Sox looking at building in South Loop

[ptatc]

15 hours ago, Lightly Folded said:

That because things get exposed here. Not so much elsewhere especially in small town American fiefdoms. 

I disagree with that. In small towns everyone knows everyone and everything. They just take care of it themselves and get them out of office quickly. Having only lived in small towns, I see it repeated constantly. If they stay in office they are doing enough good for the town.

[Dick Allen]

8 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

More specifically,  lots of other people's money.

Not if you live in Illinois.

[The Beast]

On 2/21/2024 at 8:10 PM, JoeC said:

The economics of baseball have changed.

Guaranteed Rate would be a great ballpark in its current configuration in the ‘90’s. It’s still a good place to watch baseball.

Fact is that modern day ballparks are a full experience, and the inside of the ballpark is just one part of the experience. Say what you will about posters who lament the loss of tailgating possibilities like THAT is going to be the death knell for baseball on the South Side, but it is indicative of the way the modern fan “consumes” baseball.

It is this economic and competitive reality that is driving this “need.”

Tailgating isn’t just about the ballpark experience, for some it is also about an economic necessity, particularly for the working and middle class.

21 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

BS. JR is also implying that his family's sale of the team will be to someone who wants them to move. Look at what teams have to go through to move. The White Sox are not even close. The league isn't going to let them move unless there is no option. I'm sure he would more than settle for some upgrades to GRF and his sweetheart deal extending. That's the other thing that is freaking him out. A lot of people, including one former Board member of the IFSA thinks his deal is way too good. And why do they think this way? Because they are right.

I think the threat that he’s putting into another owner selling and moving the team is just to cause fear of the team leaving. We have no idea what the next billionaire will do with this team or what his son will do.

I also agree with you that MLB and other owners will not allow the White Sox to move unless there isn’t an option. 

17 hours ago, Jake said:

I find the mayor's openness to this to be interesting given that I would have profiled him as someone hostile to this kind of thing. That's probably good news for the White Sox. I've yet to see any meaningful opposition to the Sox proposals by any public officials, as a matter of fact.

@GenericUserName laid out an argument on the previous page that really made sense from the city’s perspective. Maybe Johnson (a newbie who needs a political win) sees that.

12 hours ago, Springfield Soxfan said:

JR going to get his financing by end of May! Book it!

Not under Pritzker’s watch and the budget he’s trying to get passed. Not sure why you’re even suggesting this unless a vote is planned in some sort of vote before a Memorial Day recess.

10 hours ago, BigHurt3515 said:

So what needs to happen in order for this to get the green light

Private and public investment. JR had an opening bid. Now JB and Springfield can respond with a counter offer. Maybe there is a deal to be had for all involved. It also seems to depend on what the Bears do.

7 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Those of you who are in state, especially if you’re opposed to this, have you called your state legislators? They probably don’t get that many constituent calls, a dozen self-identified white Sox fans calling and politely saying they don’t want this kind of money going to Reinsdorf could well make a difference. 

I am opposed to taxpayer spending on things like new stadiums when GRF is fine for now and there is a mess abrewing with the Bears and White Sox both wanting new stadiums. I am also opposed to this spending because the previous stadium work is not yet paid off and should be considered in any kind of deal. I really would need to see some long term commitment to use GRF and the surrounding area for housing and for something else like soccer. I can see this part of the equation being left out even though it is being proposed.

Back to the legislators. I haven’t called Anne Stava-Murray (a Democratic rep) or John Curran (a Republican senator and minority leader) but I should to see where Stava-Murray is at. Curran would probably vote it down to stick with his party’s anti-spending and the mostly anti-anything the Democratic Supermajority is for in the Illinois General Assembly. I have called Stava-Murray in the past to see where she stood on pension reform and if she would be open to future negotiations (she isn’t, it’s a non starter for her even though she favors stabilizing pensions) because my wife and several friends and family are teachers and I want them to have something to retire on before the massive unfunded liabilities (to the tune of a reported $141 billion and growing) lead to bankruptcy. So maybe I should call again and voice my opposition and see where she stands on the stadium issue if it would do any good at all.

Edited February 23 by The Beast

[Dick Allen]

Related apparently doesn’t know much about baseball, and developers are bullshiters. They apparently claim the new park will draw 5 million fans annually.

[Balta1701]

6 hours ago, BigHurt3515 said:

Why would people in the state or city not want this? Reinsdorf might not even be here to see the stadium done or for much longer after. This district and stadium I assume would be awesome for the city and make the team even more attractive to buy

I think there’s a good project here and I understand the need for some public funding.

I don’t believe that the state should be paying nearly every cent of the cost of this park. It sounds like that’s basically what Reinsdorf has asked for.

I would believe in this project if they were selling people on the positives, sharing economic valuations that show it would bring more revenue to the state and justifying the price they asked for, but they haven’t. That tells me they can’t, they’re just conducting a bank robbery. i don’t believe that Reinsdorf’s argument of “give me everything I want or I move the team” should be rewarded by anyone, including white Sox fans.

[Sleepy Harold]

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

Related apparently doesn’t know much about baseball, and developers are bullshiters. They apparently claim the new park will draw 5 million fans annually.

They have to mean location and built-up "78" bars/restaurants because yeah that math ain't mathin for baseball alone. 

[pcq]

For starters he needs to pay off the GRF debt. I could see this all taking about 20 years with all of the issues to be addressed. 

[Dick Allen]

suppoosedly a hotel and bars and restarurants is the plan with the initial build, the one were JR is looking for about $4 billlion. I guess if its free, the White Sox would be running those. They made it out to be the ballpark was the catalyst to everything else. Is that just speculation or do they actually have commitments?

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/paul-sullivan-jerry-reinsdorf-face-015800271.html
 

Didn’t take long for Paul Sullivan to go after Reinsdorf.

But $1.8-2.0 billion JUST for the ball park?  Are they building the Taj Mahal?

 

The biggest hole in the argument is all those teams that struggle to draw 2 or even 1.5 million like the Rays and Orioles and Guardians and Twins and DBacks still being quite competitive.

Or the Red Sox and Cubs making tons in profits/revenue and not reinvesting in payroll (although the Cubs might somehow thread the needle with a top farm system) without paying a remaining Big 4 FA.

Or how bad the Angels have done drawing 2.5-3 million per season over the last decade plus.

Edited February 23 by caulfield12

[Lightly Folded]

10 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Those of you who are in state, especially if you’re opposed to this, have you called your state legislators? They probably don’t get that many constituent calls, a dozen self-identified white Sox fans calling and politely saying they don’t want this kind of money going to Reinsdorf could well make a difference. 

And if your calling also mention no public funding o any kind for any new Bear Stadium. 

[ThirdGen]

1 hour ago, Sleepy Harold said:

They have to mean location and built-up "78" bars/restaurants because yeah that math ain't mathin for baseball alone. 

Navy Pier draws 9 million visitors, so its not out of the question that a well done entertainment district could draw 5 with a guaranteed 2 million at least for baseball.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

55 minutes ago, ThirdGen said:

Navy Pier draws 9 million visitors, so its not out of the question that a well done entertainment district could draw 5 with a guaranteed 2 million at least for baseball.

Especially given the proximity to Michigan Ave and the loop which draws a ton of tourist foot traffic. You'd basically be expanding the area.

[Dick Allen]

1 hour ago, ThirdGen said:

Navy Pier draws 9 million visitors, so its not out of the question that a well done entertainment district could draw 5 with a guaranteed 2 million at least for baseball.

Its out of the question. People won't be hitting those bars non game day.

[Dick Allen]

7 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Especially given the proximity to Michigan Ave and the loop which draws a ton of tourist foot traffic. You'd basically be expanding the area.

You're nuts if you think this is going to be a big draw from out of towners, at least to that level. Besides what does the state and city gain if people go there instead of Millenium Park and Navy Pier other than losing out on the taxes they accumulate so Jerry's park can be paid off?

[soxfan18]

10 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Its out of the question. People won't be hitting those bars non game day.

 

Disagree. If done right, tourists will be drawn to this. Not to mention South Loop residents, UIC students, etc. 

 

[77 Hitmen]

11 hours ago, Lightly Folded said:

I thought everybody was saying there would be no need for public financing for the Bears. If the white Sox don’t deserve public financing, as many are saying, in part, because of Reinsdorf and his horrid ways and because the team consistently blows etc etc then this worthless piece of junk football team  which has been ten times crappier on the field and throughout their organization shouldn’t see the light of day toward a single public dollar. If the Sox are garbage then the Bears are garbage to garbage. But yet everyone wants to treat them like royalty. The Bears have pretty much sucked for the last 40 years. They can take their sorry asses to Mexico City for all I care. Pay for your own damn stadium Bears or get lost. 

Seems like the Bears deal is much worse.  The renovated Soldier Field opened in 2003 and the McCaskeys wanted out less than 20 years later with the city/state still on the hook for $600M in payments on the Soldier Field reno.  And can you imagine the outrage if it was Reinsdorf who was battling school districts now over property tax money?

And I'm not saying this as a JR defender by any means.  He's been a horrible owner and is now playing the "relocation" card to try to get the government to pick up the entire tab on this new stadium project.  

[Balta1701]

19 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Its out of the question. People won't be hitting those bars non game day.

If that is true then the developer has failed.

This should be the type of place that is a spot in the city people want to go and do things on non-gamedays. The 81 days should support the existence of good businesses, bars, green space, etc, by providing them a market. You should want to go to this spot otherwise. 

[southsider2k5]

5 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

Not if you live in Illinois.

Not true as long as you visit the area.

[77 Hitmen]

11 hours ago, GenericUserName said:

First time posting in a long time because this drama has been the first time I have given the Sox more than two seconds of thought in years.

JR is asking for lots of money, but the debate is missing the point. I have been mostly negative on his proposal once the ask came out, but with more thought, I think it really depends on how its all structured.

Right now the ISFA has a ton of debt, mostly from Soldier Field. It is being paid off by the hotel tax. Everyone knows that. But the important distinction is that the city pre-pays the payment and then earns back the amount from the tax. In years when the hotel tax is less than the payment, the city government is stuck paying for it. Or, what has often happened, is that the city pays just the interest or refinances the bonds to lower the current payment so the current administration doesn't have to deal with it, leaving it to future city councils to deal with. That is how we end up in a situation where almost none of the principal of the Soldier Field deal has been paid off.

With this new deal, it seems like JR wants to tap into existing TIF money for the area for infrastructure. That, to me, makes complete sense. Its basically what it was made for and makes sense from a common sense point of view. The city is basically paying for the infrastructure up front in exchange for future payments once the infrastructure is paid off. Its a good way to build up an area like the 78.

On top of that, JR wants the city to pay for the stadium. That seems outrageous, but it depends. Technically, it could just be a way to tap into the city's ability to get better rates on debt. If that's all it was, I really don't think people could be upset. But the key point is how it is paid back, and specifically, how much is actually expected to be paid back by the business. Its been said he wants the hotel tax to cover it, but right now, that tax can't even cover the smaller amount of Soldier Field payments. So there would likely be shortfalls.

So the question is, who covers the difference? If its the Sox, then its really not a terrible deal. There are no new taxes, the city pays for infrastructure, and ends up not spending any Chicago taxpayer money on the stadium.

But JR doesn't want to pay the difference that he knows will occur. So he wants to also tap into the sales tax in the 78 and put that towards the stadium payments. That is a new tax as much as he will want to say its not. The city would then be looking at reduced tax revenue for the area that will cost city spending. That is straight up a cost to the city, which is indirectly a tax on city taxpayers.

So really, the question will come down to who is taking the risk in this proposal. If the Sox are responsible for the entirety of the bond payment and are only given the hotel tax and the sales tax in the 78, its probably at worst a slight negative financial impact for the city with a decent chance of being a pretty big positive financial impact. But that assumes the Sox are the thing pushing the 78 development towards completion. However, if the city is the one ultimately responsible for the bond payments or if we think the 78 will get developed anyway, this could be a massive financial boondoggle.

The thing that throws a wrench into all of this is the Bears. It has been stated enough times here: the Bears and Sox are competing for these ISFA funds. As much as that makes it seem like taxpayers are about to get screwed, it could actually be a great thing for the city's negotiating leverage. If we can use that to get a scenario where the financial risk is less on the city, this could actually turn into a good project.

Excellent summary.  It's a very complex issue.  It's not as simple as telling JR to take a jump off the top of the Sears Tower (or the GRF upper deck).  I don't want a $1B hand out to him so that his family can sell the team for hundreds of millions more without him putting up a huge chuck of his own money toward this, but I can imagine there's a possible deal to be had here where both sides can get something they want.  

Edited February 23 by 77 Hitmen

[southsider2k5]

I am going to say this in the nicest way possible.  Especially for those who don't live in the actual city of Chicago, but instead live in the towns and suburbs around it, if your level of outrage is really this high for what is being asked for in this project, you probably have no idea what is going on in your own towns on a day to day basis.  Really try to get involved in some of your local boards and the like if possible.  I spent 12 years on my towns planning commission.  This is really where you learn how things work, and you also have  a real chance to make change.

Having been on the periphery for about 90% progress in an Amazon project right here in my own home town, there is so much detail that is really not being understood here.  We negotiated tax breaks, job training funds, TIF districts, and even a moving of county and municipal limits so that the site would be entitled to extensions and connections to the municipal water and sewer systems as a part of the deal.  All for a deal that failed when Amazon shut down a bunch of similar projects all over the country because of "cost cutting".

I have no problem thinking some of you would continue to be outraged here, but this stuff is not unusual, and the misunderstandings of pieces of these types of projects are fixable.

[Tnetennba]

11 minutes ago, soxfan18 said:

 

Disagree. If done right, tourists will be drawn to this. Not to mention South Loop residents, UIC students, etc. 

 

Having lived in the South Loop when there was next to nothing as far as dining or nightlife, I believe it will be a draw, even on non game days. Printer's Row was the closest decent bar back then, and I had to trek to the northside or Wicker for better options most of the time. I don't think the detractors here really know just how few good options there are nearby.

[southsider2k5]

6 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Having lived in the South Loop when there was next to nothing as far as dining or nightlife, I believe it will be a draw, even on non game days. Printer's Row was the closest decent bar back then, and I had to trek to the northside or Wicker for better options most of the time. I don't think the detractors here really know just how few good options there are nearby.

At the very least there are like half a dozen different college's located down there within walking distance, plus the south Loop crowd on a daily basis.

[caulfield12]

5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I am going to say this in the nicest way possible.  Especially for those who don't live in the actual city of Chicago, but instead live in the towns and suburbs around it, if your level of outrage is really this high for what is being asked for in this project, you probably have no idea what is going on in your own towns on a day to day basis.  Really try to get involved in some of your local boards and the like if possible.  I spent 12 years on my towns planning commission.  This is really where you learn how things work, and you also have  a real chance to make change.

Having been on the periphery for about 90% progress in an Amazon project right here in my own home town, there is so much detail that is really not being understood here.  We negotiated tax breaks, job training funds, TIF districts, and even a moving of county and municipal limits so that the site would be entitled to extensions and connections to the municipal water and sewer systems as a part of the deal.  All for a deal that failed when Amazon shut down a bunch of similar projects all over the country because of "cost cutting".

I have no problem thinking some of you would continue to be outraged here, but this stuff is not unusual, and the misunderstandings of pieces of these types of projects are fixable.

Then they need someone who can really sell it and patiently explain all the details and nuances.

Not just act affronted and haughty when questioned professionally by someone outside of Crain's.

Regardless of one's personal feelings for politics and sexual orientation, it would take someone with an eye for detail...amost a McKinsey type consultant like a Pete Butiegieg who has charisma and youth on their side.

That's not the Reisdorfs nor is it Boyer.

Every time JR opens his mouth (or Grifol for that matter), they have a unique talent for somehow making things worse...and making more enemies than friends.

You simply can't just show up in a leather jacket in Springfield trying to act like a 55 year old, shake a few hands like it's 1930's politics all over again and expect to get your way anymore.

Even if you are a billionaire and got away with it once.

[soxfan18]

South Loop folks: We don't have enough restaurants 

Non-South Loop folks: Nobody is going to go to those restaurants 

[Balta1701]

16 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I am going to say this in the nicest way possible.  Especially for those who don't live in the actual city of Chicago, but instead live in the towns and suburbs around it, if your level of outrage is really this high for what is being asked for in this project, you probably have no idea what is going on in your own towns on a day to day basis.  Really try to get involved in some of your local boards and the like if possible.  I spent 12 years on my towns planning commission.  This is really where you learn how things work, and you also have  a real chance to make change.

Having been on the periphery for about 90% progress in an Amazon project right here in my own home town, there is so much detail that is really not being understood here.  We negotiated tax breaks, job training funds, TIF districts, and even a moving of county and municipal limits so that the site would be entitled to extensions and connections to the municipal water and sewer systems as a part of the deal.  All for a deal that failed when Amazon shut down a bunch of similar projects all over the country because of "cost cutting".

I have no problem thinking some of you would continue to be outraged here, but this stuff is not unusual, and the misunderstandings of pieces of these types of projects are fixable.

Here's the straight up problem.

Would it be normal for your city to not only do all those things, but to also literally pay 100% of Amazon's construction costs? You didn't say that or allege that, but that's basically the setup we're seeing.

A $1-1.2 billion ballpark, with a $1-$1.2 billion subsidy for the ballpark, combined with an extra $600-$900 million that includes the TIF district and various other tax breaks already established.

As far as I can tell, with what Reinsdorf has asked for, the state would be better off just buying the White Sox, building the new ballpark, then selling the White Sox for $1 billion more than they paid for it once the ballpark is complete.