33 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

There is no way it's close to a done deal. As a White Sox fan who thinks the new park and location are pretty cool, and as a citizen of Chicago who already had to fund a couple of shortfalls with this tax, I would rather they reallocate the funds this tax creates when the GRF debt is supposedly retired in 2029. How about spending it on getting some of the 1500 cops lost they last 7 years replaced, and making it a better place to live?  No new taxes, we have more cops would be a win.I get the TIF money is going to be spent by someone, but this thing is going to cost a s%*# ton more than that. If they say $9 million now, it's probably closer to at least $15 billion if it ever gets built. 

 

One potential funding source would be to use increases in property taxes to pay debt on the project, which also would likely require a change in the law.

This is going to be done in stages over probably a decade or two, as well as various agencies and sources. Some will be more private, such as the buildings themselves, some will be more public, such as any remediations, and probably the stadium.  Things like condos will be almost all private funds.

Again, just like you quoted the "change in law" part for funding, that would be the same for any funding being used for anything other than projects like this.  You can't just take funds from one taxing entity and use it for whatever you want.  There are laws that govern what the entity was set up for and what it could be used for.  ISFA money would literally never be used for law enforcement by law, same as TIF funding.

I know this attracts special attention for what it is, but this is done on a regular basis all over the US.  It isn't some big mystery.  The frameworks for these types of projects are pretty straight forward and don't really alter that much.

 

 

Ooooof

1 minute ago, Sleepy Harold said:

 

 

f*** that noise. I'm not a card carrying DSA member by any stretch, but if that's what JR wants, then the city needs to mandate it has a roof and that when the Sox aren't using it the city can do whatever it wants.

Quote

Reinsdorf and Related Midwest president Curt Bailey, the developer of The 78 site where the stadium would be built, have been meeting with elected officials and business and labor leaders to gin up enthusiasm for the deal before meeting with the governor. The two are bullish they can win state support by arguing the stadium subsidies will bring along billions more in private investment and the deal is structured in a way to not require new or increased taxes.

While the stadium itself would be subsidized, the White Sox and Related Midwest have stressed it's the key to unlocking the additional private investment — mixed-use buildings with affordable housing, bars and restaurants, a 4,000 underground garage and parks — in meetings, sources familiar with the discussion said.

Quote

The proposed deal would also get the city off the hook for being the guarantor of the current debt arrangement with the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, or ISFA, to pay for the 2003 renovation of Soldier Field.

....

To pay for the new stadium, Reinsdorf is seeking to lay claim to the revenue from a 2% hotel occupancy tax, currently used to pay for ISFA’s annual debt service, for decades beyond when all outstanding bonds are currently meant to be paid off in 2034. 

Extending ISFA bonds over 30 years while adding a new line of revenue to back the debt would provide the upfront capital to begin work on the stadium at Related Midwest’s The 78 site, which sits between the Chicago River and Clark St., connecting Chinatown to the Loop. 

 

Reinsdorf is also seeking to create a tax-overlay district surrounding the proposed stadium that would capture the state’s portion of sales taxes generated in the area — estimated at roughly $400 million over an undisclosed period — to be set aside to subsidize the stadium and back the new bonds.

some tidbits

9 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

Hard pass.

Use that money on behalf of the 2,700,000 who live here, not some lifelong asshole billionaire from Highland Park.

3 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

some tidbits

Thanks.

My layman's interpretation of that is that JR wants the city to guarantee him new revenue streams and profit in order to hopefully get something out of it themselves decades down the road.

f*** that s%*#.

I wish someone from the state would tell JR that clearly we aren’t going to be subsidizing $1.7 billion ballparks. He should understand as he doesn’t play on high end free agents.

Someone should tell him, at least he had a seat at the table, when they decline.

This is going to be a very tough sell.

4 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I wish someone from the state would tell JR that clearly we aren’t going to be subsidizing $1.7 billion ballparks. He should understand as he doesn’t play on high end free agents.

As is his style, he's completely out to lunch on the sad reality of his franchise in 2024. This is not the LA Dodgers. Frankly, it's not even the Oakland Athletics. This is a franchise to where if it left the city tmr, outside of a few diehards, would get a Larry David style "nobody gives a f***" shrug in Chicago.

He's acting like he's got all this leverage, bro.

Who knew the consequences of firing Ricky Renteria would be so severe

 

 

33 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Hard pass.

Use that money on behalf of the 2,700,000 who live here, not some lifelong asshole billionaire from Highland Park.

Who will pocket the extra profits anyway.  He doesn't deserve anymore public funds. 

If this thing is such a money maker why aren’t JR and Related building it themselves?

Just now, Sleepy Harold said:

 

 

Again, in my layman's opinion "retiring city's obligation" on the SF debt is doing a lot of work. The city is taking on new risk by transferring the hotel tax revenue to JR, instead of the ISFA. This certainly isn't a slam dunk from the city and taxpayer's perspective. It is of course a slam dunk for JR.

Just now, Dick Allen said:

If this thing is such a money maker why aren’t JR and Related building it themselves?

Yup, you just said what I did in 1/3 the words, perfectly said. JR wants all the upside, he wants the city to take on all the downside. f*** that.

6 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

 

 

The headline definitely gets the clicks, but a deeper read makes it more palatable. Whether the state fronts the cash is another story. 

2 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

The headline definitely gets the clicks, but a deeper read makes it more palatable. Whether the state fronts the cash is another story. 

I don't have a sub and can't read the entire article, how exactly would the city retire the SF debt? It sounds great in theory, but what are the actual mechanisms?

2 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

I don't have a sub and can't read the entire article, how exactly would the city retire the SF debt? It sounds great in theory, but what are the actual mechanisms?

I don’t have a subscription either, but that little detail stuck out to me too. I don’t know how it would work, but it does sound fishy. Of course JR would stick someone else with the greater risk for potential later gains, it is his M.O.

Normally, public funding for a stadium district wouldn’t bring in the benefits to match the cost, even in the long term. This is a unique case, though. The city is trying to manufacture a new neighborhood, a huge plot of land that is only losing the city money at this point. There is so much more to the deal than we know about, and I doubt Jerry and the developer would be confident going to the state without some back room approval from the city. And if it’s simply the first offer in public negotiations, it’s not that bad of a starting point 

51 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I wish someone from the state would tell JR that clearly we aren’t going to be subsidizing $1.7 billion ballparks. He should understand as he doesn’t play on high end free agents.

That would be funny to be honest. Should make it a public hearing and do the same "Well, we're not going to do that, it's asinine to pay for a stadium like that. No stadium ever deserves that kind of money" in the way he did the interview and comment on Shohei.

3 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

I don't have a sub and can't read the entire article, how exactly would the city retire the SF debt? It sounds great in theory, but what are the actual mechanisms?

The City is already eating an additional $29M in debt service due to hotel tax shortfalls. Tourism remains lower than 2019 levels, so negative actual growth rates the past four years and counting vs. the 5.5% annual growth projected when these scams were concocted by Jerry and the McCaskeys.

Quote

The bonds that funded the $660 million stadium renovation are paid off with part of the city’s hotel tax — but that financing package also assumed hotel tax revenue would grow a rosy 5.5% a year.

This is on top of Jerry's property tax free, rent free, maintenance paid for, keep every last nickel 38 year lease, and of course he wants a shitload more, because it's never enough. 

What kind of "rosy" projections and tax shortfalls will Chicagoans have to eat over the next 30-40 years to fund this $1.5B welfare payment, plus all the likely additional cost overruns and other "surprises"?

No surprise they floated this giant turd on a Friday evening. Pritzker must flush this scheme down the toilet immediately, if not sooner.

@South Side Hit Men Yea that's what I figured. Basically the city would be retiring a debt mostly already paid in order to take on a new, much bigger debt, that would be subject to the same downside risk except now you've increased that risk by stretching it over three decades. How many pandemics can we fit in before it's paid off?

I want some gold star plated accounting and consulting firm to project what the revenue would be if the city could use the stadium for its own uses for 200+ days a year. That's the nut here. Of course JR's greedy ass wants all that gate and licensing revenue too. f*** HIM.

9 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

@South Side Hit Men Yea that's what I figured. Basically the city would be retiring a debt mostly already paid in order to take on a new, much bigger debt, that would be subject to the same downside risk except now you've increased that risk by stretching it over three decades. How many pandemics can we fit in before it's paid off?

I want some gold star plated accounting and consulting firm to project what the revenue would be if the city could use the stadium for its own uses for 200+ days a year. That's the nut here. Of course JR's greedy ass wants all that gate and licensing revenue too. f*** HIM.

Those projections are always crap and are always over stated too.  Reinsdorf deserves nothing, the guy who won’t spend at all on free agency should not be gifted a new stadium to make his sale of the Sox worth $2b instead of $1b.