Bears, Chicago at Loggerheads Over Proposed Stadium

[NoGain]

Do you understand that billionaires like Paul Allen and Bill Gates literally give away billions of dollars to charitable causes through their foundations?

This is just me personally. But I never consider someone to be an icon for charitable giving if their net worth is still rising after their charitable givings.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

This is just me personally. But I never consider someone to be an icon for charitable giving if their net worth is still rising after their charitable givings.

I agree. My point is that some value other things more than maximizing their wealth. Personally, if I won the lottery, one of the first things I’d do is set up a charitable foundation.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

Do you understand that billionaires like Paul Allen and Bill Gates literally give away billions of dollars to charitable causes through their foundations?

Yeah, and they should be giving it back to taxpayers like me instead.

 

[ccla]

Do you understand that billionaires like Paul Allen and Bill Gates literally give away billions of dollars to charitable causes through their foundations?

And what does gave to do with it?

 

[toffee]

Do you understand that billionaires like Paul Allen and Bill Gates literally give away billions of dollars to charitable causes through their foundations?

Therefore they don't need cities to pay for their stadiums, do they?

 

[nanomoz]

No more billionaire welfare. Good for Chicagoans.

I'm all for a bond that gets paid back to tax payers and/or specific lines in the chart of accounts that have to do with tourism. Even if the payback is in the form of a 1:1 tax break with TVM interest accrued, but the political bodies should probably be granted some form of leverage/ownership (or, say, a deed of trust like in a mortgage) of the venue until which time they can be bought out. During the interim, the political body gets a cut of revenue that's kind of like an amoritization schedule, but in reverse. Sort of.

A micro-ownership stake model might also be interesting. It wouldn't even have to be regionally focused.

 

[jeremiah]

I was a major sports supporter, and every time one of these measures came up for a vote, I voted against it. It is an abomination to take taxpayers monies to build something that makes everyone rich richer, and most fans sit at home anyway. They simply cannot afford tickets, the food, the beer or the travel times. I can sit at home and watch 3 complete games from my chair. I don't even particularly care which 6 teams a playing.

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

This is just me personally. But I never consider someone to be an icon for charitable giving if their net worth is still rising after their charitable givings.

Isn't most of these charity things an accounting move? They get tax breaks and stuff for doing so and obviously PR.

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

No more billionaire welfare. Good for Chicagoans.

I'm all for a bond that gets paid back to tax payers and/or specific lines in the chart of accounts that have to do with tourism. Even if the payback is in the form of a 1:1 tax break with TVM interest accrued, but the political bodies should probably be granted some form of leverage/ownership (or, say, a deed of trust like in a mortgage) of the venue until which time they can be bought out. During the interim, the political body gets a cut of revenue that's kind of like an amoritization schedule, but in reverse. Sort of.

A micro-ownership stake model might also be interesting. It wouldn't even have to be regionally focused.

I feel like only the big cities can do that. LA, NY, Chicago. In this day and age there's no danger owners would move them from those markets due to tv money etc. Those owners can either pay for it or someone else will

Mid-lower markets can probably still have that card against them if an owner was really desperate and the team really sucked. I'm still shocked New Orleans for example have never rebuilt the super dome, Jacksonville. Buffalo is doing something about theres. Titans are building there's with public funds. If the chiefs sucked I imagine there would be more pressure to rebuild or completely redo Arrowhead like there is Kaufman field.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

Isn't most of these charity things an accounting move? They get tax breaks and stuff for doing so and obviously PR.

People who object to paying federal taxes should have no objection to those who prefer to donate their money to charity.

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

People who object to paying federal taxes should have no objection to those who prefer to donate their money to charity.

I'd rather they did both

 

[Bear-Hawk]

I'd rather they did both

They do both. The other thing I’ll say is that Bill Gates puts his own personal time and energy into the work of his foundation. I always say that if you want to know what somebody really cares about, look how he spends his time, especially as one become a senior citizen with his wealth increasing and his time on earth decreasing. At age 77, I speak from experience.

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

They do both. The other thing I’ll say is that Bill Gates puts his own personal time and energy into the work of his foundation. I always say that if you want to know what somebody really cares about, look how he spends his time, especially as one become a senior citizen with his wealth increasing and his time on earth decreasing. At age 77, I speak from experience.

Gates might but Bezos/Amazon for example are pretty notorious for avoiding taxes.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

Gates might but Bezos/Amazon for example are pretty notorious for avoiding taxes.

True, how wealthy people choose to manage their wealth is an insight into their character — just my opinion.

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

True, how wealthy people choose to manage their wealth is an insight into their character — just my opinion.

I don't think you can be a billionaire without screwing someone over somewhere. Also guessing after a certain amount its almost impossible to give it all away. I think it will take Bezos ex wife her whole life to do it

 

[Lagartixa]

Bears played at Wrigley 1921-70. And then Soldier Field for the next 50 years. They’re due a new field, and it can’t be built without some tax revenue. The same holds for all major public works projects.

[Color emphasis is mine]

Fertilizer! Buildings are built without tax revenue all the time.

If the stadium is going to be such a white elephant that it'll be financially unfeasible for the billionaire owners to pay for it, then it's financially unfeasible for the city and state too. If it will be profitable, let the billionaires invest the money and reap the profits.

Either way, there's no reason for taxpayers or tourists to have to give a multi-billion-dollar present to people who are already billionaires.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

[Color emphasis is mine]

Fertilizer! Buildings are built without tax revenue all the time.

If the stadium is going to be such a white elephant that it'll be financially unfeasible for the billionaire owners to pay for it, then it's financially unfeasible for the city and state too. If it will be profitable, let the billionaires invest the money and reap the profits.

Either way, there's no reason for taxpayers or tourists to have to give a multi-billion-dollar present to people who are already billionaires.

The Bears owner is not the only beneficiary of this $7 billion stadium and complex. It provides income to local businesses, tax revenue to the city, thousands of jobs, hosts other sporting events and entertainment, concerts, green spaces and recreational facilities for local residents, etc. It will be a major asset to Chicago.

The entire Bears franchise is worth only $6.5 billion. They cannot complete this project without some tax revenue. I will say again that the Bears are putting $2.3 billion into it. Warren is following the same private-public financing plan he used to build the Vikings stadium.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

If it's a good for local business owners, then let them help pay for it too. Should be an easy sell, based on what you're saying.

If it hosts other events, then somebody is making money off that, so let them chip in too.

If it will provide additional tax revenue for the city, then they should put a provision in the bill that all the tax dollars will be reimbursed back. Or they should take out a loan based on the projected additional tax revenue.

They won't do any of these things, though, because nothing is as rosy as you say it is.

Has anyone put together a massive projection of financial and economic benefits for the city, based on what you're saying? Something that will specifically describe how say an average hourly worker for these business will benefit? I doubt it, because there's nothing.

 

[WmHBonney]

I feel like only the big cities can do that. LA, NY, Chicago. In this day and age there's no danger owners would move them from those markets due to tv money etc. Those owners can either pay for it or someone else will

Mid-lower markets can probably still have that card against them if an owner was really desperate and the team really sucked. I'm still shocked New Orleans for example have never rebuilt the super dome, Jacksonville. Buffalo is doing something about theres. Titans are building there's with public funds. If the chiefs sucked I imagine there would be more pressure to rebuild or completely redo Arrowhead like there is Kaufman field.

Yep. Kathy Hochul pretty much just spent taxpayer money on the Bills' new stadium with zero repercussions. Funny how that happens when her husband just happened to be the senior vice president, general counsel, and secretary of the company that has the concessions contract at the stadium. Crooked bastards.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

If it's a good for local business owners, then let them help pay for it too. Should be an easy sell, based on what you're saying.

If it hosts other events, then somebody is making money off that, so let them chip in too.

If it will provide additional tax revenue for the city, then they should put a provision in the bill that all the tax dollars will be reimbursed back. Or they should take out a loan based on the projected additional tax revenue.

They won't do any of these things, though, because nothing is as rosy as you say it is.

Has anyone put together a massive projection of financial and economic benefits for the city, based on what you're saying? Something that will specifically describe how say an average hourly worker for these business will benefit? I doubt it, because there's nothing.

The estimate is that the city, county, and state would net $64 million annually from the stadium. When hundreds or thousands of people come to Chicago for events, money pours into the local economy, which ultimately generates tax revenue to the city. That’s how it works.