Bears Stadium news

[mul21]

15 minutes ago, Banedon said:

That report is quite long, and that's like...one line of it.  And I don't see where it says anything about them actually leaning towards Hammond.  It's not written by the Bears...so how could it?

Cook County Treasurer's Office - Chicago, Illinois

The way I'm reading the "Chicago officials" is local politicians and if they decide to punt, then the Bears are SOL unless they decide to fund everything themselves, which we know will never happen.

[Wilson A2000]

4 hours ago, mul21 said:

The way I'm reading the "Chicago officials" is local politicians and if they decide to punt, then the Bears are SOL unless they decide to fund everything themselves, which we know will never happen.

Unless the ground in Hammond is unsuitable to hold a stadium

[Wilson A2000]

[Outshined_One]

3 hours ago, Wilson A2000 said:

Here's the report they were discussing.

Pappas was a blowhard, but Andy Grimm actually had a number of interesting points.  This was one particularly interesting point that was raised:

Quote

But there are many sites across Cook County where a private development draws visitors from outside the immediate community, generates sales taxes and employs workers on a similar scale to what the Bears have projected for their stadium complex, despite having relatively smaller footprints.

Old Orchard Mall in Skokie draws 13 million customers annually, generates more than $50 million in state and local sales tax revenue – compared with $27 million projected by the Bears for the team’s development – and employs 2,500 people at a location that is open 363 days per year. The property tax bill for the 74-acre mall was $17.6 million in 2024.

As those of you in the north/northwest burbs (likely) know, Old Orchard is a bit of a dead zone at the moment with a handful of anchor tenants, along with ongoing discussions regarding converting parts of the mall into residential spaces.  The fact that it still pulls in that much tax revenue puts things in perspective regarding the Bears stadium.

[mul21]

As Bernstein pointed out (and I think that report does as well), you're not looking at just the stadium here, you have to look at the development as a whole.  First, what tax dollars are being generated currently by an unimproved site vs. what tax dollars, even at a reduced rate, will be generated by a new stadium.  Also, those tax breaks ONLY apply to the stadium itself in most cases, so all the entertainment complex development that happens around the stadium will be taxed at the going rate and generate additional income for the municipality and state.

[Wilson A2000]

3 hours ago, Outshined_One said:

Here's the report they were discussing.

Pappas was a blowhard, but Andy Grimm actually had a number of interesting points.  This was one particularly interesting point that was raised:

As those of you in the north/northwest burbs (likely) know, Old Orchard is a bit of a dead zone at the moment with a handful of anchor tenants, along with ongoing discussions regarding converting parts of the mall into residential spaces.  The fact that it still pulls in that much tax revenue puts things in perspective regarding the Bears stadium.

But won’t the new stadium bring a lot more tax revenue than Soldier Field currently does? It will be a dome and will have a lot more big events all year. It will also raise the property tax dollars all around the stadium. The state is expecting to borrow from this tax increase for some of the infrastructure work needed.

[WrigleyField 22]

3 hours ago, mul21 said:

As Bernstein pointed out (and I think that report does as well), you're not looking at just the stadium here, you have to look at the development as a whole.  First, what tax dollars are being generated currently by an unimproved site vs. what tax dollars, even at a reduced rate, will be generated by a new stadium.  Also, those tax breaks ONLY apply to the stadium itself in most cases, so all the entertainment complex development that happens around the stadium will be taxed at the going rate and generate additional income for the municipality and state.

Theres no real evidence to support that. Maybe that's the case, but ultimately what Bears and AH negotiate and what Bears actually build is a black box.  Bears desire for tax certainty isn't being met with any certainty of larger development.

 

Aka they'll come looking for more to get the entire parcel developed.

Edited yesterday at 12:23 AM by WrigleyField 22

[WrigleyField 22]

43 minutes ago, Wilson A2000 said:

But won’t the new stadium bring a lot more tax revenue than Soldier Field currently does? It will be a dome and will have a lot more big events all year. It will also raise the property tax dollars all around the stadium. The state is expecting to borrow from this tax increase for some of the infrastructure work needed.

Probably not. You can dig around other large capacity venues and there isn't a great track record for doing significantly more shows.  It will most likely just displace tax revenue with just small gains in new taxes.

[WrigleyField 22]

Just as one proxy of domed Chicago stadiums' potential.

https://www.billboard.com/top-stadiums-2/

https://www.billboard.com/top-stadiums/

https://www.billboard.com/2023-year-end-boxscore-charts/#pmc-protected-embed-3

With exception of Vegas, the top stadiums for concerts is usually just a market size list. And Soldier field a bottom half of top 10 venue globally. How much growth potential does the market actually have? The extra 5-6 months or whatever don't matter much because tours just aren't popular then. Or the ones that are active target 20k type venues. Or the Bears aren't gonna want the turnaround times that hosting concerts entail during their season.

 

Then you get into things like the mega events.  The Bears own optimistic economic projections was still only like one mega event every 3 years.  When it's said and done one every 5 years would be lucky. But so many of these events look for their own tax breaks and/or come with massive hosting and security costs they don't cover the incrimental revenue. 

 

Whats left? As convention center? Again, would that actually be additive or just displace Rosemont and McCormick convention opportunities?

[Outshined_One]

2 hours ago, Wilson A2000 said:

But won’t the new stadium bring a lot more tax revenue than Soldier Field currently does? It will be a dome and will have a lot more big events all year. It will also raise the property tax dollars all around the stadium. The state is expecting to borrow from this tax increase for some of the infrastructure work needed.

In short, it's complicated. Technically, the AH stadium would result in the Bears paying property taxes where they are currently paying none, so in that regard, it would increase the tax revenue. There also is the issue of the tax burden increasing for the local area, especially if AH has to shift it to homeowners if the Bears are paying a substantially lower amount, which is a fantastic way to piss off the locals.

So, the question that should be asked is, if the AH site were instead developed as residential/commercial, say like the Glenview Naval Air Station, would that be more beneficial to AH, Cook County, and Illinois than a massive stadium complex? That site won't remain vacant for long if the Bears pull up stakes and move to Hammond, so it's a valid question.