The Chicago Bears may need a new stadium, and as David Greising writes in his recent column (“With Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce support, is there hope for Bears stadium plan?” June 7), there may be a winning argument that Chicago does, too. But not on my lakefront, please! Nothing’s supposed to be built there, remember?
Chicagoans who are not football fans (yes, I speak for myself) do not want a sports team to turn the potentially beautiful stretch of lakefront between McCormick Place and the river into a franchised area, as the Rickettses have remade Wrigleyville. There are multiple locations that would serve local populations better and not scar our shore.
Leave the lake alone, please, except for true improvements that allow use for free to all, without commercialism and private profit as the motivation.
— Howard Mandel, Chicago
Horrible deal for city, state
If Bears President Kevin Warren did get his lakefront stadium that he falsely claims will create 43,000 construction jobs and only cost $4.7 billion, then phase one, the stadium, would get built and go over budget because $3.2 billion is nowhere near what it would really cost. Phases 2 and 3, which would be paid by the state, would cost way more due to inflation five to 10 years down the line and probably not be done in a timely fashion due to budget constraints.
The lakefront will end up with two stadiums near each other and the Bears getting all the revenue from all events as the state sinks further into debt. This is a horrible deal set up by the same con man who made some extremely questionable maneuvers as commissioner of the Big Ten.
— Tom Roos, Rolling Meadows
New stadium is no solution
As reported in the Tribune and discussed by David Greising, Bears CEO Kevin Warren’s recent remarks at a meeting of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce reflected his continuing disconnection from reality. His half-baked arguments for why the public should put up more than $2 billion range from misleading to absurd and insulting. He says we need a new Bears stadium on the lake because NFL broadcasts get great ratings and are a showcase for any city. Evidently, Warren has forgotten that we already have NFL games (da Bears) broadcast from our current lakefront stadium. Will the ratings go up further if we have a new stadium? What an absurd argument.
In many of his remarks, Warren says or implies that Chicago is some sort of second-rate city. He told the chamber audience that there are only eight tower construction cranes in the city. This is his measure of Chicago’s health! Last Friday, my wife and I spent the day at the Blues Fest. I didn’t see any tower cranes. What I did see were thousands of people at the fest, some from other cities and countries for what is the world’s largest free blues festival. I also saw shiny, spectacular skyscrapers, some brand-new. Tower cranes were used to build these marvels. There are more big projects in the works. And there are many other wonders in our city. Who is Warren kidding with this nonsense that a new Bears stadium is going make everything better? It’s insulting.
Warren and Bears Chairman George McCaskey have thrown around some big numbers without any supporting evidence. They have touted the huge economic benefits that would accrue from the new stadium. But their hand-picked consulting firm came to this conclusion. Mayor Brandon Johnson, egged on by Warren, has told us that building the stadium would bring 43,000 new construction jobs. Where is the evidence for that fantastic number? Warren should show us the details of his analysis.
Chicago is a great city that has some serious problems. These problems will not be solved with a new stadium for the Bears. For Warren to suggest that at least $2 billion in taxpayers’ money should be spent on his new stadium, rather than on Chicago’s actual problems, is the height of arrogance and ignorance.
— Blaise J. Arena, Des Plaines
Solving our housing shortage
The city is moving in the right direction to solve our housing shortage with the successful conclusion of its pilot program to allow additional housing units, but we need to do much more to increase housing affordability. Upzoning helps keep housing prices down, increases foot traffic to businesses and decreases the need for long, expensive commutes. Chicago can be a national leader in housing affordability if we continue to loosen the rules and allow more development to meet demand.
Young people today are struggling to get their foot in the door of the real estate market. Speaking from experience, it’s overwhelming to consider how much we need to save for a down payment while also paying rent and other expenses that have only grown since the COVID-19-era inflation surge. If we allow developers to more easily construct dense housing, the new inventory will naturally drive prices down as the laws of supply and demand come into play.
No one wants to see historic neighborhoods destroyed for cheap new construction that won’t stand the test of time, but there’s a reasonable balance to be struck with a more permissive zoning regime that allows the supply to keep up with demand in popular neighborhoods. The default mentality needs to shift from restricting housing in favor of incumbent homeowners, to expanding the amount of housing stock unless there’s a compelling reason not to.
Too many cities in this country have chosen to overly restrict new construction, and we’re seeing the cost of swelling populations of unhoused people and whole generations straining to begin living the American dream.
Chicago has an opportunity to be a leader and responsibly open up zoning rules to meet our population’s needs, and we should grab that opportunity with both hands.
— Daniel Oglesby, Chicago
Benefits of national service
Clarence Page, good journalist that he is, has read Project 2025 (“Talk of mandated national service percolates among ex-Trump advisers,” June 12). Not only that, he has reported on an aspect of the polemic that deserves serious consideration on both sides of the political fence: national service. Not only would such a scheme create lasting benefits for the nation, such as those we encounter in national parks to this day, but it would also create a citizenry invested in their nation from their hands-on contributions and aware of the value of our diversity. Young people from all strata would be encountering each other on the job where, in the current structure, these encounters are few and far between.
Racism can only be abolished by one friendship at a time. National service would make that possible.
— Margaret Sents, Glenview
Unfair description of draftees
In his column on national service, Clarence Page writes: “Any commander, as I learned firsthand, would rather lead a platoon of willing recruits than resentful and begrudging draftees.”
As a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran, I served with three draftees. Each was as prepared, dedicated and proud as any enlisted Marine. There simply was no recognizable difference.
— Bill O’Connor, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin
Being responsible for safety
Regarding the editorial “Potential victims are shooting back. This should raise alarms for Chicago’s public officials” (June 6): The Tribune Editorial Board expresses concern that more citizens “taking responsibility for their own safety” by arming themselves “isn’t a healthy development.” But it is also not a healthy development for citizens of a republic to allow themselves to become completely dependent on the authorities. That is not compatible either with freedom or with safety, and it undermines our moral standing for holding our rulers accountable.
For decades, the Chicago political class and a succession of police superintendents — most egregiously, Garry McCarthy — sought to reduce ordinary citizens to helplessness. They wanted us to have to come to them, hat in hand, and beg for protection. Beggars can’t be choosers. We were like children begging for ice cream and then complaining when it wasn’t the flavor we wanted.
I agree with the Tribune Editorial Board that we need more police protection and more vigorous prosecution of criminals, but neither law nor custom requires the police to protect any individual citizen. A police officer is not your personal bodyguard, and it is unreasonable to expect it. The police are primarily responsible for public safety, but the safety of the individual is primarily the responsibility of the individual (not limited to the use of arms).
Once we recognize that natural division of labor, the police and the people can cooperated more effectively.
— John L. Sutton Jr., Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
