Previous Message

Editorial: Did Mayor Brandon Johnson betray the Bears?

Much piques our curiosity about Springfield's failure to settle on a pathway to constructing a new domed stadium for the Chicago Bears.

We think one aspect hasn't got nearly enough attention: the assertions in recent weeks by Mayor Brandon Johnson and others in a position to know that Bears leadership was talking with the mayor and his people about possibilities for a stadium in Chicago even as the team was publicly saying, unequivocally, that the city was no longer an option and that Arlington Heights was the only spot in Illinois under consideration.

After the mayor initially disclosed the secret-talks bombshell last month, the Bears in a statement said that "any meetings" they had with the city were confidential and went no higher than "council to council engagement." The team implied — but didn't state categorically — that the discussions centered on the team's current tenancy at Soldier Field rather than possibilities for a new stadium in Chicago.

"No substantive changes resulted" from those discussions, the Bears said then. "There are only two sites under consideration, Arlington Heights and Hammond."

Pretty unequivocal.

That statement came 10 days before the stadium legislation died on the vine in the early morning hours of Monday in the state Capitol. Since then, the Bears have clammed up, saying only that they plan to make a final decision on a stadium in the late spring or early summer.

News flash: That's now.

What we would give to hear more from the Bears on what just happened in Springfield! Not to mention their opinion on the role Mayor Johnson played.

Even after the Bears' statement last month that poured cold water on Team Johnson's claims, the mayor doubled down and reiterated that possibilities for a future new stadium in the city were part of the talks. Importantly, the administration's claims were bolstered by state Sen. Bill Cunningham, the Chicago Democrat who served as point person in the upper chamber on the stadium issue and plans to retire next year. Cunningham is the closest person we have in this story to a trustworthy narrator.

"They were publicly saying there was a binary choice between Arlington Heights and Hammond while they were conducting, let's call them back-channel discussions with the city of Chicago," Cunningham said Tuesday on sports talk radio station WSCR-FM 104.3 The Score. "Those discussions completely undermined their efforts in Springfield during the legislative session."

Along these lines, many critics have agreed with Cunningham and laid blame for the stadium failure on the Bears, particularly for sending mixed messages about their commitment to Arlington Heights (and Hammond, for that matter). That's a legitimate criticism, in our view.

But what of the mayor?

Assuming you believe what the Bears said in their statement last month, their dealings with the city were meant to be confidential. "Consistent with longstanding practice, these discussions covered a variety of topics and will remain confidential," the team said at the time.

Johnson clearly felt no such compunctions. If we are to take the Bears at their word in their understanding that their communications with Johnson and his representatives weren't for public consumption, the mayor of Chicago has badly betrayed them. He appears to have weaponized these sensitive discussions to kill the Bears' project in Arlington Heights.

In so doing, of course, he's been wildly successful. If nothing else is gained through this sabotage, Johnson has gone some distance toward puncturing the preexisting narrative that he has little to no influence in Springfield.

In his three years as mayor, Johnson hasn't shown he can win much on behalf of Chicago in the General Assembly. But he has now demonstrated that he can kill an important initiative he views as negative for Chicago — an initiative, by the way, that was a high priority of Gov. JB Pritzker.

So how do the Bears now view this mayor? Johnson says he wants to revive his proposal for new domed stadium on the lakefront, which Bears President Kevin Warren embraced two years ago but was quickly declared a non-starter by Pritzker and state legislative leaders because it would have required nearly $1 billion in state tax subsidies. Since that time, the Bears have consistently said Arlington Heights is their sole focus in Illinois.

If the Bears were secretly entertaining reviving the Chicago plan earlier this spring, as the mayor says, why would they do so now? The mayor appears to have used the team's own willingness to keep communication channels open to kill their project.

How can the Bears, or any major enterprise planning a significant project or expansion in Chicago and relying for a time on discretion from the fifth floor, do business with a mayor who's shown he's willing to betray confidences to further his political ends?

Perhaps all is fair in love, war and politics. And maybe there's something more to this story that isn't apparent yet. It's been a wild saga, so we won't dismiss any possibility at this point.

But the mayor ought to answer why, in light of this seeming betrayal, businesses still should feel confident discussing sensitive matters with him.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/editorial-did-mayor-brandon-johnson-100000632.html