CHICAGO | Da Bears | New Domed Lakefront Stadium Proposal

[Kngkyle]

All these numbers are kinda hard to judge without knowing what the leasing terms are. The city / taxpayers would "own" the stadium under this scheme but will they actually get any revenue from that ownership to offset their $900M contribution? If taxpayers fund 25% of the stadium they should get 25% of the revenue from naming rights, concessions, parking, ticket sales, etc.

Seems like this would be an important thing to know?

[VKChaz]

Always a good read on these matters

https://www.fieldofschemes.com/

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ good.

May tax payers everywhere finally revolt against these gross handouts of public money to multi-billion dollar corporations that study after study say do not pay off.


Fool us once, shame on you.

Fool us 87 times..... maybe..... finally...... shame on us?

You're absolutely right. I shouldn't wish anything remotely approaching this on Arlington Heights or anywhere else for this matter.....well, somewhere in Florida perhaps.


I started off hating everything about this new proposal, and with a few days of digestion and reflection, I've soured on it much further. It's even difficult to put into words how bad this is.

[DCReid]

I would say that taxpayers should only consider subsidies if they receive some type of ownership in the team in return. It's ridiculous that owners want to ask when the values of their holdings only go up when they build new stadiums. You only have to look at Jerry Jones and the Dallas Cowboys as an example. I guess I admire the rival Green Bay Packers for their public ownership in that regards, even though I am a NY Giants fan and did root (a little at least) for the Bears when I lived in Chicago in the 1980s.

[DePaul Bunyan]

This is all straight cap. No way this was the "real plan" all along. It's a terrible idea for all parties. The city and state are both broke and haven't had a balanced budget in years, and the McCaskeys aren't going to spend/borrow all this money for a stadium they won't own, especially after dropping $200m for AH.

[drell1emc]

The City will own the stadium, Public owned Hotel on the lake fromt, 14 more acres on green space, the ability to use the venue all year round. Football is 14 weeks 7 home games if we are lucky. There are another 45 weeks of use. lakeshore drive will be done correctly. There is an 2% tax that is for this very thing. I was totally against it to start but it makes sense if you step back look at it. JOBS!!!

[GeraldOB]

I think if public money is used for this deal the public should get something out of this deal. The Gold Coast area where the stadium is being proposed doesn’t need more help. Chicago’s open space along the lake is perfect without any mega developments. I suggest putting this proposal on the Chicago Evanston Border. the stadium can be shared with Northwestern University and could be built two blocks from the lake. The Skokie Swift train line could offer parking and rail service right into the stadium. Red line and Metra train stops are also a short walk. Eminent Domain should be utilized to improve lakefront access in this area. This area of Chicago has never maximized it potential because the lakefront is blocked by cemetery and a extremely small portion of the population East of Sheridan Road. A public investment here would revitalize Chicago and Evanston for miles around the area.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ The what area?


Fascinated by the post. That part comes off as written by someone in China or Eastern Kazakhstan, or AI gibberish. And then you appear to demonstrate some very specific local knowledge.
Love it. More please.

[gebs]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ The what area?


Fascinated by the post. That part comes off as written by someone in China or Eastern Kazakhstan, or AI gibberish. And then you appear to demonstrate some very specific local knowledge.
Love it. More please.

Yeah, the one-two punch of pro-stadium posts from completely new members doesn't at all scream "BOT" to me ...

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

The city and state are both broke and haven't had a balanced budget in years

The city had a surplus last year and the state has run surpluses for 3 straight years. Time for a new talking point.

[pullmanman]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

The city had a surplus last year and the state has run surpluses for 3 straight years. Time for a new talking point.

This thread isn't the right place for this conversation but I thought that's mostly true because of COVID-19 relief money?

To bring the conversation back on topic I don't support spending this much taxpayer money on this project. It is beautiful but only marginally changes the number of seats and won't drive new economic development the way they claim. We'd get the single token superbowl and that's the only major difference. We'd get the same events if the Bears spent their own money building a stadium they own elsewhere, like Arlington.

[Toasty Joe]

It's a bit of a slap in the face to have infrastructure that is literally crumbling and be proposing this when we haven't paid off the last renovation. The ROI on investing that $2B in transit and education seems like a no-brainer given the state of the CTA and CPS.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

All these numbers are kinda hard to judge without knowing what the leasing terms are. The city / taxpayers would "own" the stadium under this scheme but will they actually get any revenue from that ownership to offset their $900M contribution? If taxpayers fund 25% of the stadium they should get 25% of the revenue from naming rights, concessions, parking, ticket sales, etc.

Seems like this would be an important thing to know?

LOL

Although a new domed stadium would be built on lakefront parkland and owned by the Chicago Park District, the Bears are also seeking to dramatically sweeten for themselves the terms of a stadium lease that has been an almost constant source of contention between tenant and landlord over the years.

“They’re asking to keep all of the revenue from other events that might take place at the stadium,” Gov. J.B. Pritzker said Thursday. “If there’s a Beyonce concert, they want all of that revenue, too, and everything else that might happen there. There are aspects of this that are probably non-starters.”

Pritzker went further on Friday: “The deal that was presented didn’t take into account that taxpayers really aren’t going to do well under that proposal.”

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/b...0-%20sponsored

[Halsted & Villagio]

Yeah, I am with you guys. Lets find all the ways we can find, to keep this stadium thingy out of Chicago. In fact, anything that spells progress, anything that can host year round events, can create jobs and be a new attraction to Chicago, lets do all that we can to keep it out... and send it out into the suburbs... or better yet, to another city altogether.

Yep, that's the cool thing to do... to be cynical. Nothing says I am hip, urbane and smart than my ability to be cynical about all plans to grow and prosper this city.

Surely I jest. Yet surely many of these posts lambasting this stadium proposal are coming from people, who a). are friends of the park, or b). who live in the suburbs and want the stadium out there. But here are the likely facts of it -- for those that want the stadium in AH and for those that wonder why the Bears came back to the city:

Think about this. The real estate development AH was supposed to have and apparently costs around 4.6 billion and they want 2.3 billion from the state for a publicly owned stadium.

What AH allegedly proposed - 5.1 billion - is likely understated as they will need even more infrastructure and planned to build all sorts of commercial, retail and residential space and the Bears would own it all. That means asking for public funding is a stretch.

So realistically AH is probably close to 6-7 billion and they would need to fund that by largely private funding. So more than likely the Bears realized that AH would cost a sh*t ton more with limited public funding because they would own all of it. The conclusion?

They don't have the money for it ------ IMO.

Just my hypothesis based upon the few facts we have. So AH is was never going to happen. We can pretty much move on from that unless the Bears sell their ownership rights or cut a deal with another private investor(s) - super complicated under current NFL ownership guidelines - moreover, I don't see the McCaskey family willing sell the pie or give up a healthy share of the pie. In short, as long as the McCaskey family owns the Bears, that family building a privately funded stadium will likely never happen.

More importantly, in dealing with the post-Covid reality that just about all major cities are facing/high vacancy rates/slower development, etc. here, this stadium, is something that has the potential to spur development/growth/jobs/revenues. Instead of taking the easy way out by finding all the ways to not make this work, how about we put some real thought into it and try to find creative ways to make this happen... with the lone caveat being - so long as it is not on the backs of the taxpayers.

.

[Halsted & Villagio]

And kindly excuse me if my figures are not exactly correct -- I am ballparking it because I am in a rush/meeting coming up. But you get my point -- the Bears don't have the money to do the build in AH.

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

LOL

Although a new domed stadium would be built on lakefront parkland and owned by the Chicago Park District, the Bears are also seeking to dramatically sweeten for themselves the terms of a stadium lease that has been an almost constant source of contention between tenant and landlord over the years.

“They’re asking to keep all of the revenue from other events that might take place at the stadium,” Gov. J.B. Pritzker said Thursday. “If there’s a Beyonce concert, they want all of that revenue, too, and everything else that might happen there. There are aspects of this that are probably non-starters.”

Pritzker went further on Friday: “The deal that was presented didn’t take into account that taxpayers really aren’t going to do well under that proposal.”

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/b...0-%20sponsored

The Bears cant afford their own stadium in AH and want public welfare funds to cover the cost of a lakefront stadium. And they want to monopolize the venue and be first in the gravy train line for all venue revenues.

GO BUILD YOUR OWN DAMN HOUSE!

[Danillo]

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

...the Bears don't have the money to do the build in AH.

So what you're saying is the Bears have no leverage, and thus the city of Chicago shouldn't be pressured into making excessive contributions when the Bears currently have a perfectly good stadium?

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

And kindly excuse me if my figures are not exactly correct -- I am ballparking it because I am in a rush/meeting coming up.  But you get my point -- the Bears don't have the money to do the build in AH.

I would speculate that you are correct. The Bears likely got overwhelmed by the long-term financing and complications of owning and building an actual community and stadium in the suburbs. The city of Chicago also has much deeper pockets to snatch from.

That said, given that leverage is on the city's side, it makes even less sense to capitulate to the idea that the stadium needs to be built exactly where and how the Bears propose. It would be a needless self-own by the city to not dictate much more favorable terms.

The Bears can likely build this project much more cheaply (maybe even near the 2.5billion'sh they have committed) using primarily their own resources to build elsewhere in the city. In that scenario the approximately number of jobs are still realized without the city/state throwing in billions that is better spent elsewhere.

More importantly, in dealing with the post-Covid reality that just about all major cities are facing/high vacancy rates/slower development, etc. here, this stadium, is something that has the potential to spur development/growth/jobs/revenues.

Paying the penalty of extra billions by taxpayers is a rather convoluted and exorbitant method to gain a few thousand jobs to spur development. What development is this going to spur anyhow? It isn't located within a neighborhood. If it was actually located near a real neighborhood perhaps the stores and restaurants that would adjoin it would have a chance of staying open on non-event days.

Let's be real, this Bears plans effectively do little to improve accessibility or integration of the Museum Campus into the fabric of the community and downtown Chicago. There is no light rail or plans for below grade street connections from Bronzville to the Lakefront. This will essentially be an amusement island from which the Bears want to be the primary beneficiaries, but away from event days will be scarcely more utilized than it is now.  

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

The Bears can likely build this project much more cheaply (maybe even near the 2.5billion'sh they have committed) using primarily their own resources to build elsewhere in the city. In that scenario the approximately number of jobs are still realized without the city/state throwing in billions that is better spent elsewhere.

Agree with your comment. However, the city/state will likely be investing in some form of infrastructure wherever a new stadium is built. Few places are prepared to accept 70k people at a time. It was one of the sticking points in AH, too.

[gandalf612]

Originally Posted by drell1emc

The City will own the stadium, Public owned Hotel on the lake fromt, 14 more acres on green space, the ability to use the venue all year round. Football is 14 weeks 7 home games if we are lucky. There are another 45 weeks of use. lakeshore drive will be done correctly. There is an 2% tax that is for this very thing. I was totally against it to start but it makes sense if you step back look at it. JOBS!!!

LMAO please be serious, the number of events that require that many seats is vanishingly small. Half the concerts at the smaller United Center don't sell out. Let's not act like suddenly this turd is gonna be full 365 days of the year.