Trib Editorial: did Shite-for-Brains blow it on the Bears stadium?
Posted by osklister on June 8, 2026, 9:11:45
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.
Not on the Editorial page... but I guess you could call it a Sports Column (?) In any case, no punches pulled.
No one will escape blame-and fans' wrath-if Bears' proposed move to Hammond comes to fruition
Team is perilously close to taking its long-suffering fan base for granted.
By Scoop Jackson
From the outset, it was a deal described as a sweetheart of one. Too good to be legit, too compromising to ever be official. Plus, it was Indiana. No one goes to Indiana; they just go back to it.
Five years in the making it was. To all (still possibly, yet strongly) come to this. A situation, a conclusion, that began in 2021, when the Bears announced they had purchased the old Arlington International Racecourse space as an alternative for their next home, just in case they couldn't get full or shared stadium ownership of Soldier Field or get the public funding needed to build anew in the city, so that they would no longer be one of the few NFL teams left that didn't have some form of financial property rights to the stadium they called home.
Now, because of the latest announcement from chairman George McCaskey and president and CEO Kevin Warren, both speaking on behalf of the board of directors, claiming they ‘‘believe a world-class stadium project in Hammond will transform the region, connecting Northwest Indiana to the South Side of Chicago through the Loop and across neighborhoods and suburbs stretching north of the city,’’ the Bears could now be only the fourth team in the NFL that plays its home games in a state that ain’t the one the team touts as the one the franchise both resides in and represents.
The technicality: property-tax certainty. In much the same way something tax-related (evasion) ended Al Capone's Chicago reign, so has it apparently ended the Bears' Chicago run. With Arlington Heights, via Illinois state legislators, not being able to guarantee Bears ownership an immovable fixed number on what the taxes on a new stadium on the more than 300 acres of land they had (apparently) prematurely purchased would be, that small, unforeseen, some will say minor incentive has become the primary and indisputable reason, after 106 years, the Bears are giving the city and state the peace sign.
Along with the middle finger.
The blame game on this, if it goes through, is going to begin immediately and last until the Bears return to Chicago in 40 to 50 years, once the new-stadium smell in Hammond wears off for good. The state of Illinois is going to have blame tossed on it like confetti, and the McCaskey family is going to share a bulk of that same blame. Gov. Pritzker is going to have this stain on his political and presidential résumé. Mayor Brandon Johnson and Warren are going to inherit the blame as the two black men in the middle of this that allowed it to happen on their watch. Arlington Heights and the Village of Good Neighbors are going to be labeled Chicago's treasonous, insubordinate neighbors.
But maybe it ’s for the best. We'll see. Because at this point, after all the proposed deal has taken us through, all of the attention it has grabbed, the heartache it has caused, all of the time of our lives it has consumed, it ’s probably better to finally have this whole thing behind us and over with, as our care for where the Bears played evaporated with every new story and every turn the story took that came to light.
It had gotten to the point of exhaustion. The nonstop of a taxpayer-subsidized stadium, the weekly advance in plans b.s. that we were continually fed as updates, the games-inside-games that everyone involved seemed to be playing, masking them as negotiations. The entire process had reached the point of where they played no longer meant anything to us. As long as the name attached to them remained Chicago, where they balled meant nothing. And if we never hear the words megaprojects and PILOT (bills) again in our lives, we'd be good. Because where the Bears called home and where their home actually is will always to us be two different things once they decided to leave. And the latter will always and forever son the former in that instance.
The one thing, as I've said many times in these pages, that no organization in any sport wants is for its fan base to believe their team is taking them for granted. The Bears, with these months and months of gaslighting, were very close to crossing that fine line — invisible to them, it seemed — of making us all feel that we, the fans, were the least of their concerns when it came to the next place they were going to call home.
That index finger we've been holding up in reference to the Bears' current state and new future came with a sense of Chicago-connected pride signaling out to the world as public representatives of the team and organization that we are one and No. 1 and don't plan on going anywhere soon.
Too bad the finger being held back up to us by the Bears is the longer one next to the index.
Not on the Editorial page... but I guess you could call it a Sports Column (?) In any case, no punches pulled.
No one will escape blame-and fans' wrath-if Bears' proposed move to Hammond comes to fruition
Team is perilously close to taking its long-suffering fan base for granted.
By Scoop Jackson
From the outset, it was a deal described as a sweetheart of one. Too good to be legit, too compromising to ever be official. Plus, it was Indiana. No one goes to Indiana; they just go back to it.
Five years in the making it was. To all (still possibly, yet strongly) come to this. A situation, a conclusion, that began in 2021, when the Bears announced they had purchased the old Arlington International Racecourse space as an alternative for their next home, just in case they couldn't get full or shared stadium ownership of Soldier Field or get the public funding needed to build anew in the city, so that they would no longer be one of the few NFL teams left that didn't have some form of financial property rights to the stadium they called home.
Now, because of the latest announcement from chairman George McCaskey and president and CEO Kevin Warren, both speaking on behalf of the board of directors, claiming they ‘‘believe a world-class stadium project in Hammond will transform the region, connecting Northwest Indiana to the South Side of Chicago through the Loop and across neighborhoods and suburbs stretching north of the city,’’ the Bears could now be only the fourth team in the NFL that plays its home games in a state that ain’t the one the team touts as the one the franchise both resides in and represents.
The technicality: property-tax certainty. In much the same way something tax-related (evasion) ended Al Capone's Chicago reign, so has it apparently ended the Bears' Chicago run. With Arlington Heights, via Illinois state legislators, not being able to guarantee Bears ownership an immovable fixed number on what the taxes on a new stadium on the more than 300 acres of land they had (apparently) prematurely purchased would be, that small, unforeseen, some will say minor incentive has become the primary and indisputable reason, after 106 years, the Bears are giving the city and state the peace sign.
Along with the middle finger.
The blame game on this, if it goes through, is going to begin immediately and last until the Bears return to Chicago in 40 to 50 years, once the new-stadium smell in Hammond wears off for good. The state of Illinois is going to have blame tossed on it like confetti, and the McCaskey family is going to share a bulk of that same blame. Gov. Pritzker is going to have this stain on his political and presidential résumé. Mayor Brandon Johnson and Warren are going to inherit the blame as the two black men in the middle of this that allowed it to happen on their watch. Arlington Heights and the Village of Good Neighbors are going to be labeled Chicago's treasonous, insubordinate neighbors.
But maybe it ’s for the best. We'll see. Because at this point, after all the proposed deal has taken us through, all of the attention it has grabbed, the heartache it has caused, all of the time of our lives it has consumed, it ’s probably better to finally have this whole thing behind us and over with, as our care for where the Bears played evaporated with every new story and every turn the story took that came to light.
It had gotten to the point of exhaustion. The nonstop of a taxpayer-subsidized stadium, the weekly advance in plans b.s. that we were continually fed as updates, the games-inside-games that everyone involved seemed to be playing, masking them as negotiations. The entire process had reached the point of where they played no longer meant anything to us. As long as the name attached to them remained Chicago, where they balled meant nothing. And if we never hear the words megaprojects and PILOT (bills) again in our lives, we'd be good. Because where the Bears called home and where their home actually is will always to us be two different things once they decided to leave. And the latter will always and forever son the former in that instance.
The one thing, as I've said many times in these pages, that no organization in any sport wants is for its fan base to believe their team is taking them for granted. The Bears, with these months and months of gaslighting, were very close to crossing that fine line — invisible to them, it seemed — of making us all feel that we, the fans, were the least of their concerns when it came to the next place they were going to call home.
That index finger we've been holding up in reference to the Bears' current state and new future came with a sense of Chicago-connected pride signaling out to the world as public representatives of the team and organization that we are one and No. 1 and don't plan on going anywhere soon.
Too bad the finger being held back up to us by the Bears is the longer one next to the index.
His best move here is to rally the troops, pull rank, and throw ole haircut boy under the bus once and for all. There’s no way Johnson wins reelection, might as well sacrifice him now while there’s something to salvage from his corpse
His best move here is to rally the troops, pull rank, and throw ole haircut boy under the bus once and for all. There’s no way Johnson wins reelection, might as well sacrifice him now while there’s something to salvage from his corpse
His best move here is to rally the troops, pull rank, and throw ole haircut boy under the bus once and for all. There’s no way Johnson wins reelection, might as well sacrifice him now while there’s something to salvage from his corpse
Guns. Have them.
The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.
Socialism is the gospel of envy.
What's hilarious is that King Pritzger is trying to portray this as him protecting the taxpayers.*
His best move here is to rally the troops, pull rank, and throw ole haircut boy under the bus once and for all. There’s no way Johnson wins reelection, might as well sacrifice him now while there’s something to salvage from his corpse
Guns. Have them.
The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.
Socialism is the gospel of envy.
Hey, the guy can try to rationalize it any way he wants. There's a deal to be made...
All Brandon sees is that he will be ""blamed"" for a loss to the suburbs.
Now how Fatazz got himself into this predicament has to be questioned, especially if there's unionized construction jobs going to the Villains, Thieves, and Scoundrels Union (Local 12) in Indiana instead of Local 16 here in Illinois. Did he really get outfoxed by that remarkable chowderhead Brandon Haircut??? Guy who couldn't figure out a way to get out of a wet paper bag???
May you live in interesting times...
Stepping in here late...but I thought the prevailing thoughts these days...
...were to tell professional sports teams to go pound sand when looking for public financing for privately held stadiums.
No?
Previous Message
All Brandon sees is that he will be ""blamed"" for a loss to the suburbs.
Now how Fatazz got himself into this predicament has to be questioned, especially if there's unionized construction jobs going to the Villains, Thieves, and Scoundrels Union (Local 12) in Indiana instead of Local 16 here in Illinois. Did he really get outfoxed by that remarkable chowderhead Brandon Haircut??? Guy who couldn't figure out a way to get out of a wet paper bag???
May you live in interesting times...
you mean like in kc mo? how did that work out for them?*
...were to tell professional sports teams to go pound sand when looking for public financing for privately held stadiums.
No?
Previous Message
All Brandon sees is that he will be ""blamed"" for a loss to the suburbs.
Now how Fatazz got himself into this predicament has to be questioned, especially if there's unionized construction jobs going to the Villains, Thieves, and Scoundrels Union (Local 12) in Indiana instead of Local 16 here in Illinois. Did he really get outfoxed by that remarkable chowderhead Brandon Haircut??? Guy who couldn't figure out a way to get out of a wet paper bag???
May you live in interesting times...
So you’re on record for giving these teams straight up taxpayer dollars?
I’m fine with public funding of infrastructure improvements. I’m good with temporary tax abatements. I’m not a fan of bond measures financing a stadium that then is privately owned or exclusively used by an already super wealthy sports team.
Golden State Warriors privately financed their stadium.
Previous Message
Previous Message
...were to tell professional sports teams to go pound sand when looking for public financing for privately held stadiums.
No?
Previous Message
All Brandon sees is that he will be ""blamed"" for a loss to the suburbs.
Now how Fatazz got himself into this predicament has to be questioned, especially if there's unionized construction jobs going to the Villains, Thieves, and Scoundrels Union (Local 12) in Indiana instead of Local 16 here in Illinois. Did he really get outfoxed by that remarkable chowderhead Brandon Haircut??? Guy who couldn't figure out a way to get out of a wet paper bag???
May you live in interesting times...
Seemed like the sticking point here was the "" property tax certainty "" concept.
New Soldier Field on the lakefront: would that have gotten some of those "no" votes over to "yes" ? At the very least, that location is currently not generating property tax revenue and wouldn't change. Almost zero chance that anyone will change that within my lifetime.
Dunno exactly how much the state was being asked to kick in at Arlington but (again, totally AFAIK) it was going to be mainly water/sewer. Traffic? Arlington Park was already there for years; negligible effects AFAIK. Plus, there was some thought to constructing a village of bars and restaurants: maybe even some apartments and condo's ? IOW, expanding the Arlington Heights tax base ??
Reading between the lines on what some local political-heads have been writing... ol' Brandon had just enough support to take his ball and go home once it wasn't going to be on the lakefront. And Fatazz Pritzker couldn't counteract that in time.
Totally MHO. All I know is what I read in the newspapers...
I do not think I have ever seen any really concrete and confirmed details as to . . .
. . . what the Bears have been asking for. But according to a lot of what I read, it was primarily property tax breaks. Which I do not necessarily find objectionable. Guns. Have them.
The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.
Socialism is the gospel of envy.
the mayor of ah claimed tax certainty, which apparently, the state must approve?
but i always thought there was an infrastructure component to this as well.
Previous Message
. . . what the Bears have been asking for. But according to a lot of what I read, it was primarily property tax breaks. Which I do not necessarily find objectionable.
I wouldn’t either…but wouldn’t that be an Arlington Heights issue?
Also, two things. Property tax abatement as long as it’s capped by timeframe. The abatement should be helping defer construction costs, not just a permanent gift.
I’m unbothered by the Bears inevitably leaving Chicago because I saw the whole thing play out with the Niners and it’s been embarrassingly good for the team and region.
Previous Message
. . . what the Bears have been asking for. But according to a lot of what I read, it was primarily property tax breaks. Which I do not necessarily find objectionable.
I seem to recall something about Arlington Heights not being to able to do this on its own.
That may not be correct and I do not recall any details. But apparently Arlington Heights for some reason needed to involve Springfield in the arrangements.Guns. Have them.
The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.
Socialism is the gospel of envy.
Wish I could find more on what Springfield was needed for, but AH was overjoyed to get the Bears.
In no way, shape or form can you lay this at Arlington's doorstep. They'd be dancing in the streets if the thing had gotten thru.
There was two different acronyms/bills that were being bandied about in the last three months or so, but it all revolves around property tax certainty. Wish I could find what those two different concepts/acronyms were... if I do I'll add them here.
In the meantime... longish article from the Sun-Times. If any newspaper in Chicago is more Brandon/Fatazz favorable, it's the S-T. And I can tell you the author "Fran Spielman" has been talking Chicago/Springfield politics for as long as I can recall. FWIW, graduated from NU in 1975; she knows where the bodies are buried as well as anyone in Chicago media.
EDIT: Found one acronym I was thinking of: PILOT. Payment In Lieu Of Taxes.
Quite a long article from the Sun-Times: not favorable to... well, anyone.
With Bears saying they’re leaving for Indiana, blame game in Illinois spreads far and wide
Springfield’s inaction on incentives to keep the team in-state has been just the latest in a long-running political comedy of errors.
By Fran Spielman and Mitchell Armentrout
When the Bears lose a big game, there’s usually a team full of players to blame. It’s almost never one player’s fault. The same goes for the stadium saga that took a dramatic turn for Illinois on Friday with the team’s decision to forge ahead with plans to move to Indiana.
The Illinois General Assembly’s breathtaking decision to fumble the ball and adjourn without doing anything for the Bears left Hammond, Indiana, in the driver’s seat. The legislature essentially called the Bears’ bluff, daring them to make the jump across the border.
On Friday, the team said it was preparing to do exactly that. Following the Bears’ board of directors meeting Thursday, the team announced the decision to move forward with plans to build a stadium in Indiana, where lawmakers already have approved a smorgasbord of local taxes to pay for a new dome, in stark contrast with do-nothing Illinois.
It’s far from a done deal. But if the Bears pull up stakes, there’s enough blame to go around to fill a season’s worth of NFL playbooks.
The list starts with former Bears President Ted Phillips, continues with his successor, Kevin Warren, and goes right down the line to the officials who couldn’t, or wouldn’t, get the ball over the legislative goal line.
Fans have been quick to point the finger at Gov. JB Pritzker, but the line extends to Illinois Senate President Don Harmon and House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch, on down the line to Mayor Brandon Johnson and his tag-team partner, Chicago Teachers Union president Stacy Davis Gates — all the way to Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, the county Democratic Party chair.
“There is nobody, including the media, whose hands are not on the bloody knife,” a source close to negotiations said. “Everyone’s hands are on it.
“The Bears f----- it up by going with Johnson’s stupid thing without pulling Springfield in and having there be $2 billion in state funding required,” the source said, referring to their ballyhooed 2024 pitch for a lakefront dome south of Soldier Field. “The Bears own the first full year of failure. Then there was the second year of failure, which probably the governor owns a lot of because he didn’t get his head out of the sand until December, when Indiana became real.”
--Cleaning up ‘Ted Phillips’ mess’
Warren was hired in January 2023 specifically because of his track record of delivering a stadium deal for the Minnesota Vikings. The day he arrived, he named the Bears’ long-standing stadium quest for a privately built, team-owned dome as his No. 1 priority to secure the financial future of the family-owned franchise.
Early on, Warren set a series of deadlines to break ground, arguing every month without a shovel in the ground was costing the Bears millions of dollars. But his failure to deliver on the promise has now cost the team hundreds of millions due to escalating construction costs, with no end in sight.
State Rep. Kam Buckner, lead blocker for a House megaprojects bill that never got a vote in the Illinois Senate, said the Bears’ failures started with Warren’s predecessor, Phillips, who purchased the shuttered Arlington International Racecourse site for $197.2 million without first securing the legislative approval to break ground.
“They spent $200 million, which I believe is about $100 million more than the land was worth,” Buckner told the Sun-Times. “They negotiated against themselves to buy that land with no plan. After the fact, they decided, ‘Hey, we need to find a way to make this work.’ They did it backwards.
“They bought the wedding dress before they went on the first date. They brought in Kevin after the fact, then Kevin had to clean up Ted Phillips’ mess. The McCaskey family green-lit that,” Buckner said. “I don’t know anywhere in corporate America where you can make that type of purchase without having due diligence and a plan. That’s where this starts. It went wrong from the very beginning.”
The comedy of errors by team officials didn’t stop there, according to state Sen. Bill Cunningham, who tried to salvage stadium legislation with a last-ditch shot that didn’t get a House vote before the end of the spring session.
“Working with the Bears has been frustrating from the beginning,” Cunningham said. The Bears had a blue-ribbon lobbying team inside the Capitol that had advised Warren not to stand alone at the lakefront in 2024 with Johnson at a news conference without Pritzker, Harmon or Welch, who all quickly threw cold water on the proposal, sources said.
Unlike Warren, who appeared to have a budding political bromance with Johnson, the Bears’ lobbying team privately advised the politically naive Bears president that Johnson didn’t have the clout or the legislative know-how to get anything done, let alone a deal as controversial as this.
Chicago sports marketing consultant Marc Ganis countered that Warren shouldn’t take all the blame because he pivoted quickly to Arlington Heights “once he realized how big a disaster this mayor was.”
But it wasn’t the only time Warren ignored the advice of his own counsel.
There were the frequent shifts in stadium focus, with Warren’s eyes wandering like a fickle teenager between Chicago, Arlington Heights and Indiana. He also seemed to humor Preckwinkle’s pitch for the former Michael Reese Hospital site that he had already dismissed as too narrow.
“They’ve pivoted between various plans, back and forth between Arlington Heights and the lakefront,” Cunningham said, adding their late-game back-channel discussions with the city “completely undermined their efforts in Springfield.”
Johnson’s senior adviser, Jason Lee, denied that Johnson’s team double-crossed the Bears and lost the team’s trust by putting out word in the final days of the session of the team’s late dalliance with the mayor’s failed lakefront stadium plan. The Bears quickly denied it, but it was enough to throw a wrench in talks.
“We didn’t put any of that information in the public. Everything we communicated was based on what information we were requested to provide by the legislature,” Lee said. “The legislature asked questions about communications. The only choice would have been to lie to our legislators, which would not be acceptable.”
Until then, Welch said he thought the bill that passed his chamber “had some legs, to come back with some some changes, but not dramatic.”
“Certainly, when that news came out, I think that really did upend what was happening in the Senate,” Welch told the Sun-Times.
--The role of a risk-averse governor
Even after Indiana’s quickie approval of a sweetheart stadium deal for the Bears forced Pritzker off the sidelines, Illinois’ risk-averse governor remained at a safe distance from negotiations.
In the run-up to the spring session, Pritzker had his deputy governor Andy Manar meet weekly with Buckner and Cunningham, which did help build some trust with the governor’s office and the Bears.
But to pass the Illinois House, the megaprojects bill Pritzker has been seeking for years was weighed down by a virtual Christmas tree of goodies to benefit the city and other parts of the state.
The tax incentives for Chicago could have been used to jump-start development at Michael Reese, The 78, a scaled-down version of the stalled One Central development across the street from Soldier Field and the South Loop Amtrak railyard being eyed by White Sox chairman-in-waiting Justin Ishbia.
Despite those Chicago goodies and the potential for state help to renovate Soldier Field and untangle the traffic bottleneck around it, Johnson mounted the legislative equivalent of a goal-line stand against the bill that would’ve paved the Bears’ path to the suburbs.
His trip to the state capital moved the needle, but even more important was the heavy hand of his longtime CTU ally, Davis Gates, who publicly slammed the megaprojects bill as a killer for education funding, already being shortchanged anyway by Pritzker, she claimed. Her opposition put the nail in the coffin for progressives reluctant to help a pro sports franchise valued at $8.9 billion.
Chicago Democrats in the Senate didn’t need all that much convincing.
“Johnson went hard against it. Davis Gates went hard against it. Toni was mute. Don Harmon was mute, and the version in the House … was too big to get done,” said a source close to negotiations.
The source added, “If I was the Bears, I would not be blowing anything up. I would hold my temper. I would smile. But I would be calling people in Indiana saying, ‘Get this thing to a place where we have something to sign. We’re ready.’”
Ganis was incredulous the Illinois House and Senate weren’t in session at the same time until the final days and that Welch and Harmon “never got together to agree on what they were prepared to do” for the Bears.
“That, to me, is where the greatest fault lies, that these three people who were supposed to be working together never got together and came to a conclusion themselves,” Ganis said.
“That is entirely indicative of the dysfunction of our government here. I also believe it’s a reflection of the control certain parties have over the Chicago delegation in Springfield. Certain non-elected parties, and I do mean Stacy Davis Gates. If people didn’t know this before, they need to look at what happened here. She is clearly the most powerful person in the state of Illinois and city of Chicago politics,” Ganis said.
--Ball now in Bears’ hands
In the end, the legislature’s decision to punt put the ball squarely in the Bears’ hands to name their destination.
“If they really want to build a stadium, I don’t know that they’re going to be able to build a stadium in Illinois,” another source said. “They’re not going to get what they want here without extracting multiple pounds of flesh.
“It really just shows you how dysfunctional things are in Illinois. The fact that they’ve been trying to get a stadium for three years, they pass a bill in the House, we wait weeks and weeks and weeks for the Senate to tell us what they think they’re going to do, and then the Senate files a bill at 11 o’clock at night? It wasn’t serious. They’re checking a box.”
Hammond is the only choice “if the Bears really want to build a stadium,” the source said. “If you don’t really want to build your own stadium, then start having conversations and work on how to fix Soldier Field.”
It’s all a loss for Pritzker, who has long called for Illinois to join dozens of other states with megaproject incentive legislation.
“Thirty-eight states have a PILOT (payments in lieu of taxes) megaprojects law,” Pritzker said. “We are literally behind the curve. All we’re doing is organizing the way that they negotiate — they’ve always been negotiating about property taxes all across the country. It’s just in Illinois where we’ve had a disorganized, dysfunctional endeavor forever.”
The message the General Assembly delivered by doing nothing was not simply a message to the Bears, who pretty much need to make the move to Indiana to maintain any credibility at all.
“The politics are too bad here to make a bet on Illinois,” said a source close to the stadium negotiations. “That’s the message.”
Chicago sports marketing consultant Marc Ganis countered that Warren shouldn’t take all the blame because he pivoted quickly to Arlington Heights “once he realized how big a disaster this mayor was.”Guns. Have them.
The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.
Socialism is the gospel of envy.
How long did it take said consultant to come to this conclusion?
---Warren shouldn’t take all the blame because he pivoted quickly to Arlington Heights “once he realized how big a disaster this mayor was.”
FWLIW: Fatazz is making noise about a special session of the IL Legislature. Over the weekend, that wasn't even on the table. Maybe someone from the Brandon crowd is cracking?? JB threatening to primary the living shite out of people??
Chicago is lost. I like visiting, but I would never consider coming back on a full-time basis.
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.
Also anyone living there unless they’re there for their pension that can hopefully still be paid out.
Previous Message
Chicago is lost. I like visiting, but I would never consider coming back on a full-time basis.
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.
Also anyone living there unless they’re there for their pension that can hopefully still be paid out.
Previous Message
Chicago is lost. I like visiting, but I would never consider coming back on a full-time basis.
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.
Also anyone living there unless they’re there for their pension that can hopefully still be paid out.
Previous Message
Chicago is lost. I like visiting, but I would never consider coming back on a full-time basis.
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.
...but I watched an instagram video recently where they spoke of business struggles of many of the massive replacement venues. The half dozen chain format country bars that are struggling, etc etc.
But it's just lost it's character. More stuffy and looking like Lake Forrest. There isn't really anything wrong with this. It's just not the town I knew.
Ah...well be glad it's gone that way instead of the way my hometown has gone...
I have fond memories of growing up there...riding bikes, buying matchbox cars and Hit Parade Magazine, going to the pool, watching little league games and all that same shit.
The past few times I've been back all but one of the banks has closed. Most of the restaurants are gone from downtown. There's no real smalltown feel...but an empty town feel. Much of downtown are re-sale shops with regional box stores on the perimeter. Golf course has turned into a free access 9 hole course.
Basically there's the bean plant and the hospital and a few businesses to support them. And a crapload of bars.
It's not an awesome feeling to visit.
I almost drove through the downtown area on my way back home this past Easter.
Wanted to take a look at that German restaurant if it's still around. But there is kind of sad vibe these days to not only Gibson City but CU as well. A longing for days gone by. Guns. Have them.
The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.
Socialism is the gospel of envy.
German restaurant is no more. Neither is the restaurant that replaced it...
The Bayern Stube was largely reliant on out of town traffic and there's become less and less of a reason for anyone not from Gibson to be in Gibson anymore.
Previous Message
Wanted to take a look at that German restaurant if it's still around. But there is kind of sad vibe these days to not only Gibson City but CU as well. A longing for days gone by.
Well, that sucks. The entire region just seems kind of tired.*
The Bayern Stube was largely reliant on out of town traffic and there's become less and less of a reason for anyone not from Gibson to be in Gibson anymore.
Previous Message
Wanted to take a look at that German restaurant if it's still around. But there is kind of sad vibe these days to not only Gibson City but CU as well. A longing for days gone by.
Guns. Have them.
The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.
Socialism is the gospel of envy.
I mean, I don't wanna shit on a place that I don't live in anymore...but "tired" seems accurate...
The Bayern Stube was largely reliant on out of town traffic and there's become less and less of a reason for anyone not from Gibson to be in Gibson anymore.
Previous Message
Wanted to take a look at that German restaurant if it's still around. But there is kind of sad vibe these days to not only Gibson City but CU as well. A longing for days gone by.
The one thing they have done that is a big positive is that they now allow alcohol to be served
in restaurants. It was pretty much a dry town my entire life. But now there are some nice little cafes/bar and grills. But it's getting stuffy and crowded. Overall it's a good thing. But just isn't mine anymore.
on June 8, 2026, 9:11:45
Previous Message