The Chicago Bears stirred excitement and alarm Monday after carefully unveiling a piece of its plans for a new stadium and promising to spend more than $2 billion to help build a new publicly owned domed stadium on Chicago’s lakefront.
The excitement came from fans and supporters who cheered the thought of the Bears staying in Chicago. But the alarm came from vast corners around the city and state, as the Bears’ plans lacked significant details and raised a host of questions — not only about how much public funding would be required and how that revenue would be raised, but also about how the Bears might win over Chicago and Illinois lawmakers as well as overcome opposition from open space and historical landmark advocates.
Foremost among the new opponents was Landmarks Illinois. Although Soldier Field was delisted as a National Historic Landmark because of the 2003 renovation that squeezed a new stadium inside its old colonnades, the 100-year-old structure remains on the National Register of Historic Places.
The team’s proposal for a new stadium just south of Soldier Field calls for saving the colonnades and increasing green space. But an official with Landmarks Illinois said the organization wants to save the old stadium.
“We would be opposed to a plan that retains the colonnades but demolishes the rest of Soldier Field,” said Kendra Parzen, advocacy manager for Landmarks Illinois.
In addition, the city’s Lakefront Protection Ordinance calls for only “public uses” along Lake Michigan. Friends of the Parks, which successfully fought “Star Wars” creator George Lucas’ proposed museum in the same area, also opposes a new stadium on the lakefront for a private enterprise like the Bears, even if would be publicly owned.
While both those hurdles might be tough to clear, the public financing piece might be even tougher. The Bears’ proposal not only lacks any specifics about how much in taxpayer dollars they’d need to finish a new stadium beyond the team’s $2 billion investment, but taxpayers are also still on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars after public monies were used for the Soldier Field renovation 20 years ago.
Despite the lingering questions, the most positive response Monday came from Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, whose office has been working with the team recently.
“I have said all along that meaningful private investment and a strong emphasis on public benefit are my requirements for public-private partnerships in our city,” Johnson said in a statement. “The Chicago Bears plans are a welcome step in that direction and a testament to Chicago’s economic vitality.”
Johnson said he looks forward to talks with the team, state leaders and community stakeholders on how to “responsibly support” the team’s aspirations.
Later, the mayor told reporters that the talks between the city and the Bears are “headed in the right direction, I can say that.”
Monday’s announcement came more than a year after the Bears spent $197 million to buy the site where Arlington International Racecourse was located to build a proposed $2 billion stadium as part of a massive surrounding development. But following the purchase property taxes were raised to more than $10 million annually, and the team hasn’t reached an agreement with local schools to lower that amount.
While the Bears have said their focus is on Chicago now, Arlington Heights officials said the team told them Monday that its interest in the former Arlington Park site “has not changed.” Village officials continue to try to get the schools and the team to reach an agreement on property taxes.
“The Village’s focus remains on finding a path forward to a successful redevelopment of the former Arlington Park site,” Mayor Tom Hayes said.
The school districts — Palatine Community Consolidated School District 15, Arlington Heights-based Township High School District 214, and Palatine-based Township High School District 211 — issued a statement Monday that told the team to do whatever it has to do.
“We understand that under new leadership and with a new Chicago mayor, the Bears must explore all options and do what is best for their organization, including the possibility of staying in Chicago, as they made clear with their latest announcement today. We still believe that Arlington Heights remains their best option, but any proposed development must be fair for all parties involved.”
State Rep. Mark Walker, a Democrat from Arlington Heights, sounded somewhat resigned the Bears had actually turned the page from Arlington Heights.
“If they go forward with their lakefront plan, it’s our responsibility to make the best decision for Arlington Heights, Rolling Meadows, and our neighboring communities as well,” Walker said in a prepared statement. “I look forward to the many interesting proposals to come on the future of Arlington Park like new business development, more affordable housing, or welcoming centers for new arrivals.”
The proposal for a publicly owned stadium runs counter to the team’s stated goal of owning its own stadium with a surrounding entertainment and housing district — but could score the team other valuable advantages, a sports stadium consultant said.
The chief advantage is that public property doesn’t have to pay property taxes, avoiding the whole sticking point in Arlington Heights, Sportscorp Ltd. co-founder and President Marc Ganis said.
The team still could negotiate to get revenue from the stadium, including naming rights, personal seat licenses, tickets, sports betting, concessions and parking. The team also is counting on a large loan from the NFL, as well as the usual big money from television revenue.
Economists generally warn that tax dollars for stadiums are a terrible investment. Whether the deal would be good for the public all depends, Ganis said, on the cost and the payback. A domed stadium in Chicago, he said, would be the premier draw for rare mega events like the Super Bowl, NCAA basketball playoffs and concerts.
Complicating the issue is that the Chicago White Sox are seeking public funding for a new baseball stadium in the South Loop. The two teams have had conversations about jointly seeking taxpayer funding through the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority.
The state agency borrowed money to pay for both the Sox’s current stadium, which opened in 1991, and for the renovated Soldier Field, which reopened in 2003. Chicago still is paying off bonds for both projects. Annual debt service costs — mostly for Soldier Field — are projected to ramp up in the coming years, rising from $60 million in 2025 to $90 million seven years later, state records show. The bills total $582 million through 2032.
The 2% portion of the city hotel tax meant to pay the debt wasn’t enough recently, forcing the city to pay extra to cover ballooning payments. So any new borrowing to finance new stadiums presumably would need an added source of tax revenue.
All this is dependent on the Chicago City Council and Illinois General Assembly agreeing to such a deal, a prospect that is far from certain.
Gov. J.B. Pritzker has said he generally opposes subsidizing private companies. State Senate President Don Harmon suggested the two teams work on a single bill.
State Rep. Kam Buckner, a Chicago Democrat whose House district covers Soldier Field, has championed the idea of a public-private partnership for a new Bears stadium.
In an interview Monday, Buckner welcomed the Bears’ announcement.
“I also think that it’s helpful that they have not just come to this conclusion with their hand out,” he said. “I think in the history of Chicago sports, we’ve not seen a stadium proposal that started off with ‘Hey, we’ll start off with $2 billion.’ So, I’m excited about that. I think there’s still more questions than answers and we can address those things as they come to fruition.”
Democratic state Sen. Robert Peters, whose Senate district overlaps with Buckner’s House district in covering Soldier Field, previously had voiced skepticism about “corporate welfare” for a private stadium.
“If you are worth billions of dollars or you own billion-dollar sports franchises,” he said, “then you’ve got to put up your own capital here, and I’m intrigued to see how that goes.”
Tribune reporters Jeremy Gorner and Jake Sheridan contributed.
