presumed rebuild of the Arlington Park Metra stop, it has to go through them.
Comment by Rahm's Parking Meter Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 12:57 pm
New stadiums are only new when they are in fact new. To say that the stadium will be used for various things 20 years from now is dreaming. New and better stadiums will arise around the country during that time and compete with the Bears latest project. And if 40 years from now the Bears claim that this stadium is out of date and they want a new one. Then what. I hope everyone decides wisely because the time to make any money from the stadium will be in the short term, not the long term.
Comment by Appears Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 1:10 pm
This remains DOA. No Chicago legislators will help make it easier for the Bears to move out of town and downstate legislators have to be salivating at the proposition of shooting down any tax incentives for a Chicagoland team and then spending the next two years bragging about doing it to voters.
Comment by TJ Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 1:26 pm
Government is supposed to live within it’s means…
So can’t these lawmakers suggest that the Bears do the same? I’m sure more than once they perhaps suggested something about wasteful spending or running government more like a business or whatever.
So when the Bears want a new “home” they need to figure out how to buy it just like you and me. That usually includes a trip to the bank.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Tuesday, Feb 7, 23 @ 2:02 pm
===Fine. My info is a little stale.===
No.
It’s inaccurate. It’s not stale.
===That is what the NFL is trying to prevent: The mark ending up in a court where the judge gets to pick the next owner, not the 31 other owners.===
Your concerned trolling for billionaires that elevated the personal debt to $1 billion for controlling interests because “they can” really doesn’t clarifying this want… that you want.
===The debt caps and the salary cap make it nearly impossible at present for this to happen. Which is exactly what they want.
It also makes the NFL the perfect model for how socialism can work.===
Now *that* is accurate.
The reason the formula exists between salary cap and operational costs… begins and ends… with TV/media rights… equally shared, 32 partners.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 7:13 am
If the legislation passes as written, the school districts will only receive their share of the property tax on the frozen valuation plus PILOT for 23 years, probably 40. The village will have other means of revenue through sales tax. If the mixed use area is made a TIF district, the schools will get nothing except more students and no funding. This is a huge finance issue for school districts who have no seat at the table. All stakeholders should be considered.
Comment by school me Wednesday, Feb 8, 23 @ 8:52 am