Letters: The Bears are playing Chicago and Arlington Heights like a banjo

Bears CEO and President Kevin Warren is playing Chicago and Arlington Heights like a banjo! Or some would say like a yo-yo. I don’t say this in a negative sense. Warren is a smart executive and understands the nature and culture of doing business in modern times.

It is clear that he truly understands how the art of the deal is supposed to work: Play both sides against each other to get what you want. In other words, tease until one or the other bends. Additionally, Warren makes sure he answers the phone when Naperville, Rockford, Waukegan and Aurora call. He knows leverage.

Chicago and Arlington Heights could stop Warren’s charade. The two municipalities should get together and offer the Bears their final package. Give a mutually determined deadline with a take-it-or-leave-it understanding. This does not mean that there could not be additional negotiations after a municipality is chosen. What it means is the back-and-forth over location would be settled. Also, Warren would be forced to negotiate in good faith.

All appropriate legal matters should be considered with heavy penalties attached if a final deal is reneged upon. Chicago and Arlington Heights are spending a lot of time wooing the Bears when that time would be better spent on other pressing matters such as education, housing, infrastructure and safety. Remember that Warren’s focus is primarily about the Bears. The two municipalities’ mayors must give attention to a myriad of other pressing issues.

I don’t blame Warren for the game he is playing. In fact, I believe it is smart business. I suspect, however, that the Bears organization already knows what direction it wants to take. It wants a state-of-the-art stadium at a bargain.

I believe Chicago and Arlington Heights are sincere in their efforts to meet the Bears organization halfway. I also believe it is time for both municipalities to inform Warren that they will no longer participate in his squeeze.

It is time that both municipalities hit Warren with a sack.

— George Comer, Crown Point, Indiana

Arlington Heights should walk

Arlington Heights is like Charlie Brown, with the Bears being Lucy and the football. The Bears are going to keep jerking the football from Arlington Heights until they get what they want from Chicago.

Arlington Heights should brush itself off, walk away and consider itself lucky for dodging a bullet.

— Susan Hopson, Des Plaines

Measured approach to the Bears

The March 22 editorial about the Bears’ mazelike journey toward a new stadium is on the mark (“Hey, Bears. Is it Chicago or Arlington Heights?”).

A few comments: During his recent village hall meeting, Arlington Heights Mayor Tom Hayes said regarding the Bears stadium: “If something is meant to be, it will be.” This seems to encompass the calm, measured approach that Arlington Heights has taken in dealing with the Bears. The village has not panicked. Surely, Arlington Heights knows that the Bears must eventually come to the village since the McCaskeys and team President Kevin Warren will never, ever get a new stadium on the lake. And the Bears have already made a $200 million commitment to Arlington Heights.

Contrast this with Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s fantasy discussions with his pal Warren. Johnson, as with most challenges, is out of his depth here. The Tribune Editorial Board writes, “But this is looking more and more like a situation where a private entity is out-negotiating two municipal governments.” For Chicago, anyway, what else is new? The city has a long history of being outfoxed by hard-nosed corporate interests.

But Arlington Heights does not seem to be getting “out-negotiated.” Hayes should hang in there. He’s in the driver’s seat.

— Blaise J. Arena, Des Plaines

ADU bill needs our support

State Rep. Kam Buckner recently introduced a measure — House Bill 4213 — in the Illinois General Assembly to give all homeowners the right to build an additional small apartment or backyard house on their property. He deserves our support in getting it passed.

Known as accessory dwelling units, or ADUs — and colloquially in Chicago as coach houses, granny flats, and basement or attic units — these residences are a familiar home type across Illinois. ADUs offer a practical and flexible approach to mitigate rising housing costs by contributing to housing abundance where purchase prices and rents are going up. ADUs give individual homeowners an option to house a friend or family member or increase their income.

Embracing ADUs is a crucial step toward addressing our state’s housing challenges. In Chicago, ADUs are already adding homes in higher-demand neighborhoods. About 260 have been permitted in the last three years.

Unfortunately, this housing option is either limited or outright banned in much of Chicago and across most of the state. In Chicago, only homeowners in five pilot areas or in locations that have higher-density zoning rules can build ADUs, and the vast majority of Illinois communities forbid homeowners from building them. A few Chicago suburbs permit them, but every municipality has its own set of bespoke restrictions, putting costly and time-consuming administrative hurdles in front of families

While Chicago has permitted about 260 ADUs, the rate of new permits has stagnated, and the City Council hasn’t indicated if or when it’ll move to expand the pilot to the entire city. The state needs to step in to give people the option of renovating their home to meet their family’s needs.

I want to add an ADU to my two-flat so that my mother can live there rent-free while I rent out one of the flats to help pay for the mortgage. I believe it’s a common desire. ADUs have been allowed in Portland, Oregon, since the late 1990s, and a survey there found that a good portion of ADU homes were occupied for free by friends and family.

Looking at the issue more broadly, ADUs promote sustainable development by making efficient use of existing infrastructure. Repurposing underused space on residential lots — or in the house, by dividing an existing home — can add housing while minimizing the impact that can be associated with new construction projects.

I urge all readers to support Buckner’s bill and ask their local legislators to do the same.

— Steven Vance, urban planner, Chicago

Vacant sites near Blue Line stop

Regarding the op-ed “To meet CTA ridership goal, we need more housing near the ‘L’” (March 20): Speaking of housing, specifically dense housing near “L” stations, one empty site that really bothers me is near the Harlem Blue Line stop in Norwood Park. There are two large plots of vacant land just sitting there. One is across the street from Starbucks at the corner of Harlem and Bryn Mawr avenues, and the other just north of it at Harlem and Talcott Avenue. Both of these are a stone’s throw from the Harlem stop.

It is criminal that both of those sites are not being fought over to build three- to five-story apartment/condo buildings with ground floor retail. Ald. Anthony Napolitano, 41st, should be advocating for this daily.

— Brandon Wilson, Chicago

Concern over liability insurance

In response to the recent letter from Richard A. Arehart (“What about liability insurance?” March 20), are the only uninsured drivers in this country “migrants”? Aren’t there any U.S. citizens who are also uninsured drivers?

Just as we know our own citizens have a higher rate of committing crimes than our migrant population, this is probably also true when it comes to driving without insurance.

Perhaps “responsible auto owners” should first question why so much of their premiums are going to pay the exorbitant salaries of casualty company executives. (The CEO of State Farm was paid more than $24 million in 2022, according to Crain’s — and that’s only one of its executives.)

And finally, if you had already suffered the trauma of having to migrate from a country where your life was in danger and were trying to build a new life for yourself here, despite our glacially slow immigration system, and you were lucky enough to even find a car so you could get to the job you so desperately need to feed yourself and your family, would insurance be the first thing you would buy? I think not.

— Linda Townsend, Palatine

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

Related posts