Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Credit Unions: A Smart Financial Choice for Illinois Consumers
Next Post: Showcasing The Retailers Who Make Illinois Work
Posted in:
* What would it take for you to support a smallish state investment in a new Chicago Bears domed stadium on the lakefront?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:09 pm
Previous Post: Credit Unions: A Smart Financial Choice for Illinois Consumers
Next Post: Showcasing The Retailers Who Make Illinois Work
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
A lobotomy.
Comment by Save Ferris Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:10 pm
A “smallish” state investment into my mortgage
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:11 pm
Buy my house so I can move out of state.
Not
One
Penny
Ever
Comment by Huh? Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:12 pm
Same as any public park - free admission.
Comment by vern Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:14 pm
Taking this seriously, a plan that acknowledges that two other teams want a new stadium would be a good start.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:18 pm
Super Bowl tickets? I’d love to see a Super Bowl and not have to travel for it. I might be the only one, but I support a world class facility in Chicago. I like the jobs it would create, and the revenue it would bring into Chicago for an occasional Final Four… an occasional Super Bowl… might even support an Olympic Bid.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:18 pm
Great parking options for tailgate and quick egress - ample washrooms - transparent deal with school and the public in terms of paying off bonds. No PSL for season ticket owners so for the first 20 years.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:19 pm
Not a whole lot short of me getting a significant ownership stake in the Bears so I personally profit. But if I owned the Bears I wouldn’t put their new stadium on the lake because that’s dumb. Put the new domed stadium in the space the Nashville White Sox will never occupy.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:19 pm
How about rebuild Arlington Park … first
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:20 pm
Nothing. No public money for billionaires, ever. And no stadium on the lakefront, ever.
Comment by JoanP Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:21 pm
Trade union support for Bring Chicago Home
Comment by Steve Goodman's Ghost Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:24 pm
The bigger issue is not turning over public property to private control, period. It is one thing for the city or state to own public property used for the public good. It is something else entirely for the city or state to give up control over that property or related facilities, while still being on the hook for costs. Especially when the property in question is lakefront parkland which is necessarily finite.
If this were some random piece of state owned property (say, the Thompson Center) all I would care about is achieving maximum dollar value for the state and maximizing investment. I don’t care about what Google does with the Thompson Center, I care about the state getting max value.
Comment by Homebody Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:26 pm
An independent, credible study demonstrating that the incremental benefits to taxpayers are likely to be substantially greater than the amount taxpayers put in. I don’t mean an industry white paper that says “for every construction job, five more are created, which means the state will enjoy new tax revenues from all those people’s salaries.” I mean a study from the same constellation of researchers who have been showing for decades that public investment in sports stadiums tend to be a bad deal for taxpayers. If they say this time’s different, that’s worth consideration.
Comment by W44 Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:28 pm
Chicago to QC passenger rail that will transport QCitizens to the Bears games
Comment by This Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:28 pm
No stadium or any such monstrosity on the lakefront. Protect that lakefront and its open areas at all cost (the cost in this case is just saying no.)
Comment by Don't Bloc Me In Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:29 pm
A realistic presentation that would show economic and financial benefit to the city and state, and not a losing investment.
The Sox attendance was very low yesterday. Many fans don’t want to support a bad team. The Bears don’t seem to have that problem, as their stadiums may be full even though they are long-term bad. What happens if this draft and rebuild is a bust, like the others before, and fans finally stop coming? The team would have to improve, to warrant investment. May this be the time for true improvement.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:29 pm
Sorry, pretty sure there isn’t anything that will make that acceptable.
Though just for fun, define “smallis.”.
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:32 pm
Dang it. Smallish
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:32 pm
Taxpayer dollars only for infrastructure improvements in the area (which will improve access to the museum campus). It certainly is a nicely done design, albeit very pricey, but the new stadium really is a monolith on the lakefront, meaning the Bears still have to win the approval (and lawsuits) from Friends of the Parks, which will increase stadium costs even more.
Comment by Soxfan Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:43 pm
Perhaps a smallish stake in the team for every governmental body that kicks something in…with a commensurate share of the profits, of course.
No, the NFL won’t allow this. But as long as we’re postulating one fantasy, what’s a little more?
Comment by Benjamin Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:44 pm
On the lake front? I’m more and more against them building their than ever. I really think the best place for them is in AH.
Smallish - less than $250 million? To remain on the lake?
Some sort of direct revenue share off events to the state. And a time table to pay it off, nothing over a 10-15 year note.
I’d also balk at a blanket extension of the 2% hotel tax. That’s a lot of money (but not enough for new stadiums) that IF the tax should stay I would much rather see it fund schools, parks, or something more worth wile in the city. That change I’m sure needs a state law passed, but I don’t want that tax extended 40 years for the Bears.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:44 pm
It must remain a publicly owned asset, and the Bears must payoff the remaining debt from the last football stadium they begged the taxpayers to build for them.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:47 pm
Assuming snark is allowed, and taking the question literally: a free water taxi to conveniently reach the first domed stadium built offshore in state-owned waters.
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:48 pm
I get to play QB for the Bears one series a game. Opposing team agrees not to rush the passer.
Comment by Common Sense Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:48 pm
Taxpayer dollars only for infrastructure improvements in the area (which will improve access to the museum campus). It certainly is a nicely done design, albeit very pricey, but the new stadium still is a monolith that dominates the lakefront. This means the Bears will have to win the approval (and lawsuits) from Friends of the Parks, which will increase stadium costs even more, so any approval must require an ironclad guarantee of no taxpayer dollars expended in the inevitable cost overruns.
Comment by Soxfan Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 1:51 pm
Infrastructure help as with many large companies but never on the lake. Maybe more if they moved to another area in Chicago that needed help but I can’t see it. They got the money both Bears and Sox if they can’t figure it out they can ask Cubs for ideas
Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:01 pm
I want no part of any of it let them build a stadium with Bears money not mine.
Comment by clec dcn Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:13 pm
Seizure of the team from the McCaskeys.
Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:19 pm
Because I live three and a half hours away at a minimum, I have never been to a Bears game (or Sox or Cubs game). These are properly, Chicago teams, not Illinois teams.
I could not be convinced to accept the state to offering any money to (either Chicago) team. Those would be tax dollars I spent, but never would see a return on, nor see the benefit of investing.
Comment by H-W Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:26 pm
A state investment for the CHICAGO Bears? Find some benefits for those in the South….Marion, Carbondale, Cairo, Vienna, etc. I see no reason why everyone south of I-64 shouldn’t be offered season tickets, free, for the next the years.
Comment by In The South Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:27 pm
Um, I guess put a race track around the perimeter of the field like it had in the 40s-50s. But even then… no.
Comment by Matty Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:31 pm
How many stadiums should 1 taxpayer be asked to pay for in one lifetime?
Perhaps the three sports teams could collaborate to figure out how to do it with fairness and equitability. Then we’ll talk.
Comment by Politix Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:32 pm
Like many other taxpayers?…I couldn’t care less about football…or where it’s played…Nope.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:32 pm
===Taxpayer dollars only for infrastructure improvements in the area (which will improve access to the museum campus).
This. Infrastructure and perhaps some improvements that might benefit the Bears and the public as a whole.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 2:33 pm
The only things that I can imagines supporting would be infrastructure improvements to the area that will be a benefit at all times and not just when the stadium is being used.
If thing like intersection improvements or maybe on/off ramps would assist both the stadium and the neighborhood, that might make sense.
Actually constructing a stadium? No. Nothing would get me to support it.
Comment by Crash Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 3:01 pm
reopen Meigs Field….
Comment by old guy Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 3:19 pm
Nothing. Arlington Heights is the right play for many reasons.
Comment by JDuc Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 3:27 pm
The team pays 99.99999% of the costs, reduce ticket prices 60% and maybe I might be entertained into thinking about supporting them.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 3:29 pm
“What would it take for you to support a smallish state investment in a new Chicago Bears domed stadium on the lakefront?”
To have every child in Illinois fed, housed, clothed, and educated to the same degree that Virginia McCaskey’s children and grandchildren have been fed, housed, clothed and educated.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 3:50 pm
When the McCaskeys agree to sell the team.
Comment by Bald&Beautiful Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 3:52 pm
A transfer of a majority share in the team to the State of Illinois.
Comment by Duck Duck Goose Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 4:13 pm
For that lakefront to be Horseshoe Lake State Park
Comment by SOIL M Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 4:23 pm
The Bears being sold to someone else and the new owners footing 99% of the bill. If they do all of that, okay sure… fine. The state can toss in ten or twenty million bucks.
Comment by TJ Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 4:55 pm
Many of the same business people who want a new stadium at the public’s expense when there are so many more important priorities are the same people who worked so hard to defeat the fair tax. If they wish for the state and city to help (read taxpayers)they need to commit to a fair tax now.
Comment by Addison Woodward Woody Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 5:01 pm
A small percent of the gross revenue stream from all revenue sources (gate, streaming/broadcast contracts, betting, merchandise, etc.) for entertainment events (sports, music concerts, etc.) with more than $1M of revenue per event such that at least a $100M (maybe $500M) could be distributed through ISBE to support extra curricular programs. (This is in addition to revenue to pay of loans and capital investments)
Comment by BigPicture Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 5:25 pm
=To have every child in Illinois fed, housed, clothed, and educated to the same degree that Virginia McCaskey’s children and grandchildren have been fed, housed, clothed and educated.
– MrJM=
It just cannot be said better that that. I stand with MrJM.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 5:35 pm
Pretty much some form of mental derangement.
We need to get beyond the mythology of the downtown stadium developed with state money as any kind of economic driver. Not a nickel, ever.
https://www.cagw.org/sites/default/files/pdf/FieldsofFailure.pdf
Comment by Flapdoodle Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 5:37 pm
I’m standing next to MrJM on this one. Now for hypotheticals…1) Infrastructure-only deals (no tax giveaways). 2) Private money pays for the stadium and any related (hotels, casinos, Wally Worlds, etc.). 3) IF any bonds issued by Devel Authority, Income from non-football uses (concerts and other sports, etc.) is split between Bears, Inc and the Devel Authority to pay off those bonds. In short, don’t fall for the “partership” that the rich investors make all the money, while taxpayers bear all the risk.
Comment by thisjustinagain Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 6:08 pm
Nothing. Hard no.
Comment by Ryan Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 6:23 pm
In exchange for public financing, the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago are given a ownership stake in the Bears. The annual profits from the ownership are divided equally between paying off the bonds used in the new stadium and as bonus pension payments (NOT as a substitute for other funding). Once the bonds are paid off and the pension systems are at least 90% funded, then the profits can be used for whatever Illinois and Chicago decide.
Comment by MyTwoCents Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 7:17 pm
Part of me says to do the Green Bay model, but most of me doesn’t support the state owning a professional franchise.
Comment by Proud Papa Bear Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 7:28 pm
On the lakefront? Never. But…if this stadium were somehow built in a neighborhood closer to working folks who could benefit from all the infrastructure improvements and jobs, then maybe that could work.
Comment by Boomerang Thursday, May 2, 24 @ 8:26 pm
A facility that is also able to house all the downtown music festivals, therefore allowing that green space more access to the public. And better infrastructure to access the museum campus. And not putting that shiny new stadium right on the water.
Comment by Guy Probably Friday, May 3, 24 @ 6:19 am
Brandon resigning. Given the Bears recent draft success, I’d rank that as a “fair trade.”
Comment by Just a guy Friday, May 3, 24 @ 9:52 am