The Move to Arlington Heights - Official Thread

[dll2000]

Just now, dll2000 said:

I think Bears are arguing that it is currently undeveloped land and should be taxed as such. 

Instead of at rate they paid for it. 

[AZBearsFan]

17 hours ago, dll2000 said:

The Bears have a good argument.

It is basically vacant land at moment or will be when property is demolished.   They would be paying 6x the amount Churchill was while still building and earning nothing.

Counter argument is they assessed it at exactly purchase price -  $197 million.   Not sure what they were expecting.   Especially from Cook County.  But they are Bears.  They will want special treatment.  As would Amazon or whoever.   Any big player.  

I hope it stays in Arlington for selfish reasons.

Naperville is not where I want it.  Nor do I want Bears to leave the state.  

I don't think they are ever going to stay in city for people getting excited about that.   They may stay in city longer, but they will be leaving.

 

 

 

You’re a lawyer - I’m sure you know a good leverage play when you see one. To me this doesn’t feel like anything different than an injury attorney dropping, “My client may eventually need surgery…”. 

[dll2000]

3 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

You’re a lawyer - I’m sure you know a good leverage play when you see one. To me this doesn’t feel like anything different than an injury attorney dropping, “My client may eventually need surgery…”. 

Everyone is leveraging everyone in this scenario.

NFL versus crooked politicians.  Like mafia versus street gangs.

There are no good guys.  But I hope Bears go to Arlington.

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

It's hard to argue that something is worth less then you (the Bears) literally valued it at in order to buy it, but I understand their argument and think it'll work. My guess is they get it reassessed at about 67.5% of the sale value. 

[chisoxguy7]

7 hours ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

Yeah... same opinion: it's literally worth what someone is willing to pay for it, and they just paid exactly that for it.  That said I think this is all going to end with an assessed value that gets lower for the next 6 years or so to throw a bone to get them to stop with the PR hedging. 

Naperville would suck. 

 

Naperville wouldn't be ideal, but it's a lot bigger than you think it is, too. (At least, in my head it is, I grew up in Lisle). I know there's a lot of industrial land there along 88 that's technically a part of Naperville, I'd have to think something in the neighborhood of Warrenville Rd would be the area they're considering, but who knows.

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

13 hours ago, chisoxguy7 said:

Naperville wouldn't be ideal, but it's a lot bigger than you think it is, too. (At least, in my head it is, I grew up in Lisle). I know there's a lot of industrial land there along 88 that's technically a part of Naperville, I'd have to think something in the neighborhood of Warrenville Rd would be the area they're considering, but who knows.

  I think the issue is that you can at least say that Arlington, while defnitely not actual Chicago, is  central to more areas than Naperville would be, in terms of highways surrounding burbs, airport etc.   I first had the exact same thought that Warreville rd/ Winfield exit would make sense, but honestly unless they're going to plop the thing into a forest preserve (imagine the freakout) or Fermilab (objectively hilarious if an experiment goes wrong and Fields loses all mass and hits the speed of light, probably an NFL record?) you need to go further W as everything is already pretty built up unless you're trying to combine multiple large properties which is going to add tons of hassle and liel;y time to your process. I think the less developed large parcels are more likely SW of town towards Oswego, and then you're really asking a lot of the access roads.  I think once you start thinking 55 is the closer highway, you're turning this into a road trip for a lot of people and the feasability people start shaking their heads.  Arlington makes a lot of sense on every level, Naperville would have a lot of issues to overcome and unless they're going to make up for that with free land and like a hundred year tax holiday I can't imagine this being serious.  I do find the image of the Riverwalk being taken over by roaming drunks a bit funny though, although the image of those same drunks all streaming down Ogden is a bit terrifying.  

[dll2000]

18 hours ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

It's hard to argue that something is worth less then you (the Bears) literally valued it at in order to buy it, but I understand their argument and think it'll work. My guess is they get it reassessed at about 67.5% of the sale value. 

Bears (ostensibly since their statement sucks and is unclear) are arguing it is basically vacant land at moment and it shouldn’t be assessed and taxed at full rate.   And they are right.  Vacant land gets taxed very little comparatively.  County is arguing it is developed.  Which it is technically. 

They are also arguing no one else would pay that and pay all money to develop it until they came and especially if they knew were going to be taxed at development rate immediately.

It is a little reminiscent of when Disney bought all land in Orlando he kept it a secret as long as he could so they didn’t jack prices through roof.  The last parcels cost a fortune because word got out.  

Bears didn’t go buy Arlington in secret, because it’s harder to keep those secrets these days and they would be seeking tax payer money along way as well, so they paid a lot more for it.  

Cook will make a ton when Bears put a billion dollars of stuff on it and they can’t leave.  

Assessor should have just waited a bit before jacking it.  Or it could be he is literally that stupid and just marked it at market contract price value and called it a day because that is what he always does.   Crazy to think he didn’t realize Bears would publicly complain about that kind of tax jump.    

Or could be he got matching orders from some Chicago politicians that are upset.  

In any event I don’t think Cook will want to lose Bears and Bears revenue just like Chicago is going to. It’s no coincidence Bears picked a city in a different county (Dupage) to threaten.  

At same time I don’t think there are any sites nearly as suitable as Arlington is and they just paid for it.  

They will likely back off and a compromise will be made and this will move forward. 

But who knows? Crazy things happen.  

[Madmike90]

On 6/2/2023 at 10:33 PM, dll2000 said:

The Bears have a good argument.

It is basically vacant land at moment or will be when property is demolished.   They would be paying 6x the amount Churchill was while still building and earning nothing.

Counter argument is they assessed it at exactly purchase price -  $197 million.   Not sure what they were expecting.   Especially from Cook County.  But they are Bears.  They will want special treatment.  As would Amazon or whoever.   Any big player.  

I hope it stays in Arlington for selfish reasons.

Naperville is not where I want it.  Nor do I want Bears to leave the state.  

I don't think they are ever going to stay in city for people getting excited about that.   They may stay in city longer, but they will be leaving.

 

 

 

It feels to me like Naperville is the big stick....they have no intention of using it but it is there as a threat to Arlington...I think both sides meet somewhere in the middle.

[dll2000]

Take it for what is worth and don’t shoot messenger.

I am just reporting what I heard said.  I was at a women’s professional association group this week in suburbs.  You know what I heard from all the women at my table? I was only man at my table.  

“I am never going to Chicago again.”  Completely unrelated to sports or Bears.  Just Chicago in general.  They were talking amongst themselves.  

Why? They no longer feel safe going there.  

You think Bears don’t know this?  It is 100% a factor in all this.  I hear it all the time.  Especially from women over 35.

I am not saying or arguing going to a Bears game is unsafe. I am saying I am hearing many women and some men saying they feel that way.

They may pick Naperville or even another state, but  Bears arent staying long term in Chicago.

Edited June 4, 2023 by dll2000

[HuskieBear]

17 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Take it for what is worth and don’t shoot messenger.

I am just reporting what I heard said.  I was at a women’s professional association group this week in suburbs.  You know what I heard from all the women at my table? I was only man at my table.  

“I am never going to Chicago again.”  Completely unrelated to sports or Bears.  Just Chicago in general.  They were talking amongst themselves.  

Why? They no longer feel safe going there.  

You think Bears don’t know this?  It is 100% a factor in all this.  I hear it all the time.  Especially from women over 35.

I am not saying or arguing going to a Bears game is unsafe. I am saying I am hearing many women and some men saying they feel that way.

They may pick Naperville or even another state, but  Bears arent staying long term in Chicago.

maybe its because creepy dudes were showing up at a women's professional associate group and were listening to their conversations?

[dll2000]

10 hours ago, HuskieBear said:

maybe its because creepy dudes were showing up at a women's professional associate group and were listening to their conversations

Edited June 6, 2023 by dll2000

[Nads786]

20 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Take it for what is worth and don’t shoot messenger.

I am just reporting what I heard said.  I was at a women’s professional association group this week in suburbs.  You know what I heard from all the women at my table? I was only man at my table.  

“I am never going to Chicago again.”  Completely unrelated to sports or Bears.  Just Chicago in general.  They were talking amongst themselves.  

Why? They no longer feel safe going there.  

You think Bears don’t know this?  It is 100% a factor in all this.  I hear it all the time.  Especially from women over 35.

I am not saying or arguing going to a Bears game is unsafe. I am saying I am hearing many women and some men saying they feel that way.

They may pick Naperville or even another state, but  Bears arent staying long term in Chicago.

This is a pervasive sentiment for a lot of women over 35. The constant barrage of stats and genuine bad things happening isn't helping. It's pretty short term thinking, long term violence will probably come down and things will get back to 2017 levels. 

 

It's kind of dumb to base a stadium decision on something like that. Solider Field is a really awesome location off the lake, but it's small, hard to get too and can't host year round events.  

[dll2000]

13 minutes ago, Nads786 said:

This is a pervasive sentiment for a lot of women over 35. The constant barrage of stats and genuine bad things happening isn't helping. It's pretty short term thinking, long term violence will probably come down and things will get back to 2017 levels. 

 

It's kind of dumb to base a stadium decision on something like that. Solider Field is a really awesome location off the lake, but it's small, hard to get too and can't host year round events.  

I think it is a very small factor for stadium decision, but a factor.  It has to be hurting Chicago tourism and shopping though, because I hear it all the time.

Fear is an easy thing to drive.  And it gets hammered in social media.  It's not entirely unfounded though.  There are crime events happening in previously pretty safe touristy areas to go along with the constant drumbeat of killings in bad areas.  

Even a few years ago they had a marvel exhibit or something and science museum and a kid was having a birthday party there.   There was much discussion amongst moms on whether people would go due to safety concerns.

In end everybody went.

I took a another kid with my son to Bears family fest last year and there was a lot of discussion and lecture about never leaving boys out of my sight etc.

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

Eh, harping about Chicago is pretty much a full time job for much of the media; social, cable you name it.  It's gotten to the point where people hear it so often they start to repeat it.  Was at a graduation party the other week and a pile of cousins couldn't stop going on about how dangerous Chicago was and how they wouldn't come to town for anything but Cubs games, Bears games, Lolla and bluesfest.  Ironically they were from Memphis area and actual town of South Bend, which lead Chicago by quote a bit in violent and other crime, but it's usually not worth pointing that out.  One was also on probation, so it's kind of hard to have that conversation when at some point you're going to be tempted to say "but, uh, aren't  you actually doing crime?"

[Bigbear72]

40 minutes ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

Eh, harping about Chicago is pretty much a full time job for much of the media; social, cable you name it.  It's gotten to the point where people hear it so often they start to repeat it.  Was at a graduation party the other week and a pile of cousins couldn't stop going on about how dangerous Chicago was and how they wouldn't come to town for anything but Cubs games, Bears games, Lolla and bluesfest.  Ironically they were from Memphis area and actual town of South Bend, which lead Chicago by quote a bit in violent and other crime, but it's usually not worth pointing that out.  One was also on probation, so it's kind of hard to have that conversation when at some point you're going to be tempted to say "but, uh, aren't  you actually doing crime?"

It's so funny that you say this. I see this stuff in the media all the time and it makes me laugh. New Orleans gets tons of tourism and they are definitely ahead of Chicago in violent crimes (so are Memphis, St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, and quite a few other cities).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegleybloom/2023/01/31/report-ranks-americas-15-safest-and-most-dangerous-cities-for-2023/?sh=39ce96f0309a

I get it. Chicago has crime. But I wish the narrative that it was some type of outlier with its violence would die already.

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Bigbear72