ECON Chicago Bears told to 'pay for their own damn stadium' after proposal has taxpayers footing $2 billion

Red Baron

Paleo-Conservative
_______________
Chicago plunges further into dysfunction as the days of sports stadium civic welfare are ending in the United States.

Fair Use Cited
-----------------
Chicago Bears told to 'pay for their own damn stadium' after proposal has taxpayers footing $2 billion

Gov. Pritzker, D-Ill., previously said he's 'not sure' that paying billions for the stadium is one of 'the highest priorities for taxpayers'

Gabriel Hays By Gabriel Hays Fox News
Published April 27, 2024 6:00am EDT

Gov. J.B. Pritzker, D-Ill. and financial experts are expressing skepticism at the possibility of taxpayer money being used to pay for the Chicago Bears’ proposed new stadium.

There has been hesitation towards the NFL franchise’s plans to spend $4.6 billion on building a new enclosed stadium along with an improved lakefront area, half of which would be paid by the state’s taxpayers.

"The stadium itself would cost $3.2 billion to build, with another $1.4 billion in proposed infrastructure improvements," the Chicago Tribune reported.

The Chicago Bears reportedly will pledge $2.3 billion, which includes funds from the NFL.

"But the Bears’ plan includes an additional $2.3 billion in public financing, along with refinancing outstanding debt for prior publicly financed stadium projects for the Bears and White Sox," the Tribune reported.

Taxpayers would reportedly pay for the infrastructure improvements as well as around $1 billion in "new borrowing" to pay for the stadium.

However, considering the cost and how much debt the state already is in over similar projects, the governor, state lawmakers and finance experts believe that the money would be better spent on other priorities.

Local outlet "The Lincoln Courier" reported on Pritzker’s skepticism of the plan.

"It's very important to me with all that the state needs to accomplish that we think about what the priorities are. There are a lot of priorities that the state has, and I'm not sure that is among the highest priorities for taxpayers," the governor said during a recent press conference.


State Senate President Don Harmon, D, sided with Pritzker, the Courier reported.

"At first glance, more than $2 billion in private funding is better than zero and a more credible opening offer. But there's an obvious substantial gap remaining, and I echo the governor's skepticism," Harmon reportedly said.

State House Speaker Emanuel "Chris" Welch, D, said he doesn’t expect the proposal to get enough votes among state representatives to pass.

Joe Ferguson, the president of the Civic Federation, a fiscal watchdog group, told the Tribune that the proposal is expensive, especially considering how much debt the state is already in thanks to similar projects.

"There’s not a lot of information necessary to say one of these (plans) actually is viable, or whether it’s a way to take us to the cleaners when we’re already carrying hundreds of millions of dollars of debt for the last time we did something like this," Ferguson stated. "I think Gov. Pritzker has spoken to this exactly right, with a real wariness about public funding of sports stadiums. We need to see reliable, thorough revenue projections for this before we can even open the conversation."

J.C. Bradbury, a sports economist, told The Tribune that the money would be better spent on different projects or not spent by the taxpayers at all.

"The Bears aren’t going to leave one of the most iconic football markets in the country. Tell the Bears to pay for their own damn stadium, and if they don’t like it, to go jump in Lake Michigan," he said. (LOL!)

Democratic Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson reportedly expressed support for the project.

Johnson said the plan will "result in no new taxes on the residents of Chicago." (LOL!)

During a recent press conference at the Bears’ current home, Soldier Field, Chicago Bears President Kevin Warren proclaimed that he and the team are still pushing forward for the new stadium.

"We feel that the time is now. I mean, every year that we wait it's another $150 million to $200 million of increased costs," he said.

 

adgal

Veteran Member
"There’s not a lot of information necessary to say one of these (plans) actually is viable, or whether it’s a way to take us to the cleaners when we’re already carrying hundreds of millions of dollars of debt for the last time we did something like this," Ferguson stated. "I think Gov. Pritzker has spoken to this exactly right, with a real wariness about public funding of sports stadiums. We need to see reliable, thorough revenue projections for this before we can even open the conversation."

Considering how much the state of Illinois is paying for illegal immigrants (so far, $478 million) and if $1.4 billion in badly needed infrastructure improvements on the lakefront are included in the costs—if the ROI numbers are good—I don't see this as a bad investment. There are a lot of businesses in Illinois that make money from the Chicago Bear franchise.
 

Josie

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Not the first time hearing about taxpayers money being used to fund privately owned projects like this.
Yes, it happens all the time. The powers that be decide that a new structure for a team would be a dandy idea because of all the additional revenue it would bring into the city. However, the city may have not proclaimed themselves to be a sanctuary city and isn't being inundated with an army of illegal invaders that they have to take care of. Sorry Bears fans...looks like you will be sitting outside, braving the elements, cheering on your football warriors for another lackluster season. Any hopes you had for a new venue died when the first busload of invaders came. The money just isn't there anymore. Kinda sucks having to walk that sanctuary status, doesn't it?

Look for the Bears to be moving soon.
 

Red Baron

Paleo-Conservative
_______________
The Bears Arlington Heights deal is on hold because the local teachers unions went tax crazy and then the Cook County Assessor is wildly overvaluing the property. The Bears former President failed to negotiate the tax deal -before- buying the 300+ acres in suburban Arlington Heights.

Fair Use Cited
-------------------
Governor's office: Bears' new stadium proposal a 'nonstarter'

Associated Press
May 1, 2024, 08:42 PM ET

CHICAGO -- The Chicago Bears' proposal to fund a new lakefront stadium remains a "nonstarter," Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker's office said after top aides met with team officials on Wednesday.

The Bears unveiled a nearly $5 billion plan calling for public funding last week for an enclosed facility to be built next to their longtime home at Soldier Field. Though the governor did not rule out more discussions, the team clearly is facing an uphill battle.

"As the Governor has said, the current proposal is a non-starter for the state," press secretary Alex Gough said in a statement. "In order to subsidize a brand new stadium for a privately owned sports team, the Governor would need to see a demonstrable and tangible benefit to the taxpayers of Illinois. The Governor's office remains open to conversations with the Bears, lawmakers, and other stakeholders with the understanding that responsible fiscal stewardship of tax-payer dollars remains the foremost priority."

Pritzker's chief of staff Anne Caprara and deputy governor Andy Manar met with the Bears, who called it "a productive conversation."

"We share a commitment to protecting the taxpayers of Illinois and look forward to further discussions," the team added.

The Bears' plan calls for $3.2 billion for the new stadium plus an additional $1.5 billion in infrastructure. The team and the city said the project would add green and open space while improving access to the city's Museum Campus.

The proposal calls for $2.025 billion from the Bears, $300 million from an NFL loan and $900 million in bonds from the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority. The funding from the ISFA would involve extending bonds of the existing 2% hotel tax.

Mayor Brandon Johnson gave a full-throated endorsement last week, saying the project is in line with Daniel Burnham's "Plan of Chicago." He said there would be no tax hikes or new taxes for Chicago residents. But Pritzker and other state legislators are skeptical of the plan.

The Bears spent $197.2 million more than a year ago to purchase the site of the shuttered Arlington International Racecourse from Churchill Downs Inc. They envisioned building a stadium on the 326-acre tract of land some 30 miles northwest of Soldier Field, with restaurants, retail and more on the property -- all for about $5 billion, with some taxpayer help.

The Bears had said they would pay for the stadium in Arlington Heights, with taxpayer dollars covering infrastructure costs such as roads and sewers. Those plans stalled, with the team citing a property assessment it said was too high.


 

Red Baron

Paleo-Conservative
_______________
Look for the Bears to be moving soon.

I don't think the NFL would allow a city the size of Chicago to be without an NFL franchise.

More likely scenario IMO is the NFL forces the Bears to sell the team to new owners who will stay in Chicago and have the resources to build their own stadium.
 

Josie

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I don't think the NFL would allow a city the size of Chicago to be without an NFL franchise.

More likely scenario IMO is the NFL forces the Bears to sell the team to new owners who will stay in Chicago and have the resources to build their own stadium.
I don't think they would move out of the Chicago area. They won't stay in the outdoor facility in the city. Maybe to some place out in the 'burbs. Bolingbrook Bears, anyone?
 

Ogre

Veteran Member
Chicago's not the only city. Voters in Jackson County (Kansas City) soundly defeated what was basically an extension of a current tax to fund a new stadium for the Royals, and repairs/upgrades to the Chief's stadium. Part of the problem was where the Royals wanted to build their new stadium - tried to railroad id through (and got derailed).
 

end game

Veteran Member
Considering how much the state of Illinois is paying for illegal immigrants (so far, $478 million) and if $1.4 billion in badly needed infrastructure improvements on the lakefront are included in the costs—if the ROI numbers are good—I don't see this as a bad investment. There are a lot of businesses in Illinois that make money from the Chicago Bear franchise.
Advocating for the redistribution of income?

5th Amendment takings clause:

“Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
 

Loretta Van Riet

Trying to hang out with the cool kids.
I don't think the NFL would allow a city the size of Chicago to be without an NFL franchise.

More likely scenario IMO is the NFL forces the Bears to sell the team to new owners who will stay in Chicago and have the resources to build their own stadium.
I preferred the Racetrack. It was a thrill to have lunch in the "Million Room".
 

DFENZ

Contributing Member
I don't follow Pritzker very much, but I am fairly certain that this is the first statement of his that I actually agree with. Why should any governor - or any lawmaker for that matter - rob from the public to subsidize any private endeavor?
I don't see this as a bad investment. There are a lot of businesses in Illinois that make money from the Chicago Bear franchise.
Then maybe Da Bears should go shake those businesses down for the money.
 

adgal

Veteran Member
Advocating for the redistribution of income?

5th Amendment takings clause:

“Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
I don't see anything in what I said advocating for private property to be taken without compensation. No one is talking about condemning private property in order for the stadium to be built.
Municipalities often partner with businesses through TIF funds and other deals if the governing agency feels that the partnership will end up benefitting the community. If the Bears are offering infrastructure improvements that the city would have to do anyway - and if the numbers seem to benefit the community - then why not invest in the stadium?
 

kyrsyan

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I don't see anything in what I said advocating for private property to be taken without compensation. No one is talking about condemning private property in order for the stadium to be built.
Municipalities often partner with businesses through TIF funds and other deals if the governing agency feels that the partnership will end up benefitting the community. If the Bears are offering infrastructure improvements that the city would have to do anyway - and if the numbers seem to benefit the community - then why not invest in the stadium?
Most of the time those infrastructure improvements are only needed because of the new structure.

Down here, the counties have taken to charging the ingoing businesses for those expenses. Occasionally they can get local tax payers to support a temporary sales tax to cover the cost for the businesses, if the locals really want the development done. But people have been taking a hard look at that lately because those extra sales taxes seem to end up being permanent. Or lasting for excessive amounts of time because extras got added.
 

Walrus

Veteran Member
Chicago's not the only city. Voters in Jackson County (Kansas City) soundly defeated what was basically an extension of a current tax to fund a new stadium for the Royals, and repairs/upgrades to the Chief's stadium. Part of the problem was where the Royals wanted to build their new stadium - tried to railroad id through (and got derailed).
I don't really get the new Royals owner and what kind of a burr got under his saddle to want to build a new stadium in downtown KC. The present facility (Truman Sports Complex or whatever it's called) is ideally situated to the east of downtown, and both Kaufman and Arrowhead stadiums are iconic facilities with great freeway access and gobs of parking.

There must be something wrong with the skeleton in Kaufman (the Royals) that requires a complete stadium rebuild instead of refurbing it. Refurbishing Arrowhead is all which needs to be done unless the Chiefs get an offer from Kansas which they can't resist (west side over by the Speedway). It'd be nice to have a domed stadium but not necessary, although it does pretty much disqualify KC from hosting a future Super Bowl.

The whole sports complex is managed as a single entity which contracts with Jackson County, MO. I can see the point that the county shouldn't have to bear the entire cost burden when all the adjacent counties (and states) get a free ride. Jackson County, of course, gets all the billions of revenue from the clubs themselves but the economic benefits are scattered through the entire metro area. (I'd say Metroplex but that would no doubt trigger some of my Texican brethren and sistern who think that the DFW zone is the onliest one which could be named that.

What I really don't understand about this entire kerfuffle is the relationship between the Jackson County executive (Frank White, who is a legendary KC Royal alumnus) and the relatively new Royals owner who wants to move the stadium to downtown KC. Personally I think it's a ridiculous move but those two have gotten cross-threaded somewhere along the way.

That usually means mo' money needs to be shaken out of the club in order for a deal to be done.
 

Knoxville's Joker

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Standard fair. The sports teams force the muninicipalities to pay for the new facilities, but the sports team gets to use for free effectively. Just wait till they say wait a minute, we built this for you, you are paying rent on this for every day and hour it is your home and do that to bleed the sports team to pay for the infrastructure and facility. I suspect longer term that is the way it will go. Then the fans will scream about ticket prices and then they will be told you can't over charge for seats and the price is this...
 

end game

Veteran Member
I don't see anything in what I said advocating for private property to be taken without compensation. No one is talking about condemning private property in order for the stadium to be built.
Municipalities often partner with businesses through TIF funds and other deals if the governing agency feels that the partnership will end up benefitting the community. If the Bears are offering infrastructure improvements that the city would have to do anyway - and if the numbers seem to benefit the community - then why not invest in the stadium?


I brought the first paragraph relevant to my statement over from this PDF. Feel free to read the whole document of 77 pages. I did years ago.


2002 Drawing the Line Between Taxes and Takings 1

1
Calvin R. M assey, Takings and Progressive Rate Taxation, 20 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 85,
104 (1996). We will call this examp le the “B ill Gates Tax.”

2
Robert Stanley, DIMENSION S OF LAW IN THE SERVICE OF ORDER : ORIGINS OF THE FEDERAL
INCOM E TAX, 1861-19 13, at 152 (199 3) (citing Joseph Choate, prominent opp onent of progressive
income tax in late 1800s).

3
Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960). A tax on a “named individuals or [on]
easily ascertainable members of a group” might be an unconstitutional on grounds entirely unrelated
to the Takings Clause, as a bill of attainde r, if it impose d “punishme nt.” Un ited States v. Lovett, 328
U.S. 303, 315 (1946), discussing the B ill of Attainder Clauses, U.S. Const, Art. I § 9 cl. 3 (barring
Congress from passing bills of attainder); Art. I § 10 cl. 1 (same for state legislatures). The Supreme
Court has stated that “confiscation of property” is a form of punishment for purposes of the rule
against bills of attainder. Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 , 474 (1977). This
article does not consider further the possibility that taxation of one person or a small, identifiable
group might am ount to a bill of attainder. Note that ma ny of the taxes we will discuss do not identify
individuals by name, or imp act an “easily ascertainab le” gro up of perso ns, and so wo uld no t implicate
the bill of attainder clauses in any event.

I. Introduction

When government taxes, it takes citizens’ property, usually money, to fund
various projects. The Takings Clause declares that the government must pay
compensation when it takes private property. Requiring compensation for taxation
would immediately bankrupt the state: it would have to return immediately all tax
receipts to meet this compensation duty.
This shows that the Takings Clause cannot reach all taxes. The fundamental
question addressed by this article is, what forms of taxation, if any, are a taking and
require compensation? To make this question concrete, consider Calvin Massey’s
extreme example: “Surely an income tax of 100% imposed on a single individual —
for example, Bill Gates — would violate the Takings Clause. If that is so, then the
problem becomes a matter of degree.”1 This example is nothing new. An early critic
of the income tax feared ever-increasing exemptions and marginal rates that would
concentrate the burden of income taxation on the wealthy few:

If you approve this law, with this iniquitous exemption of $4 ,000 , and this comm unistic
march goes on and five years hence a statute comes to you with an exemption of $20,000
and a tax of 20 percent … how can you meet it in view of the decisio n which my op ponents
ask you now to render [upholding the income tax]?2

A tax singling out one or a handful of citizens offends the Supreme Court’s
repeated invocation that the primary purpose of the Takings Clause is “to bar the
Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all
fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.”

3 Thus the notion that taxes are never takings is untenable; the label “tax” confers no immunity to the
principles of the Takings Clause.

From OP:

"But the Bears’ plan includes an additional $2.3 billion in public financing, along with refinancing outstanding debt for prior publicly financed stadium projects for the Bears and White Sox," the Tribune reported.

Taxpayers would reportedly pay for the infrastructure improvements
as well as around $1 billion in "new borrowing" to pay for the stadium.



When the New York Yankees completed the new Yankee Stadium in 2009, the final construction bill was an estimated $2.5 billion. Of that, nearly $1.7 billion was financed by tax-exempt municipal bonds issued by the city of New York.
Because the interest earned on the municipal bonds is exempt from federal taxes, a large amount of tax revenue that would have been collected—had the bonds been issued as taxable—went toward the construction of the stadium. In other words, the Yankees received a federal subsidy to build their stadium. How much? About $431 million. That’s a lot of money, but it gets worse.

The loss in federal tax revenues was even higher than the subsidy to the stadium. High-income taxpayers holding the bonds receive a windfall tax break, resulting in an even greater loss of revenue to the federal government. In the case of Yankee Stadium, the additional loss was $61 million. That is, the federal government subsidized the construction of Yankee Stadium to the tune of $431 million federal taxpayer dollars, and high-income bond holders received an additional $61 million.†

The Yankees, of course, aren’t the only team to finance their stadium using tax-exempt municipal bonds. Since 2000, 35 other professional sports stadiums have also been financed with tax-exempt bonds.
In “Tax-exempt municipal bonds and the financing of professional sports stadiums,” Brookings Senior Fellow Ted Gayer, Austin J. Drukker, and Alexander K. Gold quantify the federal subsidies given to finance professional sports stadiums built or majorly renovated since 2000, and the total loss in federal tax revenue.

All together, the federal government has subsidized newly constructed or majorly renovated professional sports stadiums to the tune of $3.2 billion federal taxpayer dollars since 2000. But because high-income bond holders receive a windfall gain for holding municipal bonds, the resulting loss in total revenue to the federal government is even larger at $3.7 billion.

Do stadiums benefit taxpayers and local economies?

With so much money at stake, it’s worth asking: Should the federal government be spending money on these stadiums? Federal subsidies are justified for infrastructure projects that provide a public good across states, but local sports stadiums clearly do not meet this criterion.

Indeed, there is little evidence that stadiums provide even local economic benefits. Decades of academic studies consistently find no discernible positive relationship between sports facilities and local economic development, income growth, or job creation. And local benefits aside, there is clearly no economic justification for federal subsidies for sports stadiums. Residents of, say, Wyoming, Maine, or Alaska have nothing to gain from the Washington-area football team’s decision to locate in Virginia, Maryland, or the District of Columbia.
So why is the federal government still subsidizing their construction?

How Congress tried—and failed—to stop stadiums from receiving federal money

Until the early 1950s, most professional sports stadiums were privately built. That changed in 1953 when the Boston Braves were lured to Milwaukee by a new stadium built with public money. Since then, public funding of stadiums has been the norm.
In 1986, Congress tried to rein in this practice with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. But the reforms backfired, and instead encouraged state and local governments to offer generous financing packages in order for the financing to qualify for
the federal subsidies.

How to stop the federal cash flow to private sports stadiums

Gayer, Drukker, and Gold argue that the most direct way to eliminate the practice of stadiums receiving federal money toward construction is for Congress to eliminate the “private payment test” for stadiums. By doing so, any stadium used primarily for “private business use” (that is, all professional sports stadiums) would no longer be eligible to receive federal tax-exempt financing.
An alternative approach would be to limit, rather than eliminate, the federal tax subsidy by mandating tax-exempt stadium bonds be deemed “qualified private activity bonds,” which are subject to a statewide volume cap.



To learn more, download the full paper from Ted Gayer, Austin J. Drukker, and Alexander K. Gold.
You can also download the complete set of data on 45 stadiums built or renovated since 2000, 36 of which received federal subsidies.
† Download the paper for specifics on how the total revenue loss for each stadium is calculated. All figures are quoted in 2014 dollars. The $492 million in revenue loss attributable to Yankee Stadium is calculated using a discount rate of 3%.
 

Kathy in FL

Administrator
_______________
Not the first time hearing about taxpayers money being used to fund privately owned projects like this.

We have the same problem in Tampa. However, it is used for a lot more than just professional football through out the year. Concerts, big truck show-off shows, some college bowl games have been played there, etc. I can't remember them all off the top of my head. I've been in the stadium a handful of times and I think only one of them was for a professional football game. LOL
 

Wildweasel

F-4 Phantoms Phorever
I don't see anything in what I said advocating for private property to be taken without compensation. No one is talking about condemning private property in order for the stadium to be built.
Municipalities often partner with businesses through TIF funds and other deals if the governing agency feels that the partnership will end up benefitting the community. If the Bears are offering infrastructure improvements that the city would have to do anyway - and if the numbers seem to benefit the community - then why not invest in the stadium?
Maybe because the numbers don't benefit The Right members of the community? If your plan doesn't include numbers that grease the right palms in Chicago, and if it's a large enough plan grease palms in the state house, your plan ain't going nowhere.
 

end game

Veteran Member
Maybe because the numbers don't benefit The Right members of the community? If your plan doesn't include numbers that grease the right palms in Chicago, and if it's a large enough plan grease palms in the state house, your plan ain't going nowhere.
Read above where the feds provide funds. Where exactly do those funds come from? Redistribution of wealth
 

Sacajawea

Has No Life - Lives on TB
With how extensively games are filmed, perhaps these stadiums should be smaller. Especially given how many people have given up watching them.
 

Knoxville's Joker

Has No Life - Lives on TB
We have the same problem in Tampa. However, it is used for a lot more than just professional football through out the year. Concerts, big truck show-off shows, some college bowl games have been played there, etc. I can't remember them all off the top of my head. I've been in the stadium a handful of times and I think only one of them was for a professional football game. LOL
What gets me is that they are public facilities. They charge vendors and venue operators big dollars to use the facilities whereas decades ago the space was used for free. This taxation for use is further worsening the ability of folks to get affordable public entertainment now. And the cities would make more in sales tax than they would if they only made money from renting out the space.

So really if we want this to stop, we just say if your facility was built or financed using state or federal tax money, you are not allowed to charge for use of the facility regardless of who owns said facility. Stop the money grab by munincipalities on usage of the facilities and a log of the insanity will stop as local governments will no longer be able to recoup costs aggresively.
 

Ractivist

Pride comes before the fall.....Pride month ended.
Amortize that number over less than a dozen games a year.......perhaps some cross usage goes on...but who cares.

I say, paint the old stadium, change out the seating maybe...new scoreboard, whatever. Make do.

Same message for public education. They play the same game. It's to redistribute your wealth. Like invaders....the list goes on.
 

OZARK

Senior Member
Ask the people in St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland about how it is to loose a NFL team

What it its economic impact

KC is going to face this issue as well
 
Top