Pritzker, Johnson Clash Over Bears Stadium

Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson are now arguing in public over a question the Chicago Bears appear to have already narrowed on their own: where the team’s next stadium will go. Pritzker said on May 18 that Johnson has “no plan” to keep the Bears in Chicago, escalating a dispute that has unfolded as state lawmakers consider whether to help a move to Arlington Heights and as Indiana continues to court the team in Hammond. Johnson’s office rejected the criticism and said City Hall’s proposal is still the only one built around public ownership and a funding structure that does not raise property taxes on residents. The clash has added a political fight to a stadium search that the Bears say is down to two sites. ### Why did Pritzker say Johnson has “no plan”? JB Pritzker made the remark to reporters in Chicago on May 18, saying Brandon Johnson had “come up with no plan at all about how the Bears would end up in the city of Chicago.” Pritzker said he would prefer the Bears remain in Chicago, but added that the mayor had not produced a workable path after three years in office. Pritzker also tied the criticism to Springfield process. He said major budget and legislative requests are typically worked through months earlier, starting in late fall and continuing after the governor introduces a budget in February. He said the Johnson administration had shown up “late in the game” with demands in May. (chicago.suntimes.com) ### What is Johnson’s response? Brandon Johnson’s office said the city does have a proposal and defended it after Pritzker’s comments. In a statement reported by local outlets, the mayor’s office said Chicago’s proposal “remains the only plan centered on public ownership alongside a funding mechanism that does not burden property taxpayers while keeping the Bears in Chicago.” (chicago.suntimes.com) Chicago’s earlier push was not imaginary. In April 2024, Johnson stood with Bears President Kevin Warren to unveil a plan for a domed lakefront stadium next to Soldier Field, but that proposal stalled in Springfield. WBEZ reported the plan would have required about $900 million in taxpayer funding and at least as much additional infrastructure spending, while the Sun-Times said the broader public support package was estimated at $2.4 billion. (abc7chicago.com) ### Why are Arlington Heights and Hammond the only places still in play? The Bears have told both reporters and NFL officials that Arlington Heights, Illinois, and Hammond, Indiana, are the only viable sites they are considering for a new domed stadium. A Sun-Times report said the team planned to repeat that position at the NFL’s quarterly meeting in Orlando on May 19, and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell later said the two viable sites were Arlington Heights and Hammond, not Chicago. (chicago.suntimes.com) Kevin Warren said in April that the team expected to choose between an Illinois site and an Indiana site in late spring or early summer. The Bears later reiterated in a Friday statement, quoted by Illinois Public Media, that only Arlington Heights and Hammond remain under consideration and that a decision is expected later this spring or early summer. (chicago.suntimes.com) ### What does Illinois lawmakers’ deadline have to do with it? Illinois lawmakers are weighing a “megaprojects” bill that the Bears want in order to move to Arlington Heights. NBC Chicago reported the measure would give the team property tax breaks, and multiple outlets said the spring legislative session ends May 31. That deadline has become the next pressure point because Illinois must decide whether it wants to improve Arlington Heights’ position against Indiana’s offer. (chicagobears.com) The Arlington Heights option also carries infrastructure questions. ABC7 reported that neighboring mayors in Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Schaumburg asked Pritzker and legislative leaders for a seat at the table because roads and major interchanges near the former racetrack site would need upgrades. (nbcchicago.com) ### Is Chicago still truly in the running? The Bears’ own public posture says no. WBEZ reported that, barring a sudden reversal, the team is leaving Chicago, and the Bears have repeatedly said they have not identified another workable site within city limits. Johnson has continued trying to keep the team in the city, but the team’s active site list does not include Chicago. (abc7chicago.com) May 31 is the next concrete date in the fight. By then, Illinois lawmakers are scheduled to end their spring session, and the Bears have said they expect a stadium-site decision between Arlington Heights and Hammond later this spring or early summer. (nbcchicago.com) (wbez.org)