Caller Bob still doesn't get why they negotiated at all.

This was the obvious end to this.

Kevin Warren with another win.

A five billion dollar company saved 3 million dollars. The equivalent of you or me saving $120. Let's enshrine Kevin Warren next to Carmen Policy.

It's a lot more than $3 million and they also got some clarity on the future taxes on the site once they build it.

Yet you thought there was nothing to negotiate and they just had to accept whatever they were told.

Now go bump a thread in the White Sox section.

You are the only person that gives a shit the Bears saved 4-6 million dollars. The equivalent to a bad backup offensive lineman in free agency.

So pretty soon the two mayor's will resort to blowing Kevin Warren to gain favor

The village hadn’t gotten a response yet from the team nor Arlington Heights-based Township High School District 214 and Palatine-based Township High School District 211, along with feeder Palatine Community Consolidated School District 15, which draw 60% of the property taxes from the site.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

Relax Curious Arlington. The stadium is going to happen and everyone is going to love it.

The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.

...except the Mcaskeys when they learn that there will be $40-50 million in unanticipated annual maintenance expenses for it.

Hate to tell ya this "Amigo", but that is sort of the essence of how life works.

...except the Mcaskeys when they learn that there will be $40-50 million in unanticipated annual maintenance expenses for it.

...except the Mcaskeys when they learn that there will be $40-50 million in unanticipated annual maintenance expenses for it.

Hate to tell ya this "Amigo", but that is sort of the essence of how life works.

I doubt it. Warren won't make the same mistake twice. He'll just make a lot of new mistakes.

The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.

It’s fair to point out that they appointed the Irish lady to head up stadium development and BOOM! steak dinner.

Editorial: Hey Bears. Is it Chicago or Arlington Heights?

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD | Chicago Tribune
March 22, 2024 at 5:05 a.m.

Whatever you think about the declared wishes of the Chicago Bears for a new stadium on Chicago’s precious lakefront, massive taxpayer subsidies and all, one thing is for sure: It’s a big ask.

And yet, the NFL team continues to flirt with Arlington Heights, where it purchased a large tract of land, the former home of the Arlington Park racetrack. On Monday, village officials made public their proposed settlement of the long-running property tax dispute between the Bears and three area school districts. In essence, the village has suggested a compromise, presumably to keep the Bears in the northwest suburban game: The team would pay $6.3 million in property taxes for the 2023 tax year, $3.6 million for 2024, and then be subject to “negotiated” annual increases of between 3% and 10% for the next three years.

That seems like a resonable idea to us, and well within the boundaries of what other teams pay, but our attention was caught more by an assertion from Arlington Heights Village Manager Randy Recklaus.

“Recklaus reiterated Monday he has spoken to Bears representatives,” the Daily Herald reported, “who confirmed their interest in the Arlington Park property as a potential stadium site has not changed, despite their current organizational focus on sites in Chicago.”

There are lots of weaselly words in play here, “focus” being just one. In reality, of course, the Bears organization is playing Chicago off against Arlington Heights, trying to squeeze out the best deal while retaining the leverage of another option. Smart idea, but only if you’re the Bears.

Let’s say the team gets its Chicago stadium and seeks to develop or flip its land investment in Arlington Heights. Better by far to have a tax deal negotiated in advance but only successful because the village still is trying to win the stadium contest and apparently thinks it has a chance. The details, of course, have yet to be determined. But this is looking more and more like a situation where a private entity is out-negotiating two municipal governments.

We have a modest proposal for Mayor Brandon Johnson. Tell your pal Kevin Warren, team president, that any further discussion of a lakefront stadium is hereby contingent on a commitment to remaining in Chicago. Period.

If the lakefront stadium, with all the attendant issues, flies, great for them. If it doesn’t, then the Bears should at least commit to pursuing another site in the city. There are other good locations. Pass some of the risk in this matter to the Bears and away from taxpayers.

As for Arlington Heights? The same should apply. Don’t make any more deals, Mr. Recklaus, unless you have a commitment. The Bears were not forced to buy that land in your village.

Right now, it looks like the Bears have one set of messaging for the suburbs and another for the city. The team should not be the only ones doing the blitzing.

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

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/03/22/chicago-bears-arlington-heights-stadium-soldier-field/

Chicago Bears and the Suburbs Were Never Going to Kick Off
The team changed its mind about building a stadium away from downtown. History proves that was the right choice.

March 23, 2024 at 7:30 AM CDT

The Chicago Bears see a lot to like in the suburbs, starting with all of that open space. So in 2021, the team, in hot pursuit of a new stadium, acquired 326 acres in Arlington Heights, a suburb 30 miles northwest of Soldier Field, the team’s current home.

Artistic renderings of the proposed suburban stadium district were tantalizing. They featured a domed stadium buttressed by newly-built comforts, including hotels, restaurants, a sportsbook and lots of parking. Who wouldn’t want to move there?

Turns out, the Bears. In a surprise shift (though some call it the plan all along), the team announced last Monday that it’s committed to spending $2 billion toward a domed stadium in downtown Chicago, which may require public funding, too.

Good. Suburban stadiums are an idea whose time has passed. If public money is involved, proponents claim that the new venue promotes economic development. But they typically fail at that.

Worse, regardless of who’s financing them, they’re an inefficient and unsustainable use of space. The better option is for teams to develop or remain near existing infrastructure and amenities and trust that fans will find them.

As I’ve argued before, public funding shouldn’t be used to build stadiums. But if a stadium must be built using taxpayer funds, build it downtown.

Historically, that’s what professional teams did. For example, Boston’s Fenway Park, completed in 1912, was built a short walk from Kenmore Square, a transit hub home to hotels and surrounded by neighborhoods. Over the decades, the square and the stadium have complemented each other, attracting culture and commerce on top of baseball.

As the 1960s dawned, pro franchises, like the Washington Senators, followed their White, middle-class fans (and their cars) out of the central cities into the suburbs during the White flight era. The Senators moved from DC to a suburban Minneapolis stadium situated on 164 acres of former farmland 10 miles south of downtown. It accommodated 15,000 parking spaces; transit options were limited to the occasional bus.

While the venue was functional and was in a prime location next to an interstate, it failed to attract additional economic development. That boost didn’t come until it was demolished and replaced by a highly profitable shopping mall.

Since then, room for entertainment districts — not parking spaces — has boosted the fixation on building publicly-subsidized stadiums in the suburbs. They are supposed to be more economically efficient: When sports aren’t happening, shopping, dining and drinking can be.

Yet these, too, are expensive investments with unimpressive returns.

For example, in 2017, the Atlanta Braves moved 10 miles from their old downtown home to a new spot located adjacent to an entertainment zone. Despite $300 million in public support, the returns remain debatable. According to a 2022 study by Kennesaw State University, there weren’t any significant new economic gains. Rather, business was diverted from one part of town to another.

That would be a middling outcome even without public investment. But when subsidies and direct investments in new infrastructure are added up, that’s a wasted opportunity. That funding could’ve been used to better existing neighborhoods in Atlanta’s core with new or improved amenities, such as transit stops, open public spaces and economic development assistance — grants and favorable tax policies — to attract businesses.

A suburban stadium would have to mimic the college campus feel of a downtown one. In the Southeastern Conference, for example, all but one of the football stadiums are within a 10-minute walk of a commercial establishment, from restaurants to supermarkets. On game day at the University of Tennessee, pedestrians pack the streets, restaurants, bars and, eventually, Neyland Stadium. Most schools — especially in the SEC — continue to resist the allure of the suburban stadium because moving would disrupt this vibrant ambiance.

In theory, at least, that’s the atmosphere the Chicago Bears were hoping to buy and build in Arlington Heights.

But the team, like many others based in downtowns, doesn’t need to create a Disneyfied version of a campus. They already have one. Soldier Field, the Bears’ current home, is located on the southern edge of one of the world’s best downtowns, adjacent to Lake Michigan, parks and the city’s Museum Campus. It’s not perfect by any means. For starters, there’s too much traffic in the area. But that’s an addressable problem that, if solved, would benefit not only football fans but the millions of people who visit that Museum Campus.

Meanwhile, a domed stadium (preferably completely privately funded) to replace the small and aging Soldier Field will be an excellent enhancement to the entire area. Not only would the Bears have a new home, but Chicago would gain an all-year facility to host events like concerts during the long winter. It may not generate huge economic returns, but it will be an amenity that can boost the quality of life across Chicago, not just in the suburbs.

Teams and public officials in other parts of the country are making that choice. In Virginia, the legislature just turned down a publicly-funded stadium-entertainment district development that would’ve moved the Washington Wizards and Capitals out of the heart of DC to undeveloped land near the National Airport. In Kansas City, the Royals recently chose a downtown location over one in North Kansas City for a $2 billion stadium district; half of it will be publicly financed, but it will place the team in close proximity to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure.

Professional sports teams should follow that lead and continue to make plays for their cities — not the suburbs.

Hate to tell ya this "Amigo", but that is sort of the essence of how life works.

Staying downtown would be great but the ownership issue is never mentioned by downtown proponents.

The decision isn’t just AH v. lakefront. It’s owning a stadium and all related revenues v. paying a ton of money to build a new park district facility.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

Caps/Wizards just gave up on moving to a strip mall in Virginia and will stay in downtown DC for at least another 25 years.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.