Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Teamsters on IDOT contract talks: ‘We are nearing the breaking-point and may be left with no other choice than to strike this winter’
Next Post: Migrant shelter population drops almost 7 percent since late December
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
Democratic leaders in the Illinois General Assembly have met with Related Midwest, the developers in talks with the White Sox to build a new stadium on vacant South Loop land known as The 78. […]
Related Midwest met with Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch, D-Hillside, on Jan. 24, while Illinois Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, held meetings with the developers on Jan. 25, according to both offices.
Developers did not ask for state money, but instead said they want the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority (ISFA) to be granted authority to “rearrange existing bonds.” They were also aware of Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s disdain for using taxpayer funds for sports stadiums — which is viewed as politically unpopular despite its prevalence in other cities. […]
According to someone close to the talks, there have been no discussions about creating new revenue or tax increases to help fund the new stadium. The goal is to work creatively within the current system.
Sources familiar with the plan say the development would include residences, offices, a hotel and dozens of restaurants and bars.
* From House Speaker Welch’s office…
Speaker Welch was briefed by the developer, Related Midwest. He said it was a very interesting proposal and is looking forward to learning more.
* From Senate President Harmon’s office…
President Harmon has not been briefed by the White Sox but has been briefed on the proposed surrounding development of the area. He looks forward to learning more.
* Gov. Pritzker was asked about the potential project today…
I don’t really want to opine about it because I don’t know what financing they’re looking for. … You know, my view in general is the taxpayer shouldn’t have to pick up any bills for private businesses that are trying to extend their franchise in the city or the state, other than the normal things that we help businesses with, like infrastructure and so on. But, again, I don’t know what’s been talked about.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 1, 24 @ 12:48 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Teamsters on IDOT contract talks: ‘We are nearing the breaking-point and may be left with no other choice than to strike this winter’
Next Post: Migrant shelter population drops almost 7 percent since late December
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
==“rearrange existing bonds.”
Code for borrowing more, pushing the maturity date out further and increased interest payments all made by taxpayers?
Comment by low level Thursday, Feb 1, 24 @ 1:00 pm
I agree with Pritzker’s take and consistency in addressing this issue. Be it the Bears or the White Sox, taxpayers don’t have an appetite for this.
But ultimately it comes down to what the legislature is willing to pass and whether or not that aligns with Pritzker’s stated views. Will see.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Feb 1, 24 @ 1:04 pm
That would still count as public financing, even if it technically would not require new taxes.
Comment by Nick Thursday, Feb 1, 24 @ 1:10 pm
“You know, my view in general is the taxpayer shouldn’t have to pick up any bills for private businesses”
JB is fine using Rebuild Illinois funds (source is motor fuel taxes, and car/truck registration fees) for certain projects…
“And on Monday, Pritzker said the state’s Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity will open a $5 million grant program for reproductive health care providers in Illinois. That money comes from the non-transportation portion of Illinois’ $45 billion infrastructure program, Rebuild Illinois. It can be spent on improvements, repairs, new construction, security upgrades and equipment, including vehicles that can be turned into mobile care units”
https://capitolnewsillinois.com/NEWS/illinois-to-invest-more-than-23-million-in-abortion-access-reproductive-health-care-initiatives
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Feb 1, 24 @ 1:12 pm
Forgive my ignorance- but what is wrong with the current Stadium. If i remember- it was built in the mid to late 80’s- seems perfectly suitable the several times I have been there?
Comment by Sue Thursday, Feb 1, 24 @ 1:25 pm
This seems at this point to be more about hype for the 78 than the Sox.
Comment by Jaguar Thursday, Feb 1, 24 @ 1:44 pm
Jaguar has a good insight.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 1, 24 @ 1:56 pm
== was built in the mid to late 80’s- seems perfectly suitable the several times I have been there?==
Yes. It opened April 1991 and still is a great place to watch a game
Comment by low level Thursday, Feb 1, 24 @ 3:01 pm
Reinsdorf already got public money for Comiskey II, he can either pay for Comiskey III himself or cry crocodile tears about potentially needing to move to Nashville or somewhere else if he doesn’t get his way.
Comment by TJ Thursday, Feb 1, 24 @ 3:25 pm
Nice try white Sox for trying to spin this as some kind of amazing op for the people of chicago, but hard pass. Go find another state/municipality who will pay $600 million for a bad baseball brand. Reinsdorf and company should invest in and around the current stadium to build revenue ops - and maybe invest in building a better team while they’re at it. How much more taxpayer dollars do we have to throw at him and his teams?
Comment by Shytown Thursday, Feb 1, 24 @ 9:17 pm