NFL Football

[Vrede too]

Guessing the Hammond bluff is gonna work out.

https://x.com/obvious_shirts/status/2115866551459139643

"no property taxes" I wonder what that will cost. A tragedy for Hammond, IN speculators, a boon for Arlington, IL speculators.

[supesalemgr2]

Guessing the Hammond bluff is gonna work out.

https://x.com/obvious_shirts/status/2115866551459139643

"no property taxes" I wonder what that will cost. A tragedy for Hammond, IN speculators, a boon for Arlington, IL speculators.

The NW suburbs, like Arlington, makes sense.

[Vrede too]

Guessing the Hammond bluff is gonna work out.

https://x.com/obvious_shirts/status/2115866551459139643

"no property taxes" I wonder what that will cost. A tragedy for Hammond, IN speculators, a boon for Arlington, IL speculators.

The NW suburbs, like Arlington, makes sense.

I agree. I just take issue with public subsidies for profitable sports franchises.

[GoCubsGo]

Guessing the Hammond bluff is gonna work out.

https://x.com/obvious_shirts/status/2115866551459139643

"no property taxes" I wonder what that will cost. A tragedy for Hammond, IN speculators, a boon for Arlington, IL speculators.

The NW suburbs, like Arlington, makes sense.

Read awhile ago that a big majority of the Bears fan base is within 25 miles of Arlington Heights, not so for Indiana.


The Bears also put out a questionnaire asking if fans would travel to Indiana. I answered hell no.

Figured at that point it was a bluff and Indiana got to be useful idiots.

[supesalemgr2]

Guessing the Hammond bluff is gonna work out.

https://x.com/obvious_shirts/status/2115866551459139643

"no property taxes" I wonder what that will cost. A tragedy for Hammond, IN speculators, a boon for Arlington, IL speculators.

The NW suburbs, like Arlington, makes sense.

I agree. I just take issue with public subsidies for profitable sports franchises.

It is a truly bi-partisan issue for local politicians.

[GoCubsGo]

Guessing the Hammond bluff is gonna work out.

https://x.com/obvious_shirts/status/2115866551459139643

"no property taxes" I wonder what that will cost. A tragedy for Hammond, IN speculators, a boon for Arlington, IL speculators.

The NW suburbs, like Arlington, makes sense.

I agree. I just take issue with public subsidies for profitable sports franchises.

It is a truly bi-partisan issue for local politicians.

There's a pretty big anti-Chicago crowd in Springfield gumming up the works, always has been and always will be.

[GoCubsGo]

OK, even I will admit this was cool.

[GoCubsGo]

The Panthers are failing me.

[Vrede too]

Guessing the Hammond bluff is gonna work out.

https://x.com/obvious_shirts/status/2115866551459139643

"no property taxes" I wonder what that will cost. A tragedy for Hammond, IN speculators, a boon for Arlington, IL speculators.

The NW suburbs, like Arlington, makes sense.

I agree. I just take issue with public subsidies for profitable sports franchises.

I also take issue with viciously extorting the Leg and millions of long-suffering Bears fans to get those public subsidies.

[Vrede too]

OK, even I will admit this was cool.

https://x.com/JomboyMedia/status/2115970895680295156

Packed stadium for a non-game is amazing, and kind of heartwarming.

[Vrede too]

The Panthers are failing me.

13-27 14:28 - 4th, ut-oh

[GoCubsGo]

OK, even I will admit this was cool.

https://x.com/JomboyMedia/status/2115970895680295156

Packed stadium for a non-game is amazing, and kind of heartwarming.

That was the Packers game at Lambeau.

[GoCubsGo]

Guessing the Hammond bluff is gonna work out.

https://x.com/obvious_shirts/status/2115866551459139643

"no property taxes" I wonder what that will cost. A tragedy for Hammond, IN speculators, a boon for Arlington, IL speculators.

The NW suburbs, like Arlington, makes sense.

I agree. I just take issue with public subsidies for profitable sports franchises.

I also take issue with viciously extorting the Leg and millions of long-suffering Bears fans to get those public subsidies.

Is it really subsidies when they are only currently paying taxes on vacant land that without the breaks will remain vacant?

To me, it's a break but not valid subsidy. Especially when you consider the revenues that will be generated peripherally by new and ongoing businesses that will be generating sales tax, room tax and property taxes when portions of the developed area are sold.

[Vrede too]

OK, even I will admit this was cool.

https://x.com/JomboyMedia/status/2115970895680295156

Packed stadium for a non-game is amazing, and kind of heartwarming.

That was the Packers game at Lambeau.

Doh! emoji

[Vrede too]

I agree. I just take issue with public subsidies for profitable sports franchises.

I also take issue with viciously extorting the Leg and millions of long-suffering Bears fans to get those public subsidies.

Is it really subsidies when they are only currently paying taxes on vacant land that without the breaks will remain vacant?

To me, it's a break but not valid subsidy. Especially when you consider the revenues that will be generated peripherally by new and ongoing businesses that will be generating sales tax, room tax and property taxes when portions of the developed area are sold.

Everyone else pays property taxes when they add value to a property and the Bears owners make out like bandits on this deal. A subsidy by any other name . . .

[Vrede too]

Thursday, October 29, 2026
8:15 PM Prime Video
GO Panthers > @Packers (-3.5) Shame them at Lambeau Field!

Love > Young, 19-27
0-1 this week.

[GoCubsGo]

I agree. I just take issue with public subsidies for profitable sports franchises.

I also take issue with viciously extorting the Leg and millions of long-suffering Bears fans to get those public subsidies.

Is it really subsidies when they are only currently paying taxes on vacant land that without the breaks will remain vacant?

To me, it's a break but not valid subsidy. Especially when you consider the revenues that will be generated peripherally by new and ongoing businesses that will be generating sales tax, room tax and property taxes when portions of the developed area are sold.

Everyone else pays property taxes when they add value to a property and the Bears owners make out like bandits on this deal. A subsidy by any other name . . .

It actually gets pretty complicated.

The proposed Chicago Bears stadium deal in Arlington Heights is essentially an effort to keep the Bears in Illinois by changing who legally owns the stadium, how the team pays property taxes, and how much public money goes toward surrounding infrastructure.
The important development in October 2026 is that negotiations have shifted toward a publicly owned stadium that the Bears would finance and operate.
That is a significant change from the original proposal, under which the Bears would own the stadium themselves and negotiate a special property-tax arrangement with local governments.
Here's how the potential deal would work.
1. The proposed ownership arrangement

Publicly owned property generally is exempt from ordinary property taxes. That could eliminate one of the Bears' biggest financial objections to building in Arlington Heights.
The Bears would still pay applicable taxes on surrounding commercial development, rather than automatically receiving tax exemption for the entire 326-acre property.
2. Who pays for what?
There are three separate financial issues.
Expense Proposed responsibility
Stadium construction Bears
Stadium operations and maintenance Bears, under lease arrangements
Stadium property taxes Potentially eliminated through public ownership
Surrounding roads, utilities and infrastructure Potential state and local funding
Commercial development outside stadium Bears/developers pay applicable taxes
The infrastructure question is particularly important.
Illinois previously considered providing as much as $855 million in public infrastructure assistance for the Arlington Heights project.
That money would help with things such as:
Roads and highway access.
Traffic improvements.
Water and sewer systems.

Public safety and transportation improvements.
This is separate from the cost of constructing the stadium itself.
3. What does this mean for property taxpayers?
This is probably the most controversial part of the arrangement.
The Bears currently face the prospect of substantial property taxes on a very valuable stadium property.
Under the public-ownership proposal, the stadium itself could be exempt from property taxes.
That raises an important question: What happens to the money that would otherwise go to local taxing districts?
Those districts include:
Arlington Heights School District 25.
Township High School District 214.
Arlington Heights Park District.
Arlington Heights Memorial Library.
Other local taxing bodies.
The original House proposal used a different approach called a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes). The Bears would negotiate payments with local taxing bodies instead of paying ordinary property taxes. That proposal also contemplated directing approximately half of the PILOT proceeds toward statewide property-tax relief.
The newer public-ownership approach could change that calculation substantially.

7. What would it mean for Arlington Heights and surrounding communities?
The original vision was considerably larger than a football stadium.
It contemplated a multibillion-dollar development including:
A domed NFL stadium.
Restaurants and entertainment venues.
Hotels.
Retail and commercial development.
Public gathering spaces.
Potential benefits include jobs, additional sales-tax revenue, increased business activity and redevelopment of the former racetrack.
But there are legitimate concerns:
Traffic congestion on Northwest Highway, Euclid Avenue and surrounding roads.
Pressure on local infrastructure.
School district funding if stadium property-tax revenue disappears.
Public expenditures that might not be recovered.
Disruption on Bears game days and during major events.