Jon Styf

Wisconsin & publicly funded sports stadiums everywhere for @thecentersquare. Email jstyf(at)

[SteveBrubaker @stevebrubaker]

I talked about this yesterday. Can’t get it out of my head. The prediction market licensing and taxation framework the State put in their revenue bill will produce nothing for the State. Nothing. I can’t decide if this was stupidity on the part of the State or intentional.

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

How about that. The opposition didn't make sense. This does.

[Paris Schutz @paschutz]

REVISED: Arlington Heights' Mayor Jim Tinaglia isn't opposed to the Senate Bears Bill, rather angry that nothing passed the full General Assembly. My mistake -- here is his full statement:

"The Village of Arlington Heights has spent the past five years working diligently to prepare for the
redevelopment of Arlington Park. We are truly disappointed with the outcome from the spring
legislative session yet again,” said Mayor Jim Tinaglia. “Although we recognize that these
discussions are complex and involve many stakeholders, this is clearly a fumble for the State of
Illinois. My commitment to the residents and businesses of Arlington Heights is unwavering, and we
will continue to represent the interests of our community as future opportunities and next steps are
considered.”

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

@BDR374 I am not compelled by your thorough argument.

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

I disagree entirely that the financial math for the team is "unquestionably better in Indiana." In fact, it isn't close. Being able to pay for a development in AH with sales tax (same as the state paying for it through general revenue, BTW) and Bears keeping all revenue is huge.

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

The conversation continues on the Bears stadium/megaproject bills.

[Rep.Kam Buckner ✶ ✶ ✶ ✶ @RepKamBuckner]

While we had hoped to get this done before adjournment, it became clear when HB958 was filed in the early morning hours that the votes simply weren't there. That's nobody's fault. It's just the reality of trying to move something of this size, complexity, and consequence in the final hours of session.

The truth is that proposals of this magnitude take time. Members need time to review details, ask questions, hear from stakeholders, and understand the long-term implications of what they're being asked to support. This proposal came together late in the process, and many members simply did not have enough time to get comfortable with it.

Even though the last 24 hours felt incredibly urgent, as they always do during the controlled chaos of the final days of session, it's important to remember that while HB 910, which the House approved five weeks ago, carried an immediate effective date. The proposal that passed this morning does not. Its effective date is January of 2027.

That’s an acknowledgment that there is still time to continue the work. There is still time to answer questions, refine concepts, build consensus, and continue discussions with the Bears and all the stakeholders involved. The legislative pathway remains open. The Senate has a House bill available for consideration. The House now has a Senate bill available for consideration. The vehicles are there, and the conversations are ongoing.

I remain optimistic. We all share the same goal: finding a solution that works for the Bears, works for taxpayers, and earns the confidence of the General Assembly.

This morning was the end of session. It was not the end of the conversation.

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

@stevebrubaker Right. The House didn't vote on it. I don't believe this means it's over though. If they wanted to go to Indiana, they would have already announced they are going to Indiana.

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

Again, the development beyond a stadium in Arlington Heights is such a big part of the Bears' plan there. This is what they believe they will bring in more than is currently brought in by Soldier Field.

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

The Bears claimed last July that these were the numbers over 40 years, w/ $2B in net new revenue "beyond activity at Soldier Field"

[Brenden Moore @brendenmoore13]

Statement from the Bears: "We will finalize our evaluation of both Arlington Heights and Hammond, and remain on the late spring/early summer timeline that we have previously communicated. We will provide an update when we have a decision to share."

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

Brian with the AFP opinion on the new bill: “This is better than the megaproject bill only because it does not appear to create the same phantom-EAV property-tax bomb.” … it also
is far less sweeping of an impact than the megaproject bill.

[Brian Costin @BrianCostin]

🚨Americans for Prosperity Illinois (@AFPIllinois) opposes the new stadium bill for Cook County/Bears.

HB 958 Senate Amendment 2 is not “taxpayer protection.”

It creates a new public stadium subsidy framework.

What the bill does:

• Creates a Municipal Stadium Authority
• Let the authority own a pro sports stadium
• Makes the stadium property-tax exempt
• Allows authority revenue bonds without referendum
• Allows the municipality to issue GO bonds
• Allows pledged public revenues to repay debt
• Opens the door to STAR/NOVA district financing
• Let future sales-tax growth be used for the project

This is better than the megaproject bill only because it does not appear to create the same phantom-EAV property-tax bomb.

But it still goes the wrong direction.

Instead of a private-use stadium paying property taxes or a negotiated PILOT, the bill lets it be publicly owned and removed from the tax base entirely.

That means ordinary taxpayers carry more of the load.
Lawmakers had a better option: tax certainty without a blank check.

AFP-Illinois opposes HB 958 SA 2.
This is corporate welfare, not property-tax relief.
https://t.co/9059thZFIN

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

So this is what a stadium authority tax capture looks like (via Nashville)... teams looks at data/projections like this and far beyond while "negotiating"

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

One thing stadium authorities do in many spots is bond debt for a project and use revenue bonds to get the best rates with the promise of paying it back with things such as sales tax in a stadium/development or hotel/motel tax. Is that how Bears infrastructure $$$ will appear?

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

And.... as I have stated so many times... the district around the stadium is where the Bears will gain so much revenue. This clause allows that to be a STAR bond district and have the development costs paid off with a tax capture. Yep.

[Brian Costin @BrianCostin]

Ok. Beginning a Deep Dive. Big problem on page two. ARLINGTON HEIGHTS would be INELIGIBLE for a Stadium Authority to attract a BEARS Stadium.

The bill allows a Municipal Stadium authority in communities over 70,000 ENTIRELY LOCATED in Cook County. This is a problem because a small portion of Arlington Heights is in Lake County, which would make it ineligible.

LOL. Amateur Hour or deliberate sabotage by Chicago?

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

The use of “sales tax increment” here is wild. Yes, the additional sales tax beyond what they currently get here…

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

And.... as I have stated so many times... the district around the stadium is where the Bears will gain so much revenue. This clause allows that to be a STAR bond district and have the development costs paid off with a tax capture. Yep.

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

@MudderFudder77 And, this takes it a few steps further and allows the team to capture sales tax at the site and pay off the costs of the development outside the stadium.

[Jon Styf @JonStyf]

@MudderFudder77 The Bears don't care who owns the stadium, they want the city to own it so they don't pay property tax. What they really want it to control the revenue in the entire area outside the stadium along with stadium revenue.