SPRINGFIELD — First Arlington Heights was the sole focus. Then it was Chicago. Then back to Arlington Heights. Then either Arlington Heights or Hammond, Ind. Then perhaps Chicago if the other two options fell through. And now, apparently Hammond.
The long, winding Chicago Bears stadium road took another turn Friday, when the team announced that its board of directors “voted to advance” a stadium project across the state line in Indiana. It comes just days after Illinois lawmakers failed to advance legislation that would have granted the organization tax certainty on a stadium project in Illinois.
“We 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,” Bears Chairman George McCaskey and Team President Kevin Warren said in a statement. “It will bring Chicagoland together and deliver new opportunities to its residents and businesses.”
It is the biggest step the “pride and joy of Illinois” has taken towards bolting the state it’s called home for its entire existence for Hammond where lawmakers have promised more than $1 billion in public subsidies.
But even so, the Bears’ statement left what’s become trademark ambiguity. They did not signal that the vote amounted to a final decision. And they even acknowledged that the exact site for a stadium in Hammond was “to be selected.”
A top Illinois lawmaker confirmed to Capitol News Illinois that any talk of the Bears leaving the state is premature.
“I got a call from Kevin Warren this morning and he told me they were going to release a statement about moving forward with Hammond,” said Sen. Bill Cunningham, D-Chicago. “He also said he looks forward to continuing discussions with me.”
Cunnigham also pointed out the Bears’ statement resembled the one the team put out in February after Indiana lawmakers approved a bill creating a public stadium authority.
“We are committed to finishing the remaining site-specific necessary due diligence to support our vision to build a world-class stadium near the Wolf Lake area in Hammond,” the teams said in a statement in February — before deploying a cadre of lobbyists in Illinois’ Capitol for the next four months in an effort to get a deal done.
Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago, the lead House negotiator, said Warren also called him. He said he finished the conversation “by committing to continue discussions around their pursuit of a new stadium in Illinois.” Buckner also noted that the statement released today “is actually less definitive” than the one earlier this year.
“That’s not a criticism,” Buckner said. “It’s simply an acknowledgement that the Bears’ own language leaves additional flexibility and does not represent a final decision.”
SHIFTING THEIR POSITION
A spokesperson for Gov. JB Pritzker said that the team’s shifting positions have hurt its progress with Illinois lawmakers.
“The Bears have built a storied legacy in Illinois for over 100 years but have spent the last six years, and especially the last few months, shifting their position on a stadium location. That has hindered their progress,” said Pritzker spokesperson Matt Hill. “Today appears to be another instance of that after Illinois leaders have been working with the Bears in good faith. Gov. Pritzker has always been clear that he wants the Bears to stay in Illinois and still remains open to a sensible solution that protects taxpayers.”
In his office on June 1 after the legislature failed to pass a Bears-focused incentives bill, Pritzker acknowledged the team leaving “might happen.” He added: “But the reality is: I wasn’t willing to give up billions of dollars of taxpayer money in order to give it to a billionaire-owned family or team,” he said.
Hoosier lawmakers were more willing to play tax-break ball. And they viewed Friday’s announcement as cause to celebrate.
“We look forward to building a partnership as strong as the ’85 Bears defense, creating opportunities and economic growth that will benefit our state and the Bears organization for decades to come,” Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Braun said in a social media post.
Unlike the Indiana stadium package, Illinois lawmakers have long insisted that the state would not finance direct stadium construction. They instead focused on legislation that would give the Bears long-term tax certainty in Illinois.
The Bears in 2023 finalized their $197 million purchase of the 326-acre former Arlington Park site, which they eyed for a new domed stadium and surrounding mixed use stadium district. To move forward, the team said it needed passage of a megaprojects bill that would have allowed them to negotiate and lock in a lower property tax payment with local taxing bodies for up to 40 years.
But the legislation simmered on the legislative backburner for years in Springfield. In 2024, they shifted to a proposal for a publicly owned stadium on Chicago’s lakefront. It would have required more than $900 million in public funds for stadium construction and $1.5 billion for surrounding infrastructure. Pritzker and state lawmakers immediately dismissed the idea as a nonstarter.
Eventually, the team pivoted back to Arlington Heights. But with no meaningful movement in Springfield on the megaprojects bill, the Bears announced ahead of their matchup with the rival Green Bay Packers in December that they were expanding their search for a stadium site to include Northwest Indiana.
Indiana lawmakers subsequently passed a stadium authority bill in February.
ILLINOIS LAWMAKERS KICK THINGS OFF
Meanwhile, Illinois lawmakers got to work, with the governor’s office pushing the megaprojects concept as a statewide economic development tool that wasn’t necessarily Bears-specific. A version of the legislation passed the House in April.
But the concept did not have enough votes in the Senate. It was scrapped in favor of legislation that would have allowed six Cook County municipalities to create local stadium authorities — a public ownership model that would’ve allowed the Bears to avoid paying property taxes altogether. It passed the Senate in the final hours of spring session but wasn’t called in the House.
Senate Republican Leader John Curran, of Downers Grove, accused Democratic leadership of “dysfunction.”
“It’s time for Gov. Pritzker to Bear Down, address the infighting in the Democratic legislative caucuses and bring Republicans substantially into the process to help produce a bipartisan plan that protects taxpayers, grows our economy and keeps the Chicago Bears in Illinois for generations to come,” Curran said in a statement.
House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch, D-Hillside, said in a statement that “Illinois remains open to ongoing efforts to secure the Bears in Illinois,” but acknowledged that “it will take time to get it right” and reiterated the state’s line in the sand.
“While Indiana is willing to raise taxes and promise $1 billion in taxpayer funds, Illinois has focused on the needs of working families who want relief at the gas pump, at the store, and on their insurance bills — not taxpayer-funded stadiums,” Welch said.
‘TOO LITTLE TOO LATE’
Welch has ruled out calling lawmakers back for a summer session to deal with the Bears.
But Rep. Dan Ugaste, R-Geneva, told Capitol News Illinois he doesn’t think the Bears’ announcement is a bluff and said Illinois might need a special session sooner.
“I mean waiting until fall veto session, they’ll be five, six months into moving forward on the Indiana project,” Ugaste said. “I think we’ll probably be talking too little, too late at that point.”
Ugaste, who voted against the original megaprojects bill that passed the House over property tax concerns, said Democratic leaders dragged their feet on the issue for too long.
“There’s a failure of our leadership to get this done,” he said. “They came to us a couple years back. They sat on it for a while, and when they finally started working on it this spring, they dropped the ball.”
But Buckner said there remains time to hammer out a deal in Illinois, noting that the Bears haven’t taken Illinois off the table.
“There will be plenty of time to debate how this process has unfolded,” Buckner said. “I’m less interested in relitigating the past than I am in focusing on the future. What I took away from today’s conversation is that the door remains open. So does ours.”