The proposed lakefront stadium has the city buzzing, but critics say public money should never subsidize a billionaire-owned NFL franchise. Is this a long-overdue win for the city or a raw deal dressed up in navy and orange?
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentThe Bears haven't won a Super Bowl since 1985 and people are excited about a BUILDING. A building isn't going to fix the offensive line lmao
Every single NFL stadium deal in American history has been sold to locals as an economic miracle and every single independent economist who has looked at the data says the returns are vastly overstated. Vegas, Buffalo, Kansas City — the pattern is identical. The jobs are temporary. The surrounding development takes decades if it comes at all. Chicago deserves better than falling for a playbook that every other city has already fallen for.
Okay whoever said above that the Bears have been getting a raw deal paying rent at Soldier Field needs to look up what 'profit' means because the renovation cost taxpayers $660 million back in 2002 and the Bears' rent payments have not come close to covering that. The city has been subsidizing this team FOR YEARS already. The nerve to come back asking for more is genuinely impressive.
Born and raised on the South Side, been a Bears fan for 47 years through the Soldier Field renovation disaster, through every quarterback catastrophe imaginable, and I'm telling you right now — I will NOT be bamboozled by shiny renderings and promises of 'economic impact.' You know what the economic impact of the last stadium deal was? A hot dog that costs $18 and parking that'll make you cry. The McCaskeys have been running this franchise into the ground for decades and now we're supposed to hand them public money on top of it? Absolutely not.
My grandfather took me to see the Bears play at the original Soldier Field in 1987. The smell of that place, the cold off the lake, the way the crowd sounded when we scored — that's not something you can architect your way into with a new building. I don't even know if I'm for or against this deal honestly. I just know that feeling doesn't transfer to a new stadium no matter how many retractable roofs you put on it. Some things are just gone.
ok so genuine question for all the people screaming about taxpayer money — do you actually know what the current proposal breaks down to financially? because last i checked the Bears are putting up the bulk of it and the public portion is mostly infrastructure that the lakefront needs anyway. not saying its perfect but the conversation is way more nuanced than 'billionaires bad'
I moved here from Green Bay two years ago (yes I know, wrong team, I've heard it) and honestly what strikes me is that Chicago keeps talking about what it COULD have while neglecting what it DOES have. The lakefront is genuinely one of the most beautiful public spaces in America. Why are we even discussing putting a massive stadium on it? Some things shouldn't be for sale.
Here's what nobody wants to say out loud: if the Bears leave for the suburbs, that's actually worse for city tax revenue long-term than a negotiated stadium deal right now. I'm not thrilled about any public subsidy either, but negotiating from a position of 'absolutely no public money ever' means the team ends up in Arlington Heights and then the city gets nothing. Sometimes you pick the least bad option.
Fun fact: the city of Chicago OWNS Soldier Field, which means the Bears have actually been paying rent this whole time, which means the city has been PROFITING off the team for years. So really this new deal is the Bears finally getting out from under an arrangement that was unfair to them all along. People have this completely backwards.
Is it wrong to choose not to have children just because you don't want to?
110 comments
Would you still eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?
109 comments
Is judging someone by their height as shallow as judging by their weight?
108 comments
Are dating apps genuinely harder for men or for women?
108 comments