Stadia: football v. basketball?

Do you, as a taxpayer who could care less about sports, want some of your hard-earned money spent to make sure your beer-guzzling brother-in-law can keep going to White Sox games? Or do you, a southern Illinoisan struggling to make ends meet, want to hand over some of your tax money to make millionaire Chicagoans like Bears owner Michael McCaskey even richer than they already are?

You may say no, but many of your elected representatives in Chicago and Illinois government are inclined to disagree with you. They have had nightmares of the Arlington Heights Bears winning the Super Bowl or the St. Petersburg Sox winning the World Series.

As professional sports has gained mass popularity in recent decades, the issue of public assistance to teams has become a major one at City Hall, in the Statehouse and even in the Congress. There is no easy solution.

Here in Illinois, major league baseball was saved this year. The Chicago City Council agreed to allow the Cubs to play some games at night, and the state legislature approved a financial package designed to keep the White Sox from moving to Florida. Still awaiting action by the legislature is a proposal to build a new stadium for the Bears on Chicago's near west side.

The Cubs had threatened to move to the suburbs if they couldn't play at night. The neighbors around Wrigley Field bellowed that it would ruin the neighborhood, and they got an anti-lights ordinance passed several years ago. But the council ultimately agreed last February to allow 18 night games per season.

The White Sox threat was more serious. Florida offered them a bundle of money to move, forcing Illinois' hand, and at the last possible moment in the spring session the legislature passed a bill to build a new stadium adjacent to the ancient Comiskey Park and lease it to the club. Under a complex funding plan, bonds will be sold to build the stadium and to relocate people living on the site. Debt service on the bonds will come from the Chicago and statewide hotel taxes and Chicago's share of the state income tax. In other words, the state's general revenue funds aren't being touched.

There was a great deal of talk about the economic benefits of keeping the Sox here, but Gov. James R. Thompson had a more personal reason to push for the legislation: It's unlikely that George Bush would have chosen Thompson as his vice presidential candidate right after the national media told how Big Jim let the Sox slip away. (Although, as we all know, a Quayle got in the way of Thompson's ambitions anyway.)

As for the Bears, they reached agreement June 14 with the city of Chicago on a plan to build their own stadium with some government help, and they went down to Springfield with just two weeks left in the spring legislative session, a move that almost derailed the Sox deal. Ultimately, the legislature put off action on the Bears proposal, which calls for the state to provide $30 million in infrastructure improvements at the stadium site and for the city to issue $60 million in tax-exempt bonds for land acquisition and relocation of residents. Congress voted in October to clear the way for the tax exemption. Under the agreement with the city, a joint venture of the Bears and a construction company would buy the west side stadium site from the city. The Bears at present lease the antiquated Soldier Field on Chicago's lakefront from the Chicago Park District.

December 1988 | Illinois Issues | 32

The Bears presumably will be back in Springfield next spring, but in the meantime things have gotten more complicated. The Bears want to build their stadium adjacent to the indoor Chicago Stadium where the Bulls play basketball and the Hawks play hockey, and part of the land they seek is owned by the stadium's owner, William Wirtz. During the summer, Wirtz announced that he wants to build another indoor stadium on that very land. Wirtz, you see, is sore at the Bears' McCaskey. He's upset that McCaskey went forward in June with the Bears plan, which would involve condemning Wirtz's land, without talking to him.

But, back to the original question: Should the taxpayers be involved in all these stadium shenanigans? Downstate legislators have their doubts. Rep. John Dunn (D-101, Decatur) screamed at the top of his lungs in the House chamber on the night of June 30: "What in the name of heaven are we doing at this hour with our top-ranking politicians on this floor when we can't take care of the children, we can't take care of the poor and we can't take care of the people who need our help?"

But the economic argument is persuasive. A survey done for the city of Chicago showed that each of the baseball teams contributes at least $94 million a year to the state economy. To me, there's an even stronger argument. Sports teams have a lot to do with the soul of a community. Remove them and the city is never quite the same again. Baltimore still hasn't recovered from the loss of its beloved Colts to the "hick town" of Indianapolis four years ago. Governments have an obligation to worry about more than education and welfare and highways.

On the other hand, the state is short on money — very short — and the subsidies should be reasonable. The Sox plan seems to be just that. The Bears plan would be better if it called for the team to do more to enhance the run-down west side than simply build a stadium. What they're currently doing in Toronto is an example: building a complex that will include a stadium for the Blue Jays, a hotel, restaurants, a health club and a nightclub.

There's probably no way we can keep McCaskey from getting richer, and we shouldn't begrudge our brother-in-law's passion for sports. If a good, new Bears stadium can help make Chicago a championship city again, it's a great idea. Now if we can just soothe William Wirtz's feelings a bit. . .□

Ed McManus is an assistant financial editor for the Chicago Tribune.

December 1988 | Illinois Issues | 33