https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2024/02/20/jerry-reinsdorf-house-speaker-chris-welch-south-loop-white-sox-ballpark-the-78

Quote

The billionaire White Sox owner met with legislative leaders about his vision for a new ballpark ahead of Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s Wednesday budget address. “We’ve had very thoughtful discussions,” Reinsdorf said. “I’m always positive about everything. I’m even positive about the White Sox winning the division.”

Edited November 12, 20241 yr by WhiteSox2023

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Where are you getting this from?  There is zero actual evidence to support anything and all publicly available materials contradict it.

Jerry's not the Boogeyman, it's Related! They made him do it!!

2 hours ago, tray said:

Jerry went downstate at the request of Related to see if Gov. Pritzker and  the legislature were at all interested in public funding for Related's plan. None of the Related 78 plan or that substandard location were ever Jerry's or anyone else in the WSox organization or the ISFA.

 

What in the world are you talking about?

3 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

What in the world are you talking about?

JR doesn't lift a finger to do something that's not in his own best interest...not even White Sox Charities.

Yeah, Jerry knew exactly what he was doing.  He even wore his pimp daddy Fonzie leather jacket that makes him look 50 years younger to convince lawmakers to give him a free billion dollars.  It was a solid plan and I’m shocked it didn’t work.

On 11/10/2024 at 10:33 PM, Balta1701 said:

Thats not how this works? Thats not how any of this works.

This will be a big money maker for a lot of people. If Reinsdorf put in $1.3 billion and the government put in $600 million, Related puts in whatever it takes to build the rest; everyone walks away in 20 years making good money.

It just won’t justify the state putting in $2 billion dollars!!!!!

How does the state make money? Any tax revenue generated will be offset by it not being generated elsewhere. They have lost their ass on every project like this they have provided funding. This one is going to be different? There is a huge demand for apartments by a White Sox park? People are going to be flooding into games because? For those who drive, it will be the biggest pain in the ass they have ever had. They will yearn for the days of a park right off the Dan Ryan. But hey, if you sit in the right area, you will get a view of the top third of the Sears Tower, nd any apartment towers your tax dollars help build. I don’t drive to games, and it’s closer to home. For me it would be good. But I don’t want the state strapped for cash to give them any. There are more important things to waste it on.

12 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2024/02/20/jerry-reinsdorf-house-speaker-chris-welch-south-loop-white-sox-ballpark-the-78

How delusional.

35 minutes ago, The Mighty Mite said:

How delusional.

“We’ve had very thoughtful discussions,” Reinsdorf said. “I’m always positive about everything. I’m even positive about the White Sox winning the division.”
 

Said before the worst season in modern recorded baseball history…

I can't help but wonder about a conflict of interest in terms of the proposed new stadiums for the White Sox and Bears. Both teams want the hotel tax to be transfered to the new stadiums. The Governor of Illinois comes from a family  that owns hotels. ( The Hyatt Hotels) The Governor does not want to transfer the hotel tax to the new stadiums. He wants the hotel tax to simply go away once the present leases expire. I would think this plays a roll in his resistance to transferring  the hotel tax to the new stadiums. Numerous governments use these types of taxes to get stadiums built. If you rent a car in parts of Arizona you are paying  a tax to pay for the Cubs spring training home. I don't see why that hotel tax can't be transfered to the new stadiums.

1 hour ago, WBWSF said:

I can't help but wonder about a conflict of interest in terms of the proposed new stadiums for the White Sox and Bears. Both teams want the hotel tax to be transfered to the new stadiums. The Governor of Illinois comes from a family  that owns hotels. ( The Hyatt Hotels) The Governor does not want to transfer the hotel tax to the new stadiums. He wants the hotel tax to simply go away once the present leases expire. I would think this plays a roll in his resistance to transferring  the hotel tax to the new stadiums. Numerous governments use these types of taxes to get stadiums built. If you rent a car in parts of Arizona you are paying  a tax to pay for the Cubs spring training home. I don't see why that hotel tax can't be transfered to the new stadiums.

In this political climate with the financial issues impacting (real or not) what most Americans think it would be political suicide for ANY politician right now to come out and say, 'I support giving a billion dollars to owners for more free stadiums...'

They would be attacked from all sides and not be reelected.

Especially in JR's case who isn't even willing to pay a fair share.

Get used to it, this is not happening under the current situation.

The Sox and Bears will continue to play at their current stadiums and like it. 

4 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

In this political climate with the financial issues impacting (real or not) what most Americans think it would be political suicide for ANY politician right now to come out and say, 'I support giving a billion dollars to owners for more free stadiums...'

They would be attacked from all sides and not be reelected.

Especially in JR's case who isn't even willing to pay a fair share.

Get used to it, this is not happening under the current situation.

The Sox and Bears will continue to play at their current stadiums and like it. 

Honestly if this election has taught me anything, it's that people have insanely short attention spans, and they will buy just about anything if it is packaged right.  At the end of the day, the perfect time for this to happen is right after an election is where the electorate has time to forget it and be reeducated on what happened.

22 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Honestly if this election has taught me anything, it's that people have insanely short attention spans, and they will buy just about anything if it is packaged right.  At the end of the day, the perfect time for this to happen is right after an election is where the electorate has time to forget it and be reeducated on what happened.

I think there is some cleaning up to do. This state, even this city, doesn't have the appetite as they are being taxed more with nothing to show for it. Property Taxes are about to go up two fold to simply make up a budget deficit. 

4 minutes ago, nitetrain8601 said:

I think there is some cleaning up to do. This state, even this city, doesn't have the appetite as they are being taxed more with nothing to show for it. Property Taxes are about to go up two fold to simply make up a budget deficit. 

For the record this isn't a property tax issue.

27 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

For the record this isn't a property tax issue.

Correct, but it will be linked (fairly or not) in the mind of the public at large and groups/individuals will be sure to make that connection public, again fairly or not. 

Under the current climate I can't see any politician willing to stick their neck out for JR or the McCaskey family. 

6 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

How does the state make money? Any tax revenue generated will be offset by it not being generated elsewhere. They have lost their ass on every project like this they have provided funding. This one is going to be different? There is a huge demand for apartments by a White Sox park? People are going to be flooding into games because? For those who drive, it will be the biggest pain in the ass they have ever had. They will yearn for the days of a park right off the Dan Ryan. But hey, if you sit in the right area, you will get a view of the top third of the Sears Tower, nd any apartment towers your tax dollars help build. I don’t drive to games, and it’s closer to home. For me it would be good. But I don’t want the state strapped for cash to give them any. There are more important things to waste it on.

I've said this plenty of times, so here goes again.

When I've gone to a good ballpark, I don't just go to the ballpark. I drive in (or better yet take transit) I visit a restaurant on the way into the park, I visit a bar across the street. I have a beer or two in the park, then another after the game finishes before taking transit back assuming that option exists. If there's another shop, I might browse or walk around, god knows what I might buy.

I have never done that at the Cell/Rate, because there is nothing like that to do. You park, you go to the game, you go home. Reinsdorf wanted his parking revenue, and that comes at the expense of developing surrounding businesses. If I visit the area now that I live outside of Chicago, I stay at a hotel in NW Indiana and drive in, because how many hotels are there at the Rate? The Cell is an island feeding Reinsdorf parking money but with basically no positive impact on the surroundings.

The amount of money being generated by business on the 78 site right now is roughly...zero, and has been for 60 years. No one is dining at a restaurant or staying at a hotel on that site right now. Those businesses are not paying taxes because they don't exist. The fact that those businesses don't exist, and instead you have an empty lot, also impacts the businesses and communities around it, because very few people live on an empty lot and very few people stay at hotels on an empty lot to visit businesses around it. This affects land values and business revenues in the entire surrounding area.

Over a period of..."60 years", which is how long this site has been undeveloped, this is easily hundreds of millions of dollars of lost revenue to the city and state by having the area undeveloped. 

What will happen to the Rate site is an open question, because you can't just leave it as an abandoned eyesore. It could be repurposed for a different sport or redeveloped into something else. That has to be part of any plan, but it can be.

If we compare "The White Sox leading development of a community at the 78 site and something positive done with the current location" to "The 78 site has sat vacant as a polluted eyesore since the 1960s and Reinsdorf's ballpark is on an island supporting no surrounding businesses", that is a huge difference in the business climate. That is the kind of change that makes a serious positive improvement on the city and a major increase in tax dollars.

If all the city does is get this site developed, that is a win - and over a 30 year stadium lifetime, that's a win that could be potentially on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. I have zero issue with that being the city's contribution to this project, because that's a long-term investment in the quality and growth of the city.

This is, in my opinion, what the politicians are asking for when they say "They want a good deal for the city". They understand that they can't expect only private money to develop this site, that's not how things work in a big project like this, but Reinsdorf has to show them why it will be a good deal. He refuses to do this.

I have a problem with "vastly more money being spent than that because we don't want to lose a baseball team", which is what Reinsdorf has instead he deserves. 

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

For the record this isn't a property tax issue.

It isn't, but if the State can "find" 2 billion to give to the Sox or Bears yet continue to raise taxes on basically everything, that is not going to go over well with anyone. The state has serious financial issues that need to be addressed instead of handing money over to billionaires.

1 hour ago, Bonerko4Konerko said:

It isn't, but if the State can "find" 2 billion to give to the Sox or Bears yet continue to raise taxes on basically everything, that is not going to go over well with anyone. The state has serious financial issues that need to be addressed instead of handing money over to billionaires.

We just held an election where we did just that as a nation.

2 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

I've said this plenty of times, so here goes again.

When I've gone to a good ballpark, I don't just go to the ballpark. I drive in (or better yet take transit) I visit a restaurant on the way into the park, I visit a bar across the street. I have a beer or two in the park, then another after the game finishes before taking transit back assuming that option exists. If there's another shop, I might browse or walk around, god knows what I might buy.

I have never done that at the Cell/Rate, because there is nothing like that to do. You park, you go to the game, you go home. Reinsdorf wanted his parking revenue, and that comes at the expense of developing surrounding businesses. If I visit the area now that I live outside of Chicago, I stay at a hotel in NW Indiana and drive in, because how many hotels are there at the Rate? The Cell is an island feeding Reinsdorf parking money but with basically no positive impact on the surroundings.

The amount of money being generated by business on the 78 site right now is roughly...zero, and has been for 60 years. No one is dining at a restaurant or staying at a hotel on that site right now. Those businesses are not paying taxes because they don't exist. The fact that those businesses don't exist, and instead you have an empty lot, also impacts the businesses and communities around it, because very few people live on an empty lot and very few people stay at hotels on an empty lot to visit businesses around it. This affects land values and business revenues in the entire surrounding area.

Over a period of..."60 years", which is how long this site has been undeveloped, this is easily hundreds of millions of dollars of lost revenue to the city and state by having the area undeveloped. 

What will happen to the Rate site is an open question, because you can't just leave it as an abandoned eyesore. It could be repurposed for a different sport or redeveloped into something else. That has to be part of any plan, but it can be.

If we compare "The White Sox leading development of a community at the 78 site and something positive done with the current location" to "The 78 site has sat vacant as a polluted eyesore since the 1960s and Reinsdorf's ballpark is on an island supporting no surrounding businesses", that is a huge difference in the business climate. That is the kind of change that makes a serious positive improvement on the city and a major increase in tax dollars. If people are buy $15 beers from Jerry Reinsdorf, they will not be buying as many $7 beers from the bar 2 blocks from their house.

If all the city does is get this site developed, that is a win - and over a 30 year stadium lifetime, that's a win that could be potentially on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. I have zero issue with that being the city's contribution to this project, because that's a long-term investment in the quality and growth of the city.

This is, in my opinion, what the politicians are asking for when they say "They want a good deal for the city". They understand that they can't expect only private money to develop this site, that's not how things work in a big project like this, but Reinsdorf has to show them why it will be a good deal. He refuses to do this.

I have a problem with "vastly more money being spent than that because we don't want to lose a baseball team", which is what Reinsdorf has instead he deserves. 

Chances are any beer money or going out for dinner money you dont spend because you don't like the neighborhood in Bridgeport, you will spend if visiting on the Gold Coast or some other neighborhood that you would be staying, or if you are from the area, around home. That's a net zero for Illinois. If you loved a Japanese restaurant but then found out the new one across the street was better, the new one would be "generating" revenue from you, but the one you had been a patron, would not. If more people were buying $15 beers from jerry Reinsdorf, fewer would be buying $6 beers from the bar a block from their house. I don't get where you think everyone with suddenly start spending thousands of dollars more than they are spending because JR built a new park. The reality is yes they will spend more than is being spent at the 78, but other areas are going to pay for that.

Edited November 13, 20241 yr by Dick Allen

34 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Chances are any beer money or going out for dinner money you dont spend because you don't like the neighborhood in Bridgeport, you will spend if visiting on the Gold Coast or some other neighborhood that you would be staying, or if you are from the area, around home. That's a net zero for Illinois. If you loved a Japanese restaurant but then found out the new one across the street was better, the new one would be "generating" revenue from you, but the one you had been a patron, would not. If more people were buying $15 beers from jerry Reinsdorf, fewer would be buying $6 beers from the bar a block from their house. I don't get where you think everyone with suddenly start spending thousands of dollars more than they are spending because JR built a new park. The reality is yes they will spend more than is being spent at the 78, but other areas are going to pay for that.

I don't know about you, but if I had public transit as a real option, I would drink more before, during, and after a game in theory, than if were only able to drive.

27 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I don't know about you, but if I had public transit as a real option, I would drink more before, during, and after a game in theory, than if were only able to drive.

Probably, but that doesn't change much current site to new site. And if you spend $100 more drinking than normal, that's $100 less you will spend away from the area. These buildings are losers for states, and states now know it. The White Sox had little chance getting the state funding they desired if they were actually run properly and perennial contenders. Now as laughingstocks, they have no chance. It's funny, JR is using the same lines he did back in the 80s, and he pretty much got everything he wanted. Now he can't compete with no rent, a free park...Things would be no different at the new place. I hope it gets built. I really do. But if the state gives then anything more than infrastructure, any politician in my district loses my vote if they are for it. 

Edited November 13, 20241 yr by Dick Allen

2 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

I've said this plenty of times, so here goes again.

When I've gone to a good ballpark, I don't just go to the ballpark. I drive in (or better yet take transit) I visit a restaurant on the way into the park, I visit a bar across the street. I have a beer or two in the park, then another after the game finishes before taking transit back assuming that option exists. If there's another shop, I might browse or walk around, god knows what I might buy.

I have never done that at the Cell/Rate, because there is nothing like that to do. You park, you go to the game, you go home. Reinsdorf wanted his parking revenue, and that comes at the expense of developing surrounding businesses. If I visit the area now that I live outside of Chicago, I stay at a hotel in NW Indiana and drive in, because how many hotels are there at the Rate? The Cell is an island feeding Reinsdorf parking money but with basically no positive impact on the surroundings.

The amount of money being generated by business on the 78 site right now is roughly...zero, and has been for 60 years. No one is dining at a restaurant or staying at a hotel on that site right now. Those businesses are not paying taxes because they don't exist. The fact that those businesses don't exist, and instead you have an empty lot, also impacts the businesses and communities around it, because very few people live on an empty lot and very few people stay at hotels on an empty lot to visit businesses around it. This affects land values and business revenues in the entire surrounding area.

Over a period of..."60 years", which is how long this site has been undeveloped, this is easily hundreds of millions of dollars of lost revenue to the city and state by having the area undeveloped. 

What will happen to the Rate site is an open question, because you can't just leave it as an abandoned eyesore. It could be repurposed for a different sport or redeveloped into something else. That has to be part of any plan, but it can be.

If we compare "The White Sox leading development of a community at the 78 site and something positive done with the current location" to "The 78 site has sat vacant as a polluted eyesore since the 1960s and Reinsdorf's ballpark is on an island supporting no surrounding businesses", that is a huge difference in the business climate. That is the kind of change that makes a serious positive improvement on the city and a major increase in tax dollars.

If all the city does is get this site developed, that is a win - and over a 30 year stadium lifetime, that's a win that could be potentially on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. I have zero issue with that being the city's contribution to this project, because that's a long-term investment in the quality and growth of the city.

This is, in my opinion, what the politicians are asking for when they say "They want a good deal for the city". They understand that they can't expect only private money to develop this site, that's not how things work in a big project like this, but Reinsdorf has to show them why it will be a good deal. He refuses to do this.

I have a problem with "vastly more money being spent than that because we don't want to lose a baseball team", which is what Reinsdorf has instead he deserves. 

I've been to Yankee Stadium (the old one) and Dodger Stadium a few times. There is probably less to do outside those ballparks than there is at Sox Park. (Yankee Stadium has a dive bar named Stan's nearby, but not much else). And yet, these two teams are routinely one and two in attendance. It's not because they have cool places outside the ballpark -- it's because of the winning traditions that both teams have. Same thing with Citi Field -- it looks like a third world country outside that stadium. But the Mets routinely draw between 2.5 million and 3 million.

3 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Correct, but it will be linked (fairly or not) in the mind of the public at large and groups/individuals will be sure to make that connection public, again fairly or not. 

Under the current climate I can't see any politician willing to stick their neck out for JR or the McCaskey family. 

The Mayor of Chicago wants the new Bears stadium and is willing to listen on a new White Sox stadium. Some of the aldermen want the stadiums also, especially the one who is the aldermen  in Bronzeville. ( which is now the preferred site of the Bears)

45 minutes ago, waltwilliams said:

I've been to Yankee Stadium (the old one) and Dodger Stadium a few times. There is probably less to do outside those ballparks than there is at Sox Park. (Yankee Stadium has a dive bar named Stan's nearby, but not much else). And yet, these two teams are routinely one and two in attendance. It's not because they have cool places outside the ballpark -- it's because of the winning traditions that both teams have. Same thing with Citi Field -- it looks like a third world country outside that stadium. But the Mets routinely draw between 2.5 million and 3 million.

Citi Field is a REALLY poor example here, because it is widely thought that the number one reason Steve Cohen bought the Mets and immediately dumped money into it was so that he could build up political good will to get one of three NY State Casino Licenses, to build a casino hotel on the site accompanying that stadium. Cohen has dumped money into the Mets in part because he wants to build the accompanying business, because the combination of the two businesses will allow him to make a fortune.

These are also older stadiums. While they are #1 and #2 in attendance, they aren't the way teams are using stadiums right now. Teams like the Braves and Giants have well established how profitable it is to put a stadium in the middle of an entertainment complex, where the stadium drives revenue that supports the surrounding businesses. Similarly, cities like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati have shown how driving foot traffic to downtown areas is a way to massively boost the economic status of a downtown area by bringing in foot traffic. It works, we know this works. It is good for a city, it is good business.

13 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Citi Field is a REALLY poor example here, because it is widely thought that the number one reason Steve Cohen bought the Mets and immediately dumped money into it was so that he could build up political good will to get one of three NY State Casino Licenses, to build a casino hotel on the site accompanying that stadium. Cohen has dumped money into the Mets in part because he wants to build the accompanying business, because the combination of the two businesses will allow him to make a fortune.

These are also older stadiums. While they are #1 and #2 in attendance, they aren't the way teams are using stadiums right now. Teams like the Braves and Giants have well established how profitable it is to put a stadium in the middle of an entertainment complex, where the stadium drives revenue that supports the surrounding businesses. Similarly, cities like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati have shown how driving foot traffic to downtown areas is a way to massively boost the economic status of a downtown area by bringing in foot traffic. It works, we know this works. It is good for a city, it is good business.

Not sure why Citi Field is a poor example. For the past 20 years of existence (and for adjacent Shea Stadium's entire life going back to the 60s) it was surrounded by auto-body shops and borderline poverty. But that didn't keep Mets fans away in the past. Good on Steve Cohen for being a responsible owner and attempting to create his own village by his existing stadium -- that's what JR or a new Sox owner should be doing, looking for ways to develop around Sox Park.

As for Pittsburgh and Cincinnatti, these two franchises are routinely at the bottom-third of MLB attendance, despite their relatively new ballparks and whatever attractions they may have on the outside. Unless you're the Cubs or Red Sox, if you don't have a good team, chances are you won't draw, regardless of where you play, 

3 minutes ago, waltwilliams said:

Not sure why Citi Field is a poor example. For the past 20 years of existence (and for adjacent Shea Stadium's entire life going back to the 60s) it was surrounded by auto-body shops and borderline poverty. But that didn't keep Mets fans away in the past. Good on Steve Cohen for being a responsible owner and attempting to create his own village by his existing stadium -- that's what JR or a new Sox owner should be doing, looking for ways to develop around Sox Park.

As for Pittsburgh and Cincinnatti, these two franchises are routinely at the bottom-third of MLB attendance, despite their relatively new ballparks and whatever attractions they may have on the outside. Unless you're the Cubs or Red Sox, if you don't have a good team, chances are you won't draw, regardless of where you play, 

Can probably put the Dodgers Cards and Padres into that zone of built in attendance.

Maybe even the Rockies to a lesser extent.