The fickle winds of stadium planning
The Chicago Bears' newly serious flirtation with the city of Chicago for a stadium proposal should not be surprising. Chicago's sports teams, including and especially the Bears, have teased the suburbs before with dreamy visions that ultimately went nowhere.
But the latest news that the team is turning its attention away from the property it spent $197.2 million on last year also should not be seen as a definitive conclusion to the prospects of an NFL stadium in Arlington Heights. Even if the Bears turn out to be eager to offer up $2 billion to build a new stadium on the parking lot of the current one, they face plenty of potential roadblocks beyond the negotiations over suburban property taxes that they've found difficult, if not also annoying.
One of the most intractable could be the question of public funding. The possibility for some public funding has always been on the table for the Bears' proposal on the former Arlington Park site, but the team's reported expectation in the city is for a project that would be entirely publicly owned. Perhaps Chicago taxpayers and Mayor Brandon Johnson are willing to pony up the additional billions needed for a Bears stadium that would provide no ongoing property tax revenue, but, if so, they may have to be prepared to go it largely alone.
Yes, the city’s substantial legislative presence is Democratic, and leaders like House Speaker Chris Welch and Gov. J.B. Pritzker could have a decisive influence if they get on board with Chicago. Still, it’s worth noting that state lawmakers haven't shown a great appetite for funding expensive professional sports stadiums and have been pointedly non-committal about helping subsidize the move to Arlington Park.
Recent overtures from White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf for help getting a new stadium for his team got a chilly welcome in Springfield, and even some Chicago Democrats have been critical of the philosophy behind spending scarce resources to buttress the profits of wealthy sports teams. So, the Bears can’t yet assume a partnership with Chicago will come with the certainty of statewide support.
Beyond that, there's the mere question of ownership. If the Bears indeed are eager to pursue a lease on a publicly funded project in the city, that would be a significant departure from the motivator they previously had described behind the appeal of a brand-new suburban development — the chance to own the stadium themselves. The prospect of a hefty annual suburban property tax bill may push them back toward the lake, but it will require a sweetheart deal on the lease agreement. That’s hardly a long shot, but it’s no slam dunk, either.
Finally, the experiences of other high-profile projects on Chicago's South Side lakefront also promise headaches that could come to make the Bears welcome the friendly challenges they've experienced from suburban school districts working to protect themselves from possible future financial demands of the massive $5 billion entertainment and housing development considered for the Arlington Park site. The proposal for an Obama presidential library in Chicago's Jackson Park was held up for years by lawsuits, and plans for a major Star Wars museum on the lakeshore eventually were scuttled in the face of opposition from the Friends of the Parks organization, which envisions a more environmentally oriented, public-use future for the area.
Last December the group issued a warning that apparently figured into the Bears’ planning, as they apparently are offering a sop of additional greenspace in a new city development. But the parks group’s previous vow that “we will not stand by and watch anyone try to use (the area) for real estate development,” suggests appeasing environmentalists will, at best, require a substantial commitment of resources.
Kevin Warren, the Bears president and CEO who came on board after the team closed on its purchase of the Arlington Park property, has made no secret of his susceptibility to the pull of the city as the team's future home. The latest developments certainly suggest the winds may be shifting in that direction.
But as these developments themselves show — and as we've noted many times over the past year and a half or more — those are fickle winds, and this process is still a long time from its conclusion. The suburbs still have a compelling case, and it is far from being played out.
With that in mind, the driving statement underlying any new developments in the apparent whims of the team regarding its future stadium remain dominated by two words.
Stay tuned.