My memory may be wrong, but I recall that George Lucas and Mellody Hobson wanted to fund the entire cost of a museum on our lakefront where the Bears now want to build. Absolutely no cost to taxpayers. The group Friends of the Parks objected to Lucas’ offer. Perhaps rightly so. But the museum and vast art collection would have been available to Chicagoans and visitors year-round. Not for eight to 10 football games and some occasional concerts.
What am I missing here?
If the Bears stadium were to be plopped down on our lakefront, it would be very unfortunate. Politics as usual in Chicago and Illinois.
— Lloyd Novak, Barrington
How would taxpayers benefit?
Taxpayer involvement in the proposed Chicago Bears stadium begs the question: How does the taxpayer benefit from the deal?
It’s clear that the Bears would come out the financial winner in this deal and taxpayers would be left with the cost of the financing of the Soldier Field work. If the public is paying in part for this deal, then it needs to be much more clear as to what our benefits will be.
Sure, it’s fine to have a great Chicago team — especially for team ownership — playing in a state-of-the-art stadium. But I think this proposal needs to lay out more clearly what public ownership gets the public aside from the bill for paying off the current stadium costs.
Grand promises have come and gone in the past. Perhaps taxpayers ought to get a piece of the revenue from this investment we’re paying for.
— David Kravitz, Chicago
Build 2 stadiums together
One of the most interesting ongoing stories around the area is the possible building of two new sports stadiums. I am 100% opposed to a lakefront stadium for anybody, including the Chicago Bears. That is a location for bike paths, rose gardens and oak trees. The buildings already there are a scar on Lake Michigan, a scar on Chicago’s front door. If I had a magic wand and billions of dollars, I would uproot McCormick Place, the Field Museum, the Shedd Aquarium and the Adler Planetarium and relocate them somewhere else. In 100 years, do you think our great-grandchildren will want old dilapidated structures on Chicago’s lakefront?
A nice wish, but I’m getting off point. Chicago’s mayor, the Illinois governor, Bears owner the McCaskey family and Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf are missing something. There is a chance to do something really unprecedented. Put a pair of stadiums next to each other — not one stadium to serve two sports, which has not worked in the past, but two stadiums complementing the other. It would be a magnificent achievement.
A football stadium where the south-facing goalpost area can open up a baseball stadium and where the north-facing left field can open up, marrying the two into a much larger facility. A facility to use for political events, music events and events not yet imagined. That would be something to even amaze Taylor Swift the next time she comes to town to boost Chicago’s economy.
Let me put something else into the mix. A permanent Chicago casino has not yet broken ground. Not that I approve of casinos, but Bally’s has not yet started building. Put together restaurants, bars, hotels, a casino, and two stadiums to make the economies of scale for the parking, street reconfigurations, highway access, and public transportation beneficial for all.
Get a very very good architect/engineer. Offer that firm a chance to use 60-plus acres of land along the South Branch of the Chicago River to build something amazing, something more amazing than anything else in North America.
Do the people in their offices in Guaranteed Rate Field, Halas Hall, City Hall and Springfield want to do a second-class job? An expensive second-class job? Or something great?
— William Scherer, Wood Dale
Reasonable property taxes
The time has come for the Chicago Bears to finally bite the bullet and agree to pay a reasonable amount of property taxes to support the schools around its new stadium as the cost of moving to new and more lucrative surroundings in the suburbs.
For months, the Bears have been touting going somewhere else — Naperville and other suburbs — in an effort to make their financial arrangements more lucrative. Now they have convinced gullible Mayor Brandon Johnson that the city of Chicago would be well off to use lakefront land to build a new stadium and tear down the old one. They know well that the Friends of the Park will sue, that the City Council and the state legislature will rebel, and that the financial returns are just not there for the Bears. They know all this but continue to play the game.
The Bears should be careful. The targets may well get tired of the game and just refuse to play (and pay) any more. Then the Bears would be even worse off than they are now.
— Frank L. Schneider, Chicago
Not the gift it appears to be
Regarding the proposal for a “publicly owned” Chicago Bears stadium: It’s like the rich uncle buying his nephew a brand-new expensive car by taking care of the down payment, but leaving him stuck with the balance, interest payments and maintenance cost. This without first asking his nephew if he even wants a new car, since he is still paying off the one he has now.
— Daniel Morgenthaler, Chicago
Reconfigure Soldier Field
If the Chicago Bears are genuine in wanting to stay in town for a 77,000-seat domed stadium, they can, with a reconfigured Soldier Field. By retrofitting 7,000 mezzanine seats at each end zone, installing a lightweight geodesic-type roof structure, and adding a new heating and ventilating system, the existing 20-year-old building would meet all their stated requirements. The cost would be far less than $4.6 billion, and all the parking and site amenities would remain intact.
Discarding these existing usable facilities at the taxpayer’s expense is unwarranted and wasteful. The solution is in the hands of the creative genius that is Chicago.
— Thomas Hickey, Bridgman, Michigan
No tax money for stadium
I never watch sports on TV or listen to games on the radio. The first thing I do when I open my delivered newspaper (shout-out to my wonderful delivery person Celia Sotos-Reyes) is put the sports section in the recyclables.
I sure don’t want to spend a dime of my taxpayer money on a new stadium for the Bears or the Sox.
— Leslie Ladd, Chicago
Critical details for deal
The question of whether you are for or against using taxpayer funds for a new Bears stadium seems to be a premature question. As I see it, what can Mayor Brandon Johnson endorse as being great for the city? We don’t know what the terms of a lease or how revenues from stadium use for non-Bears games would be split. Isn’t this the most important item to know?
I read that the full cost of the requested $900 million in bonds is really $5 billion over 40 years. Haven’t we been misled too many times by our elected officials to even consider approval or disapproval without every single item of the deal being set in stone? The dollars are too great to leave unknowns for future determination.
The revenue the stadium generates through rent from the Bears and who gets ancillary revenue are about the most critical pieces of information to know if this stadium is beneficial to the taxpayers. So far, Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch and Illinois Senate President Don Harmon are asking the right questions. Hopefully, they don’t get swept up in a frenzy and commit any taxpayer funds unless and until every last detail is agreed upon and sees the light of day.
Remember: Kansas City voters rejected taxpayer funds to help a Super Bowl-winning team. I think our citizens would vote the same way.
— David Goss, Chicago
Let them pay for their own
As of 2023, the Chicago White Sox franchise was worth $2.05 billion. As of 2023, the Chicago Bears franchise was worth $6.3 billion.
I think they can both afford to build their own stadiums without the taxpayers’ money.
Prove me wrong. I’ll wait.
— Jonathen Limp, Streamwood
Use revenue to pay bonds
Regarding the plan for a new domed Bears stadium, I have a proposal to fund the stadium project.
Lawmakers should consider taking all revenue generated by the stadium events to pay off any bonds created to build the stadium and any other infrastructure improvements. This would not allow anyone to make any money until the bonds were paid back.
TV and concession revenue could still be collected by the Bears and city to help pay for event costs.
Seems like a reasonable option.
— John MacNamara, Orland Park
A venue for the unwanted
Regarding the letter about the “Museum for the Unwanted” (April 27): Great idea! That letter to the editor should be taken seriously by the leaders of our city. As so many artworks have become offensive to those whose sensibilities clash with the artistic creations of others, the need to find a proper venue for the now-unwanted art pieces should be addressed.
Instead of a lakefront stadium for the Bears, a Museum for the Unwanted would not only make it easier to decide what to do with these now-infamous pieces, but it also would surely become a touristic attraction that might bring significant revenues to Chicago.
I’m sure conservatives would gladly foot the bill for such an endeavor.
— Berta Graciano, Chicago
Use money to protect birds
Instead of thinking to spend billons of dollars on a new stadium for the Bears, why not subsidize the retrofitting of windows with bird protection while we still have some birds left?
A form of protection that isn’t mandatory is no protection at all. Either it should be made law or it should be paid for or subsidized by the city of Chicago.
— Michele Fiala, Chicago
NFL should issue a loan
I just wanted to say that I think it’s time for the NFL to step up and loan the Bears money for a new stadium. The NFL certainly has the money and a vested interest in promoting the Bears and making their stadium more inviting to fans. Then sports teams can assume more responsibility to the cities they play in.
It seems like a win-win situation. The NFL can decide what interest it will charge and what to do if the Bears miss a payment.
— Lin Zielinski, Downers Grove
I have low expectations
Watching all the hype about the Bears draft, I can go only to the past few years of disappointment. We’ve seen this before. Put all kinds of pressure on a kid coming from college with no experience in the pros. The coaching staff doesn’t know what to do with talent. Then the team trades him away to watch him bloom under a good coach.
Don’t get your hopes up!
— James Cronin, Lombard
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
