Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Illinois Hospitals Face Unprecedented Challenges – SB 1763 Can Help
Next Post: Meanwhile, in Opposite Land…
Posted in:
* Perhaps only the revived graduated income tax idea has been deader than this turkey since its inception. But the Bears bill has received far more media coverage. Crain’s…
As the Illinois General Assembly enters the frenzied final weeks of its spring session, one subject has effectively disappeared from the conversation. That’s the proposal by the Chicago Bears to subsidize the cost of their proposed new stadium complex in Arlington Heights, which — for the moment, anyhow — seems stuck somewhere around the Bears’ 12-yard line. […]
“I don’t see it coming up in the Senate,” said state Sen. Ann Gillespie, D-Arlington Heights, who agreed to introduce the bill a couple of months ago to get the discussion going. “I just don’t see the votes here.”
Ditto for state Rep. Mark Walker, D-Arlington Heights. “I don’t see anything this session,” he says. “Maybe in the fall.”
Walker says the proposal faces two major obstacles. One: It would allow the village of Arlington Heights to control the negotiated-fee process, effectively cutting out school districts, much to their dismay. Two: It’s run into strong sentiment that, while subsidies to win a company here from Michigan or Indiana might make sense, throwing money at a company to move from one part of the state — in this case, Chicago’s Soldier Field — to another is silly.
* Meanwhile, there’s apparently been a ripple effect…
Developer Bruce Adreani already was having difficulty obtaining financing for his mixed-use redevelopment plan for the long-vacant Block 425 in downtown Arlington Heights, but this week he added a new wrinkle: the Bears.
Adreani cited the NFL franchise’s possible move to Arlington Park — and how that redevelopment could affect the village’s downtown — among reasons his Arlington 425 project has been slow to progress since it was first approved by the village board in May 2019.
And despite being grilled by trustees about why his proposed three-building residential and commercial campus doesn’t yet have a shovel in the ground, board members reluctantly agreed to his request for a 12-month extension to their zoning approvals.
Besides the Bears’ redevelopment of the sprawling 326-acre shuttered racetrack, Arlington 425 would be the largest development in the Northwest suburb in decades.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:08 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Illinois Hospitals Face Unprecedented Challenges – SB 1763 Can Help
Next Post: Meanwhile, in Opposite Land…
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Senator Fowler has a bill to move the blackhawks to DuQuoin
Comment by James Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:13 am
===“I don’t see it coming up in the Senate,” said state Sen. Ann Gillespie, D-Arlington Heights, who agreed to introduce the bill a couple of months ago to get the discussion going. “I just don’t see the votes here.”
Ditto for state Rep. Mark Walker, D-Arlington Heights. “I don’t see anything this session,” he says. “Maybe in the fall.”===
Did I miss the governor on board?
Has either member secured the governor who is prepared, as a billionaire himself, to sign legislation for a Billionaire Bears Bailout Bill?
Grant you, I may have missed it, but it seems like an odd omission to first say the votes don’t exist… openly… and plum ignore that a signature is needed.
Again, the Bears are a current $5.6 billion (with a billion) dollar valued franchise with 2% debt to its ledger according to Forbes, and the Bears, without playing a game in March, had a windfall of $300 million plus in television revenues from the NFL Monopoly.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:14 am
Are the Bears prepared to wait until the fall to make a decision? Not sure if that’s a long or short time in regards to their timeframe.
Comment by Sox Fan Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:19 am
===Has either member secured the governor===
You’ve missed the point of this from the beginning. They sponsored the bill in order to make sure nobody else moved it forward. It’s been deliberately bricked all along.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:23 am
The Washington Commanders are likely to close in their own sale of roughly $5+ billion… with a stadium needing major renovations.
The Bears “needing of requiring” any help to financing or to monetary issues is a farce, and maybe Gillespie should explain to school boards looking for lobbyists why a billionaire NFL franchise isn’t a threat to their funding at any level.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:24 am
Happy about the Bears bill, sad about the graduated income tax - it’s sooo necessary.
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:25 am
What a shame, as an Illinois taxpayer I was really looking forward to subsidizing Ginny’s donations to whatever grift Jeanne Ives will be working in a couple years.
Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:26 am
===It’s been deliberately bricked all along.===
I was kinda being a bit cute, first wondering aloud where the 60 and 30 are, and with the brick in place, it is as you say “deader than a rock on a stump”
That’s on me.
===Grant you, I may have missed it, but it seems like an odd omission to first say the votes don’t exist… openly… and plum ignore that a signature is needed.===
Asking for the quiet part out there.
My apologies.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:28 am
Anybody done a wellness check on LP?
Also, the IL Chamber was very big on this, too.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:32 am
– It’s been deliberately bricked all along. –
Bad choice in quarterbacks has been a historical hallmark of the Bears
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:41 am
It seems inevitable that the Bears will leave Soldier Field. It’s too small and too cold for most of the season, and can never host the Super Bowl.
Who knows if Arlington Park will work out, but most NFL teams eventually secure public funding.
So in the short term this is highly unlikely, but in the long term, it will probably happen.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:46 am
Maybe the bill would be more popular with the addition of a gross receipts tax? /s
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:47 am
I have sense other NFL franchises have been able to execute deals for new stadiums with little or no public financing. Also, the Bears having suffered difficulty getting what they have wanted from the city, park district and Springfield they want in the past, especially in contrast to the Sox getting funding for a new stadium and the Ricketts success with garnering support for their development of the property around Wrigley Field.
In light of these and in light of the perception that the Bears organization is as inept off the field as it is on, is it fair to ask whether the Bears have–in house or hired–the requisite legal, lobbying and financial talent to get anything worthwhile done in Arlington Heights?
Comment by Midwesterner Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:47 am
===is it fair to ask whether the Bears have–in house or hired–the requisite legal, lobbying and financial talent===
They have a lot of very good lobbyists. But even great lobsters can’t sell something like this.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:56 am
The Bears have no leverage. Not now, not in the fall, not in the future. They have a perfectly acceptable stadium to play in and there’s no credible threat of the team leaving the state. And even if there was I’m not sure it would matter. They’ll ultimately find their way to Arlington Heights and the value of the franchise will grow exponentially as a result.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 10:58 am
The Bears have plenty of leverage with Arlington Heights.
I am doing fine here and I think the good people in Arlington Heights and the Bears are ok too
Why does the state need to sign off on a TIF deal with Arlington Heights?
Property taxes don’t go to the state.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 11:06 am
===Sox getting funding for a new stadium===
Let’s start here
The St. Pete Sailors was a real thing, with a real stadium and real leverage… because MLB revenues are not wholly shared like the NFL, and Big Jim and others stopped the clock, and while baseball at that time had no time elements, the Sox had such leverage that Big Jim himself worked legislators.
===Ricketts success with garnering support for their development of the property around Wrigley Field.===
Explain the apples and “apples” to the Cubs here, and exactly what the Ricketts “won”…
Again, MLB revenues differ than the NFL, so like Milwaukee or any other comparison, the Cubs created a “Cubs Network” while the NFL creates accounts for EFT transfers.
It should be noted if we want to go apples to oranges further, how was the United Center financed, how did that building get built via balance sheets.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 11:07 am
“I have sense other NFL franchises have been able to execute deals for new stadiums with little or no public financing”
Not so, taxpayer funding of NFL stadiums is the norm…
“Of the 30 stadiums housing the 32 NFL franchises, 27 were completed using taxpayer funds”
https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3748808-nfl-stadium-subsidies-are-a-giant-turkey-for-taxpayers/
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 11:12 am
I understand why the Senator introduced the legislation as she said to start a conversation. That conversation is going nowhere fast. The new president of the Bears better be able to read the room, get on board maybe get some infrastructure dollars for the project and move on. In my opinion I think he is shrewd enough to understand this concept. Good PR and common sense are always in short supply at Halas Hall. Hopefully Mr Warren can fill that void.
Comment by regular democrat Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 11:13 am
=It’s too small and too cold for most of the season, and can never host the Super Bowl.=
Those are NFL concerns, not taxpayer concerns. And the NFL and Chicago Bears seem to be managing quite well despite these obstacles.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 11:19 am
===“Of the 30 stadiums housing the 32 NFL franchises, 27 were completed using taxpayer funds”===
So 5 weren’t?
So you can build a building without taxpayers’ money.
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 11:26 am
“and can never host the Super Bowl” Oh no [banned punctuation] A game that could only be played there maybe once every 10 years or so can’t be played there so we have to spend billions. /s
Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 11:29 am
===The Bears have plenty of leverage with Arlington Heights.===
I know it’s 4/20, - LP -, but slow down, it’s not even noon.
The Bears bought and closed on land without any guarantees, and are holding the bag on it “sitting there”
The Bears aren’t going to any other market, they are stuck with whatever “they get”, not whatever they can leverage.
How can you support such welfare - LP - as the state has yet to, according to you, balance budgets, and the real horrendous pain for the schools exists, it’s not like school boards are looking for lobbyists to support the Bears Bailout.
I’d change the water, maybe switch to gummies, maybe even enjoy 4/20 without the Bears…
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 11:30 am
I am glad this deal is dead right now.
=It would allow the village of Arlington Heights to control the negotiated-fee process, effectively cutting out school districts, much to their dismay.=
This is important, and their is legislation to curtail TIF’s which are simply legal theft.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 11:32 am
===maybe switch to gummies===
That’ll just make it worse.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 11:34 am
Again what state money are the Bears asking for?
Roads, sewer, property tax etc are local issues and aren’t paid for by Oswego residents. Don’t you think Arlington Heights should do what they think is best?
TIFS are not theft if they result in hundreds of millions of dollars in economic development and additional tax revenue that far exceed the lower property tax revenue the parcel was generating
Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 11:39 am
===Roads, sewer, property tax etc are local issues and aren’t paid for by Oswego residents. Don’t you think Arlington Heights should do what they think is best?==
First, start here;
Why is the legislation (that is knowingly bricked) necessary? Why? What is the goal?
I’ve already said, numerous times, any and all infrastructure *outside* the footprint that is necessary to support the project, if other items are met, I’d fully support. You’re arguing with yourself.
===TIFS are not theft if they result in hundreds of millions of dollars in economic development and additional tax revenue that far exceed the lower property tax revenue the parcel was generating===
Explain the school boards’ argument as to even why they need lobbyists, and those lobbyists aren’t hired to support “all Bears Bailout things”?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 11:44 am
The Bears bought the property, they can fix it up with their own money. No mooching.
Comment by Jerry Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 11:47 am
The legislation is an obvious ruse so people like yourself can get all worked up about it. Legislators can all pat themselves on the back about how they didn’t support state tax subsidies for the Bears.
At the end of the day, if it suits both of their interests Arlington Heights and the Bears work out a deal and you can complain about something else.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 11:53 am
=The Bears have plenty of leverage with Arlington Heights.=
That’s debatable and even if they did how does that translate to the legislature? If Arlington Heights decides to extend generosity to the Bears they’ll have to contend with their own residents. And those folks seem somewhere between ambivalent to absolutely no. There is no groundswell of support to create a TIF district for the Bears.
They were not enticed to go to Arlington Heights. And many residents would prefer they stay put or go elsewhere.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 12:04 pm
Ambivalent or no are the only two sentiments by Arlington Heights residents about tax subsidies for the Bears?
The Village Trustees voted unanimously last Fall against banning tax subsidies.
I would consider that a groundswell of support for a TIF district.
https://abc7chicago.com/amp/chicago-bears-arlington-heights-park-racecourse-international/12291963/
Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 12:11 pm
===The legislation is an obvious ruse===
If that’s true, then you and people at the Chamber, etc. were in on it.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 12:15 pm
- LP -
Aren’t you one that complains about frivolous legislation?
You still haven’t explained the concerns of school boards. Why is that?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 12:19 pm
===if it suits both of their interests Arlington Heights and the Bears work out a deal and you can complain about something else.===
Then you should be the first to ask all state legislation be pulled?
I’m not complaining, friend, your confusing complaining with pushing back on legislation you, yourself, called a “ruse”
The Bears should just build the thing on their own and be done with it, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 12:50 pm
==The Bears have plenty of leverage with Arlington Heights.==
Apparently not, since even Arlington Heights’ representatives in the GA are pretty lukewarm on the Bears’ idea.
==I am doing fine here and I think the good people in Arlington Heights and the Bears are ok too==
If everyone’s doing fine, then the Bears can stop asking for special treatment.
==Why does the state need to sign off on a TIF deal with Arlington Heights?==
Because Payment In Lieu of Taxes is currently illegal in Illinois. It’s not a TIF deal.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 12:57 pm
==Again what state money are the Bears asking for?==
They’re asking for a change in state law.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 1:00 pm
===Why does the state need to sign off on a TIF deal with Arlington Heights?===
TIF districts are created by the state.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 1:03 pm
Thank the goddess. The NFL and the owners can build stadiums without needing a dime of taxpayer money, and they absolutely should. Not to mention that this idea was terrible for everyone but the team’s owners. I hope the other project gets to move forward and the citizens of Arlington Heights stop getting yanked around for political points.
Comment by Squirrel Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 1:53 pm
When you divert tax revenue from other taxing bodies it might be legal but it is still theft.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 3:14 pm
****The Village Trustees voted unanimously last Fall against banning tax subsidies.****
Huh? You’re not going to ban the use of something that you already use. There are currently four active TIF districts in Arlington Heights. The oldest started in 2002. The most recent in 2020.
But just because it’s a tool they use doesn’t mean they will use it for the Bears.
Comment by From DaZoo Thursday, Apr 20, 23 @ 3:46 pm
I think they are just waiting to see who the Bears pick at #9 in the NFL draft tonight.
Comment by levivotedforjudy Thursday, Apr 27, 23 @ 3:24 pm