Daily Herald opinion: ‘The real question’: It’s time for leadership, not politics, on Bears stadium development
There was a lot of hand wringing and brow mopping last week over whether or how the state Senate should sign on to somewhat problematic legislation the House has approved to try to keep the Chicago Bears in Illinois.
Gov. JB Pritzker offered the politically non-committal "(The goal) is what’s good for the taxpayers. Second is, we want the Bears to stay in Illinois.”
Des Plaines Democratic Sen. Laura Murphy, the assistant majority party leader, added, “There’s lots of work to be done. We’re going to take our time and analyze everything that’s in the bill. We have one chance to get this right.”
And there was more in that vein, from both chambers and both parties, all of it fine insofar as things go. But it was a House Republican whose remarks provided the most acute assessment of the situation facing the Senate — and for that matter, the whole state.
In an interview with our Marni Pyke, Barrington Hills state Rep. Martin McLaughlin observed, “Without politicians fumbling this deal locally, then in the city of Chicago, and now in Springfield for the past three years, the Chicago Bears stadium project would be roughly 80% complete by now at one-third of the price today. We would be looking at a stadium opening probably next fall. The broader $8 billion regional development would be at least halfway complete.”
The details of McLaughlin's optimistic predictions may be argued, but his fundamental premise cannot. Lawmakers have dithered on this deal for far too long out of an inability to find a political position that accommodates both criticism of providing development assistance to a multi-billion-dollar business and enabling a transformative project that can reap millions of dollars for the state and the Chicago region.
Interestingly, Downers Grove Democratic state Rep. Anne Stava, in explaining her departure from her party's position on the Bears legislation, complained that she wanted “a more robust economic analysis reflecting true costs to the state” of a Bears stadium deal. That position sounds plausible enough — until you consider that the impacts of a Bears stadium have been voluminously argued, predicted and litigated and we're now, as McLaughlin points out, three years into the process.
No, the time for legislative leadership on this question is now — and not with some contrivance hastily hammered out in the fast-approaching wee hours of the legislative session, as is all-too-typical in Springfield.
Sure, there are complexities in the 370-page House bill that need to be refined — a 9% amusement tax that rankles the Bears, questions over the level of property tax relief envisioned in the so-called PILOT, or payments in lieu of taxes, approach and a curious provision allowing blighted rail yards to be considered megaprojects. But none of these is unresolvable.
Of course, lawmakers cannot capitulate to every whim of the Bears organization and, if it comes to that, lawmakers must be prepared to allow the team to try its fortunes with a multi-billion-dollar business and entertainment complex far from the heart of its fan base and most affluent setting. But that does not appear to be where things stand now. A solid framework exists for a reasonable public-private partnership that will encourage developments not just in our region but across the state. Politically comfortable phrases have no more role to play in the process.
Indeed, to that end, it is again McLaughlin who, in bucking his party, showed what the current need for leadership looks like.
“If the Bears go to Indiana, then so be it,” he told Pyke. “But if you believe Illinois needs more business, this is an opportunity to grow our region. One of very few these days. … The real question is: how much more expensive do you want it to get?”