Chicago Bears 2026

Status
Not open for further replies.
#101      
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.

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.
 
#102      
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.
 
#103      
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.

First, the main point that the report/article you linked makes is that public/taxpayers' investments in sports facilities in the form of subsidies and direct payment (by issuing bonds) does not always pay off. This is NOT applicable here because, as been repeatedly stated, the Bears paid for the land and are/were offering to pay for the stadium in FULL. The situation at hand is NOTHING like the types of situations that report argues against.

Second, the proposed project was NOT subsidized stadium by any stretch. The Bears merely asked for guarantees that they won't be taxes at insane rate. I guess you can call a subsidy if the state/county refrain from tax at insane rate and agree to tax at lower (but is ultimately much reasonable) rate; I don't.

Third, the Bears' proposal included more than mere football stadium and 8-9 games a year. It was a full complex, with other activities, hotel(s), restaurants, museum, etc.

Fourth, I don't know why you felt the need to insert Pritzker as I did not really talk about him (I talked about the state and county as a whole, the entire political establishment). However, since you did, Pritzker was the one that messed up here. The last thing he wanted was to be the governor that oversaw the Bears' departure from the state. He gambled on strongarming the Bears, thinking they would not leave and that he can then sell himself as the tough guy who stood up to the billionaires (which is funny since he's the quitessential silverspoon billionaire who never worked a day in his life, and who has been using his daddy's and family's money to buy his political career), and it was the Bears who called his bluff.
 
#104      
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.
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:


AH isn't growing because there is no land to build on.
 
#105      
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:


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.
 
#107      
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:


AH isn't growing because there is no land to build on.
I find the Sun Times article very hard to believe - does this really add up?
 
#109      
The Bears are being asked to pay 5x more property tax than the HIGHEST paying NFL team.
yup

it’s fairly clear the state & county just don’t care if the Bears stay . the Bears board finally realized this and are making a decision in the best interests of the owners .

I think the McCaskeys are rich goofs, but I think Pritzker is a bigger , richer goof who sees this as a way for him to make political hay as a “champion of the taxpayer” , when in fact his 8 year track record is nothing but wasting money .

The Bears are asking for the land under the stadium to be taxed the same way as the rest of the league . Pritzker & county want to tax the land like residential real estate .
 
#110      
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 .
 
#111      
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:


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.
 
#112      
I find the Sun Times article very hard to believe - does this really add up?
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.
 
#113      
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.
yup
100% sure it was written by Johnson’s campaign staff & the paper just printed it . Not a word about any company or the 1000’s of residents leaving every year
 
#114      
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?

 
Last edited:
#115      
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:


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.
 
#116      
It pretty much disproves the thesis that no new jobs are coming to Chicago, which was always ridiculous.
Do you like this article better?

That article isn’t the gotcha you think it is.

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).
 
#117      
That article isn’t the gotcha you think it is.

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.
 
#118      
#119      
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.
 
#120      
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%.

Not good.
 
#121      
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.
No one”s disputing the project count. It’s what it measures that’s the problem.

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.
 
#122      
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
 
#123      
If the Bears do relocate this is tough for Chicago but a great day for Northwest Indiana.

Northwest Indiana has suffered greatly since the closure of much of America’s industrial might. Northwest Indi needs an economic boost badly and the relocation of the Bears will be a great start to that... along with the related new development in the area that will no doubt follow.

Chicagoland has always been a Region and not just the city limits.

The Bears have been looking to move for 50 years already (at least since 1970) and the State of Illinois had all that time to work something out over the years.

The long-suffering people of Northwest Indiana get something to build around. And let’s not forget all these folks from Illinois who are relocating across the border that wont mind a Bears move that way.

The Chicago Cardinals are now a long way off in Arizona. The Bears will be right in The Neighborhood.
 
#124      
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
I'm at 99.9% with them going to Hammond. Illinois Dems aren't interested and don't have the business acumen to get deals done with large corporations to keep them in the state. To not be able to even get a vote off on the last day of the session is laughable, yet sad at the same time

Pritzger, a billionaire businessman himself, can get these deals pushed through, but Chicago continually cuts him off at the knees. They always do. They try to find tax dollars everywhere possible to make up for their disastrous budgeting shortfall and they chase billion dollar corporations away with ludicrous tax ideas on how to scalp them. He put it right when he said that Chicago crushed the PILOT deal purely out of malice.

While the Bears are business buffoons who don't help themselves out by doing the work necessary to put their best foot forward, they'd be insane not to leave this state and just settle in with Hammond. They won't have to deal with the Chicago/Illinois BS and will actually be dealing with a state that has a functional governing body. Just cut bait. After people get over the sentimental attachment, which they will, common sense on why the left will settle in.
 
#125      
No one”s disputing the project count. It’s what it measures that’s the problem.

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.
I don't want to argue just to argue which I'm afraid we're doing now, but the Milken report is measure different things.

"The report does not measure facility investment, but such factors as wage and job growth, high-tech GDP, broadband access, housing affordability and economic inequality (via the GINI index)."

Job growth is definitely important--the other ones I find less impactful.

And from the article, Chicago was 2nd in per capita projects so it's not just a size effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back