The Move to Arlington Heights - Official Thread

[dafreak]

3 hours ago, Madmike90 said:

 

If this was a legit option surely it would have been plan A?

Garbage...

[AZBearsFan]

9 hours ago, dafreak said:

Garbage...

It literally addresses none of the issues of Soldier Field other than the building itself. Pass. 

[beardown3231]

40 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

It literally addresses none of the issues of Soldier Field other than the building itself. Pass. 

It would address everything but parking, no? That's also assuming parking and traffic will be fantastic anywhere else which is a stretch. People said that about Metlife and that parking/traffic situation is literally a mess.

They can host Super Bowls, Final 4's, etc at a large enclosed building. They can build something with a roof. I won't get into taxes and **** because that doesn't effect me at all

[dll2000]

2 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

It literally addresses none of the issues of Soldier Field other than the building itself. Pass. 

My guess is they apparently don't have what they want from Cook or Arlington re the property taxes going forward.

There is no way they are going to pay assessed IL commercial taxes valued at well over a billion dollars (once everything is built).  They just aren't. 

Fair or not.

[AZBearsFan]

15 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

It would address everything but parking, no? That's also assuming parking and traffic will be fantastic anywhere else which is a stretch. People said that about Metlife and that parking/traffic situation is literally a mess.

They can host Super Bowls, Final 4's, etc at a large enclosed building. They can build something with a roof. I won't get into taxes and **** because that doesn't effect me at all

I’m skeptical as to whether they could build something big enough in the south lot. I don’t want to limit what the stadium could be on a massive land plot like AH just to stay in the city. I don’t think the stadium needs to be some MASSIVE Cowboys/Rams like facility but it not being the smallest stadium in the league any more would be nice. For those who live in the city the proximity thing has a lot of value, but I live in the west suburbs so it being downtown does nothing for me.

Building in the current south lot would require that they level the current stadium entirely to replace the parking they’re losing, no? Can they even do that? 

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

I love Soldier Field but have a long ago accepted the benefits of moving to the Arl. If I had to guess this is a bluff as I don't think Chicago has the appetite to bend over for the Bears again, and I don't think the Bears want such a small site where they won't own the parks and hotels around the stadium.  If I had to guess I'd imagine the city is making a show of it so the Bears might not fight them quite so hard on breaking the lease or other obligations they might have.

Once you've got it in your head that you're going to have year round revenue from all the acceories around a modern stadium it's pretty hard to let go.  That site is pretty small, and unless you're going to give them McCormick, or Northerly Island, or something insane like that it's always going to be limited by the size of the place as well as the hassles of building right there.  Even assuming you two equal parcels of land, can you imagine how much extra the building teams are going to charge to build something right next to a) a big *** lake b) a major highway c) 4 million people trying to get places when you're trying to drive concrete trucks in.  I love Chicago the city, but getting work done is just a pain in terms of congestion and traffic.  When I was in college I installed elevator interiors and the added hassle margin for downtown was like 30% more than the burbs.  +20% for media buildings, +10% for ******* NBC.  They hated paying the extra as much as we hated working there. 

It would be a serious surprise if they do anything but Arlington; it really checks all the boxes in terms of space, cost, potential, access etc.  

[dll2000]

1 hour ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

I love Soldier Field but have a long ago accepted the benefits of moving to the Arl. If I had to guess this is a bluff as I don't think Chicago has the appetite to bend over for the Bears again, and I don't think the Bears want such a small site where they won't own the parks and hotels around the stadium.  If I had to guess I'd imagine the city is making a show of it so the Bears might not fight them quite so hard on breaking the lease or other obligations they might have.

Once you've got it in your head that you're going to have year round revenue from all the acceories around a modern stadium it's pretty hard to let go.  That site is pretty small, and unless you're going to give them McCormick, or Northerly Island, or something insane like that it's always going to be limited by the size of the place as well as the hassles of building right there.  Even assuming you two equal parcels of land, can you imagine how much extra the building teams are going to charge to build something right next to a) a big *** lake b) a major highway c) 4 million people trying to get places when you're trying to drive concrete trucks in.  I love Chicago the city, but getting work done is just a pain in terms of congestion and traffic.  When I was in college I installed elevator interiors and the added hassle margin for downtown was like 30% more than the burbs.  +20% for media buildings, +10% for ******* NBC.  They hated paying the extra as much as we hated working there. 

It would be a serious surprise if they do anything but Arlington; it really checks all the boxes in terms of space, cost, potential, access etc.  

Excellent points.

To me all other options are only about pressuring Cook and Arlington into an ongoing tax deal.

IF something crazy falls into their lap they would consider it.   Like somehow getting McCormick in deal or something like that.  I don't see that happening though.  Who owns McCormick anyway?  

 They aren't getting the Museums.   MAYBE Shedd COULD THEORETICALLY be possible, but not Field Museum.  I don't even see them doing Shedd though.  Even if they promised to relocate it and build it better.  

I can never see them tearing down Field Museum for any sports team.   They wouldn't even tear down Soldier Field and it WAS a sports stadium already.   Field has the majestic columns too etc. and more history.   There is just no way that would be politic.  People would lose their minds.  It would be tied up in court forever in best case scenario.

What Bears really need to look at to move the needle is moving out of state.  They don't want that info to leak though.  Fans wouldn't be happy.

That would be a nuclear option though.   They have one of biggest and most supportive fan bases in world.  Huge risk to their brand.  

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by dll2000

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

2 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Excellent points.

To me all other options are only about pressuring Cook and Arlington into an ongoing tax deal.

IF something crazy falls into their lap they would consider it.   Like somehow getting McCormick in deal or something like that.  I don't see that happening though.  Who owns McCormick anyway?  

 They aren't getting the Museums.   MAYBE Shedd COULD THEORETICALLY be possible, but not Field Museum.  I don't even see them doing Shedd though.  Even if they promised to relocate it and build it better.  

I can never see them tearing down Field Museum for any sports team.   They wouldn't even tear down Soldier Field and it WAS a sports stadium already.   Field has the majestic columns too etc. and more history.   There is just no way that would be politic.  People would lose their minds.  It would be tied up in court forever in best case scenario.

What Bears really need to look at to move the needle is moving out of state.  They don't want that info to leak though.  Fans wouldn't be happy.

That would be a nuclear option though.   They have one of biggest and most supportive fan bases in world.  Huge risk to their brand.  

 

 

 

If the Bears threaten to go out of state, I would probably happily offer to chase them across the border with a pitchfork.  It's one thing to consistently suck so hard, that would be a next level middle finger.  I would probably enjoy my Sundays more. 

 

Field, Shedd and Planetarium are all off limits, as is the Gold Star memorial park.  Field is closest in proximity and would make the most sense but it just seems untenable and the delays you mention would make it a non starter.  All of those are the kind of places that donors and the city would just sue until the problem goes away, you don't even need to win. McCormick is owned by the sleazes that started ticketmaster, so you don't just get standard American corporate greed you get some seriously sketchy connections to more notorious groups.   If they get involved I bet George McCaskey ends up getting called at 3am to do favors.  I could totally see the Park District loving the idea of getting the annoying boaters out of Burnham harbor if they could, but that particular harbor is probably the one with the noisiest/most influential boat owners*.   Even if you give them the entire parcel between the museums and McCormick, it's still a bunch of pissed off people to get a really skinny 1km chunk. Arlingtom is at least that along NW hwy and pretty much square, so it's got to be 3x the area. Unless Chicago is going to figure out some groundbreaking public/private sharing scheme that works for everyone (hahaha I love CHicago but no way) it's going to be a mess to sort out the ownership and fees. 

I mean, aside from the fact that they already bought the land (lololol) there is nothing that makes as much sense as Arlington. If they were serious about staying in Chicago they ought to buy the old steel mills area as that's even bigger than Arlington, is on the lake and (I feel bad saying it out loud) the people that live near there are generally easy for pols and businesses to ignore/bully.  There's also an interesting corps of engineers parecel south of there that I know they would land swap for so that could work too. 

 

*Also a weird hotspot for older white people with ankle monitors, like no joke there are multiple older scary ladies on house arrest all on the same dock.  Always wanted to know, never wanted to find out. 

[dll2000]

2 hours ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

If the Bears threaten to go out of state, I would probably happily offer to chase them across the border with a pitchfork.  It's one thing to consistently suck so hard, that would be a next level middle finger.  I would probably enjoy my Sundays more. 

LOL  When I stopped having any rooting interest in college football and basketball I enjoyed it way more.  I don't see why NFL football would be any different.  When Bears lose I often don't watch any more games that day even though I have access to all of them.  If they play on Thurs. or have a bye I often watch a bunch.  

Field, Shedd and Planetarium are all off limits, as is the Gold Star memorial park.  Field is closest in proximity and would make the most sense but it just seems untenable and the delays you mention would make it a non starter.  All of those are the kind of places that donors and the city would just sue until the problem goes away, you don't even need to win. McCormick is owned by the sleazes that started ticketmaster, so you don't just get standard American corporate greed you get some seriously sketchy connections to more notorious groups.   If they get involved I bet George McCaskey ends up getting called at 3am to do favors.  I could totally see the Park District loving the idea of getting the annoying boaters out of Burnham harbor if they could, but that particular harbor is probably the one with the noisiest/most influential boat owners*.   Even if you give them the entire parcel between the museums and McCormick, it's still a bunch of pissed off people to get a really skinny 1km chunk. Arlingtom is at least that along NW hwy and pretty much square, so it's got to be 3x the area. Unless Chicago is going to figure out some groundbreaking public/private sharing scheme that works for everyone (hahaha I love CHicago but no way) it's going to be a mess to sort out the ownership and fees. 

Agreed. 

I mean, aside from the fact that they already bought the land (lololol) there is nothing that makes as much sense as Arlington. If they were serious about staying in Chicago they ought to buy the old steel mills area as that's even bigger than Arlington, is on the lake and (I feel bad saying it out loud) the people that live near there are generally easy for pols and businesses to ignore/bully.  There's also an interesting corps of engineers parecel south of there that I know they would land swap for so that could work too. 

Agreed.  Steel mill area is interesting.  Arlington being right on a metra train stop is a huge selling point though.  But like I said before they would rather resell land or build apartments or whatever than pay the going property tax rate on an commercial assessed value greater than a billion dollars.  They want a special deal.   Not sure why they didn't broach that issue behind scenes before they bought the land.  It was just sitting there.  I don't think there were any competing bidders. 

*Also a weird hotspot for older white people with ankle monitors, like no joke there are multiple older scary ladies on house arrest all on the same dock.  Always wanted to know, never wanted to find out. 

I laughed out loud several times reading this.

I am really having some funny mental pictures of the old white lady criminal element on the docks.

 

 

 

 

 

[Madmike90]

https://www.nbcsportschicago.com/nfl/chicago-bears/bears-news/arlington-heights-school-districts-attempt-to-mitigate-bears-stadium-tax-issue-with-new-appraisal/524300/

Potentially lower taxes on the property could get things moving in the right direction.

[dll2000]

43 minutes ago, Madmike90 said:

https://www.nbcsportschicago.com/nfl/chicago-bears/bears-news/arlington-heights-school-districts-attempt-to-mitigate-bears-stadium-tax-issue-with-new-appraisal/524300/

Potentially lower taxes on the property could get things moving in the right direction.

Bears are going to want that tax bill even lower because they demolished it and it is arguably unimproved land now.    

Assessor just assessed by purchase price and Bears went nuts.   

Bears didn't put in a demolition order ahead of time either.  Assessor really just did his job to letter of law, but from Bears standpoint they got screwed and they think we are Bears - we don't get screwed. We screw you.   Assessor doesn't seem to care at moment.   They are saying sounds like a YP not a MP.  

Remember also Bears plan to build a stadium and a bunch of stuff on that land.   Several billion dollars in stuff.   They can't handle a 95 million dollar tax assessment on the land (which is the bargain price - they paid 197 million for it and arguably that is what it should be assessed at).   The 95 million is the one year stop gap deal.    

But imagine if they get an assessed bill for 6 or 7 billion which is a number they discussed spending on site. 3 billion for stadium and then a bunch of other stuff on rest of land.    

They don't want to pay full rate of that.  Which would be 25% (after divided by a 1/3 of assessed value) if playing it straight.    At a 7 billion assessed value that would be 583 million a year.  LOL.   That would pay for a few number 2 pencils for the local school district.   But that is not realistically ever going to happen.  

As an aside they also don't want to pay for all the stuff they are building.  They want tax payer money to fund half of what they build on there.  The sales pitch is we are paying for 100% of stadium.  They whisper the other part.

A couple of big economic studies say stadiums don't bring in any money or not a lot like they promise when asking for taxpayer money.  They reason most of revenue isn't from tourists, it is from locals.  And locals spending money on stadium tickets just means they aren't spending that same money on going out to eat or to a movie or to a bar.

They may be right about not getting a full return on investment - tax payers almost never do. 

But I don't think what they saying is at all true.  Just because you are willing to spend on going to a football game doesn't mean you are also willing to take your money and go to a movie and out to eat or go out at all.   

Maybe you take that money and invest it. Or it sits in your bank account.  Or you buy video games.  Or you take a trip somewhere else.  Or you give it to church or charity.   Also, saving or investing money versus spending it isn't a negative economic outcome.  

I just skimmed beginning of study so maybe they have better arguments later.  Studies seem to have started with a conclusion and set off to prove it rather than being objective.   Keep the data you like, discard the data you don't.    Reality is that is most of 'science' and 'studies' these days.  

[CBears019]

Sounds like the bears and Arlington heights are still very much in communication, despite little public mention of it.  The Daily Herald recently did a FOIA request with Arlington Heights and got a text message conversation between their mayor and George McCaskey.  lol.  Georgie made a new friend.

[beardown3231]

The Trib put out an article today regarding the stadium saga, but it's behind a paywall

[HuskieBear]

really just want this to start getting built. we can get out of the lease as early as 2026. would be nice to be in a brand new stadium sooner rather than later

[CBears019]

2 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

The Trib put out an article today regarding the stadium saga, but it's behind a paywall

Try using 12ft.io

Copy the link to the article and copy it into that website.  Works for most sites, not sure about the Trib.