Bears, Chicago at Loggerheads Over Proposed Stadium

[Bear-Hawk]

If a new stadium is a good investment for the city's economy, then let the people who benefit from it pay for it. Motel and restaurant owners. The owner of the sports team, etc.

The vast majority of people living there aren't going to economically benefit. They will still be paid the same. So imposing taxes is just straight up BS. Even imposing taxes on people for paying for a motel room is BS, because most of the time they aren't there to see a sports game.

If building a new stadium is too costly for the owner compared to the return, then don't do it. Stop wasting time and resources on stupid shit.

The stadium will bring in revenue to local businesses. They also pay taxes, which the city uses for multiple projects that do benefit local residents. You aren’t telling the whole story.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

The stadium will bring in revenue to local businesses. They also pay taxes, which the city uses for multiple projects that do benefit local residents. You aren’t telling the whole story.

So then let the local businesses pay for it.

Should I support a tax hike on my property taxes so that a restaurant in town can remodel their building because it will generate more revenue from travelers and therefore they'll pay more taxes? Of course not.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

If a tourist pays $100 for a hotel room in Chicago, he will pay an extra $2 for the stadium. That accounts for most of the public money. The other thing you did not mention is that the Bears are putting up about $2 billion for the project.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

Why should people traveling to Chicago on say a business trip have to pay for a stadium that they aren't going to use or benefit from, especially when they are already helping Chicago businesses generate revenue by spending money there?

Good for Chicago for pitching in. I didn't mention anything about that because it had nothing to do with the point I was making.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

Why should people traveling to Chicago on say a business trip have to pay for a stadium that they aren't going to use or benefit from, especially when they are already helping Chicago businesses generate revenue by spending money there?

Good for Chicago for pitching in. I didn't mention anything about that because it had nothing to do with the point I was making.

The omission leaves open the conclusion that the stadium is going to be built only with tax revenue. I’m just filling in the rest of the picture.

You could make the same argument for all hotel taxes in the country. This is the same kind of argument I used to hear from people who opposed helping pay for public schools because “I don’t have a kid in that school.”

 

[Seahawks Guy]

The omission leaves open the conclusion that the stadium is going to be built only with tax revenue. I’m just filling in the rest of the picture.

You could make the same argument for all hotel taxes in the country. This is the same kind of argument I used to hear from people who opposed helping pay for public schools because “I don’t have a kid in that school.”

The education thing is easily refuted. I was educated by the school system. Now that I'm out and working, I am paying them back.

I do think motel taxes in general lack principal. However it's even worse when the money is used to help businesses make even more money.

Let me turn this around and propose this: the owner of an NFL team wants a new stadium. He knows where he wants it built. He goes to the restaurants, motels, bars, and gift shop owners in the surrounding area and pitches them on the idea of going in together on the cost of it. They work together on throwing some projected revenue numbers as a result, and they can decide if the investment is worth it, work to adjust the final cost to something that makes sense, etc. if ultimately the business owners decide it's not worth it, and thus the team owner can't generate the funds needed, then why should any taxpayer foot the bill? If it's not worth it for them to put forward their own funds, then why is it worth it for other people to do it?

 

[NoGain]

Let the owners pay for the stadium. The days of taxpayers willingly paying for stadiums are over. There may be a couple more somewhere along the line, but what you're asking for will pretty much fall on deaf ears to the taxpayer.

For heaven's sake, the KC Chiefs couldn't pass a tax hike for stadium renovations.

I'm tired of multi-millionaires and billionaires asking for handouts. It's pretty gross.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

I just think it's so wasteful. If there's something wrong with a stadium, fix it. If you want more seats, expand it. However, the NFL owners want so much more unnecessary crap along with it. Fancy seats. Tons of concessions. Fancy architecture. All you need are bleachers, bathrooms, and vendors, and people will buy tickets.

 

[RiverDog]

I just think it's so wasteful. If there's something wrong with a stadium, fix it. If you want more seats, expand it. However, the NFL owners want so much more unnecessary crap along with it. Fancy seats. Tons of concessions. Fancy architecture. All you need are bleachers, bathrooms, and vendors, and people will buy tickets.

I agree with this. The value of a dollar in 1970 has increased by about 8 times. The Kingdome was constructed in the early 70's for $67 million, times 8 equals $536M. Stadiums nowadays cost at least 4 times that much, with LA's SoFi Stadium checking in at a cool $5B.

Or, let's use a more contemporary standard. In 2000, a dollar's value in today's money would be $1.82. Lumen Field, widely regarded as one of the better venues in the league, cost $430 million, times 1.82 equals $782M.

These multi-billion dollar stadiums are completely unnecessary.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

Yup. The average profit from an NFL team is over $100m a year. Finance a $500m stadium at 15 years for like $40m a year. Owners should have no problem doing that, especially considering they would eventually own a massive stadium at the end of it. Major asset.

 

[NoGain]

Yup. The average profit from an NFL team is over $100m a year. Finance a $500m stadium at 15 years for like $40m a year. Owners should have no problem doing that, especially considering they would eventually own a massive stadium at the end of it. Major asset.

Not to mention the rising value of the franchise itself.

 

[chris98251]

It's not just Stadiums, it's housing, Food, you name it, we are in a unsustainable path, a crash or a correction has to happen. It will be a forced situation, what always corrects economies? War whether it's global, or Civil, Revolutionary. Check History, how things get back to center and restart. Too Big to fail really means to Greedy to look at common sense.

 

[Hawkinaz]

If a new stadium is a good investment for the city's economy, then let the people who benefit from it pay for it. Motel and restaurant owners. The owner of the sports team, etc.

The vast majority of people living there aren't going to economically benefit. They will still be paid the same. So imposing taxes is just straight up BS. Even imposing taxes on people for paying for a motel room is BS, because most of the time they aren't there to see a sports game.

If building a new stadium is too costly for the owner compared to the return, then don't do it. Stop wasting time and resources on stupid shit.

If you were an owner of a sports team and the city was willing to give you free money towards something you are going to own why would you not accept it?

 

[Seahawks Guy]

If you were an owner of a sports team and the city was willing to give you free money towards something you are going to own why would you not accept it?

I don't blame owners for accepting it. I blame average people for buying into the bullshit.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

If you were an owner of a sports team and the city was willing to give you free money towards something you are going to own why would you not accept it?

The new stadium complex will not be owned by the Bears. It will be publicly owned.

Besides football, it will host other sporting and entertainment events, and it will have green spaces for local residents’ recreational activities.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

If you aren't getting a share of the profits, then it's not really publicly owned.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

If you aren't getting a share of the profits, then it's not really publicly owned.

It’s publicly owned by Chicago Park District. Bears will rent the stadium.

 

[IndyHawk]

It’s publicly owned by Chicago Park District. Bears will rent the stadium.

Your state is already extremely overtaxed with billions owed to pension funds
Then you have the White Sox also wanting a new ball park while you get stuck
with a nice ballpark that isn't that old.
I guess my point will be is to have the Bears and Sox own their own stadiums so
they don't come crawling back for tax money since they don't own it like the Cubs
do.

 

[NoGain]

The stadium project will cost more than they say. Probably a lot more.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

The stadium project will cost more than they say. Probably a lot more.

Your state is already extremely overtaxed with billions owed to pension funds
Then you have the White Sox also wanting a new ball park while you get stuck
with a nice ballpark that isn't that old.
I guess my point will be is to have the Bears and Sox own their own stadiums so
they don't come crawling back for tax money since they don't own it like the Cubs
do.

I’m old enough to remember Butkus and Sayers playing at Wrigley Field. Soldier Field is also about 100 years old. That field can be a mess in winter. I want the Bears in a dome playing on a nice, fast surface, no snow/rain. It will be great for Caleb and the Bears passing offense.

I doubt the governor would approve use of any Illinois tax revenue for this project.