Chicago Bears 2026
You're completely missing the part (and the point) about the other tax revenues and economic benefits from having a project like a Bears stadium and related facilities. Sales tax in Chicago/Cook is north of 10%, and that's not even accounting for all the entertainment, hotel, etc. taxes that the towns and county (not sure if state does to) levy. I'm not sure how can you not the see the huge difference in terms of economic return and tax revenue from $3B business development vs. $3B residential real estate.
Also, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the area or not, but you're making a huge unsupported (and unlikely to occur) assumption that those 6,000 units would be bought. That's about 18,000+ people (assuming 3 per unit); where are these people coming from? The town (AH) is not growing, and most of the surrounding areas are similarly not growing population wise (many are actually shrinking). There is no need for new/added 6,000 units/residences in that area. There are also no businesses that would attract new residents, etc. At best, these people who will be moving from other areas in Cook (or maybe the surrounding counties), so you're not truly "adding" property tax revenue; rather, just shifting it from one area to another.
I'm not missing it at all. I believe (and many, many studies back it up) that the benefits are small. 8 home games/year. Maybe some concerts? I think the economic benefit from 10K new residents greatly outweighs the benefit from 8 home games where most fans drive in for the game and then drive home after. And like I said, there are many studies that back it up.
I grew up in AH so I'm very familiar with the area. The town isn't growing because there literally isn't anywhere left to build there. If new housing were built, people would come.
KBLEE
- Montgomery, IL
Pritzker didn't sell the Thomson Center to Google. The State sold it to Michael Reschke and Quintin Primo for only $105M via a complicated transaction that involved trading a portion of it for a portion of the former BMO-Harris HQ. The prices was well below what if would have sold for pre-pandemic if the preservationist wouldn't have put up such a stink. Then those two agreed to a build-to-suit with Google. Pritzker took some credit for someone else's creativity.
I don't think the lakefront proposal was stopped by right-wing grievance. The Democratic Socialists block of the City Council (which is Johnson's base) were likely louder opponents. The schadenfreude people are experiencing from the Indiana announcement is from the right because of the seeming ineptitude of the State and City fully controlled by Democrats bumbling the whole process.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Lol we've got a lot of Illinois Policy Institute readers in here I see.
Forget apportioning credit or blame, a privately financed renovation of what had been a white elephant that will put Google in the Loop at that scale is a big win for the city. This place is more than its politicians.
The lakefront has never been meaningfully under consideration in this. Any lakefront-related proposal has only been a notional talking point for one side or the other, the fact that Soldier Field stands there as unloved city-owned property still owing nine figures of bond debt makes it impossible to start the conversation on the standard NFL terms.
The McCaskey's don't have deep enough pockets to think as big as it would take to make a great lakefront stadium a reality.
How many more years did you want the Bears to keep playing the game. It takes 2 and only one side was doing anything. This didn't just start a few months ago.
The problem is what they were doing was screwing up. Again and again.
Again, where would those people come/move from? Using that area for residential development will be pretty useless. For residential development to make sense, be justified, and be net positive economically and from tax revenue purposes, you need one or both of: 1) population growth in the area, and 2) business growth. You would also generally need housing shortages. None of these factors exist.
That town and the surrounding area are not growing because there is no population growth in the area, or in the Chicago metro in general--namely, in the Illinois parts. The Chicago area (particularly the parts in Illinois) has not seen any measurable population increase almost 20 years.
As for the business side, what would those people be moving for? Existing businesses in that area, at least ones that are big enough to result in substantial population growth (e.g., Motorola, which was there at one point) are gone and not coming back. Are you aware of any businesses moving or expanding there?
That area has NEITHER. Most people living there work in the city (unless they are working in school systems, health care, or services/entertainment).
So, as I mentioned, those would be people moving within Cook county, or at most from one of the other counties in Chicago area.
As for your last point, about studies showing that the benefits are small, I'll admit that I have not done the research there, but I'm going to guess that this mostly pertains to situations where the taxpayers were asked to pay for the stadium. This is NOT the case.
Do the research. Start with the Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/sports-jobs-taxes-are-new-stadiums-worth-the-cost/
An exhaustive study addresses virtually every argument being raised by proponents. The bottom line is subsidies are not worth the public investment. Parenthetically, stadiums in Europe are constructed without any public subsidies.
For all of the Pritzger Derangment Syndrome reflected in this thread, I am thankful he is calling the Bears bluff.
An exhaustive study addresses virtually every argument being raised by proponents. The bottom line is subsidies are not worth the public investment. Parenthetically, stadiums in Europe are constructed without any public subsidies.
For all of the Pritzger Derangment Syndrome reflected in this thread, I am thankful he is calling the Bears bluff.
Tax breaks are (at least partially) paying for the stadium. Taxpayers are being asked to give up $100MM+ every year forever.
And to your other point, we don't know where they would moving from or where jobs are coming from. A quick google search shows:
Chicago No. 1 in annual ranking for corporate relocations
The city had 223 corporate expansions, projects and new entrants in the Chicago area last year.
chicago.suntimes.com
AH isn't growing because there is no land to build on.
The Bears are being asked to pay 5x more property tax than the HIGHEST paying NFL team.Tax breaks are (at least partially) paying for the stadium. Taxpayers are being asked to give up $100MM+ every year forever.
And to your other point, we don't know where they would moving from or where jobs are coming from. A quick google search shows:
Chicago No. 1 in annual ranking for corporate relocations
The city had 223 corporate expansions, projects and new entrants in the Chicago area last year.
AH isn't growing because there is no land to build on.
They're being asked to pay much LESS than the normal tax rate.
I find the Sun Times article very hard to believe - does this really add up?Tax breaks are (at least partially) paying for the stadium. Taxpayers are being asked to give up $100MM+ every year forever.
And to your other point, we don't know where they would moving from or where jobs are coming from. A quick google search shows:
Chicago No. 1 in annual ranking for corporate relocations
The city had 223 corporate expansions, projects and new entrants in the Chicago area last year.
AH isn't growing because there is no land to build on.
Cook county's property taxes are insane.
per google
most NFL stadiums are publicly owned by cities, counties, or state authorities, making them legally exempt from property taxes. For the few stadiums that are privately owned or subject to commercial taxes, annual property tax bills typically range from $6 million to $14 million, though teams heavily lobby to freeze or reduce these through long-term agreements
stadiums are simply not taxed heavily on real estate as they are not a burden , and sales taxes pay for municipal services on game days .
most NFL stadiums are publicly owned by cities, counties, or state authorities, making them legally exempt from property taxes. For the few stadiums that are privately owned or subject to commercial taxes, annual property tax bills typically range from $6 million to $14 million, though teams heavily lobby to freeze or reduce these through long-term agreements
stadiums are simply not taxed heavily on real estate as they are not a burden , and sales taxes pay for municipal services on game days .
Tax breaks are (at least partially) paying for the stadium. Taxpayers are being asked to give up $100MM+ every year forever.
And to your other point, we don't know where they would moving from or where jobs are coming from. A quick google search shows:
Chicago No. 1 in annual ranking for corporate relocations
The city had 223 corporate expansions, projects and new entrants in the Chicago area last year.
AH isn't growing because there is no land to build on.
Just because you and others keep saying that, it does not make it right or true. Cook County, as a whole, has seen no meaningful population growth in some time, and in fact, has seen population decline since 2000. AH is not growing because there is no people to grow it, or Cook county as a whole.
Yes, some of that is because are moving away, but the reasons they may be moving away (cost of housing, cost of living, excessive tax burden, etc.) will apply when/if you build more housing. You will not find 15,000+ ADDITIONAL people to move to AH, and if you do, these would be mostly people moving within Cook County (or maybe few from surrounding counties), and this will NOT help the state/county, as the burden to service those people (the way state/local governments operate) will far exceed the added property tax revenue generated from those new homes.
I live in Chicago and I know the local political (and I'm no righty by any stretch). These are facts.
The state and county will LOSE from the Bears moving, and they are forcing them to move because the politicians are too stupid, arrogant, etc. to care. At any rate, those who think the Bears are asking for break, and arguing against it, will get their wish.
It reads like an advertisement. It doesn't mention any closings or size reductions. This isn't a net increase article, just a size increase or new business. Fluff article.
It pretty much disproves the thesis that no new jobs are coming to Chicago, which was always ridiculous.
Do you like this article better?
Chicago ranked No. 1 metropolitan area for corporate relocations for 13th year in a row
Chicago is once again the top U.S. metropolitan area for companies looking to relocate.
www.cbsnews.com
Last edited:
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
That article isn’t the gotcha you think it is.It pretty much disproves the thesis that no new jobs are coming to Chicago, which was always ridiculous.
Do you like this article better?
Chicago ranked No. 1 metropolitan area for corporate relocations for 13th year in a row
Chicago is once again the top U.S. metropolitan area for companies looking to relocate.
It’s a count of “projects” and the org behind it lumps three totally different things into one number: local companies expanding, companies moving in, and brand-new businesses.
Most of that, in any big metro, is just existing companies renewing leases. Chicago “wins” this 13 years running mostly because it’s the 3rd-biggest metro and the ranking rewards raw volume. Houston, Dallas, NY and Atlanta are right behind for the same reason.
The way that data is shared, it only adds, never subtracts. Pritzker used this same “we’re #1 in relocations” line back in 2022, the same few months Chicago lost Boeing, Caterpillar AND Citadel headquarters.
The numbers that actually matter: Illinois is 48th of 50 states for people leaving, the metro lost 35,000+ residents last year, and downtown office vacancy just hit a record high 28.6% (was at 12% pre-pandemic).
That seems more accurate.
Seems like most of the big relocations are to Nashville or Austin.
I don't think I have heard of a big name going to Chicago.
I'd hate for actual facts and data to get in the way of your pre-existing mindset. And to the other poster--it's not renewing leases. It's new projects. It's really pretty easy to click through one link to the actual data, but I'll help you:
It's not perfect data, but I'm not claiming Chicago is #1 for job growth--I'm just saying all the Chicago is dead folks on here are wrong.
HUD also does a measure of household income growth by region. Nationally the most recent numbers have the US average at 3.4%; Chicago was 1.1%.I'd hate for actual facts and data to get in the way of your pre-existing mindset. And to the other poster--it's not renewing leases. It's new projects. It's really pretty easy to click through one link to the actual data, but I'll help you:
It's not perfect data, but I'm not claiming Chicago is #1 for job growth--I'm just saying all the Chicago is dead folks on here are wrong.
Not good.
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
No one”s disputing the project count. It’s what it measures that’s the problem.I'd hate for actual facts and data to get in the way of your pre-existing mindset. And to the other poster--it's not renewing leases. It's new projects. It's really pretty easy to click through one link to the actual data, but I'll help you:
It's not perfect data, but I'm not claiming Chicago is #1 for job growth--I'm just saying all the Chicago is dead folks on here are wrong.
Site Selection ranks metros by the raw number of projects across the whole region. The article says so itself: “Chicagoland counts 10,000+ square miles and 9.4 million people”, so of course it racks up a big number. Bigger footprint = more projects.
But that same article also looks at Chicago in Milken’s Best-Performing Cities report, which measures the stuff that actually tells you if a place is worth moving to: job growth, wage growth, and housing affordability. Chicago finishes in the high 100s. Milken ranks about 200 big metros, so that’s near the bottom. For comparison, Indianapolis is 17th, Charlotte 23rd, Dallas 35th.
So both things are true. Chicago is No. 1 at counting buildings going up across a giant region, and near the bottom on whether wages, jobs, and affordability are any good for the people who live there.
“We’re No. 1 in projects” tells you something got built somewhere across seven counties. It tells you nothing about where 15,000 new Arlington Heights residents are supposed to come from. And the ranking that does speak to that, from your own source, says Chicago is one of the weaker big metros on exactly the things that pull people in.
Adam Schefter’s source inside Halas Hall says the move to Indiana is real and “barring anything very strange, it’s a done deal.”
my own personal needle for "move to Hammond" is now at 80% . I don't think there is any chance Pritzker and Illinois Dems offer any real estate tax breaks that the Bears feel are necessary to stay. I don't think it even gets called for a vote .
oh well. it doesn't really matter to me
my own personal needle for "move to Hammond" is now at 80% . I don't think there is any chance Pritzker and Illinois Dems offer any real estate tax breaks that the Bears feel are necessary to stay. I don't think it even gets called for a vote .
oh well. it doesn't really matter to me