Bears New Stadium Nonsense Repository

[Grizzled]

The Cook County Board of Review has reduced its appraisal to approximately $124M, which would result in a tax bill of $11M. The Bears maintain this is still too high and will not keep them from exploring other options:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2024 ... tax-review

11M against the income they will derive from this is a rounding error. Very annoying to me.

I was thinking along the same lines. But many business people will fight for any money savings.

[The Marshall Plan]

11M against the income they will derive from this is a rounding error. Very annoying to me.

I was thinking along the same lines. But many business people will fight for any money savings.

It’s also an indictment of how petty and pathetic Illinois is.

This development will add billions of dollars of economic activity between the construction and the useful life. Plus the thousands of jobs and it putting Illinois on the national and maybe even international stage for big events.

But here we go. It doesn’t happen without greasing palms.

No wonder people leave this state in droves every year.

[docc]

..too bad Tony Soprano lived in NJ instead of Illinois,,as we'd be building now..

[Moriarty]

It’s also an indictment of how petty and pathetic Illinois is.

This development will add billions of dollars of economic activity between the construction and the useful life. Plus the thousands of jobs and it putting Illinois on the national and maybe even international stage for big events.

But here we go. It doesn’t happen without greasing palms.

It only happens when palms get greased, because bribes and "favors" are the only way that publicly funded stadiums make sense for people in power (well, that or getting out of the job or town before the voters realize you screwed them, not helped them).

If they just stick to the public's best interest, it doesn't happen. The "net economic benefits" are a big scam.


https://www.brookings.edu/articles/spor ... -the-cost/
https://www.investigativepost.org/2021/ ... w-stadium/
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications ... facilities

[Grizzled]

I was thinking along the same lines. But many business people will fight for any money savings.

It’s also an indictment of how petty and pathetic Illinois is.

This development will add billions of dollars of economic activity between the construction and the useful life. Plus the thousands of jobs and it putting Illinois on the national and maybe even international stage for big events.

But here we go. It doesn’t happen without greasing palms.

No wonder people leave this state in droves every year.

Was thinking that also. Multi billions in construction, thousands of jobs during construction projects and who knows how many permanently. The Bears value alone probably doubles upon stadium completion. Lots of stupid stubborn people on both sides, choosing to fight over relatively minor sums in the greater scheme.

[thunderspirit]

It’s also an indictment of how petty and pathetic Illinois is.

This development will add billions of dollars of economic activity between the construction and the useful life. Plus the thousands of jobs and it putting Illinois on the national and maybe even international stage for big events.

But here we go. It doesn’t happen without greasing palms.

No wonder people leave this state in droves every year.

I'll not delve into the political side of this (beyond saying the numbers do not, in fact, show people leaving this state in droves), but I will say that I've lived in four states, including Illinois, and each and every one of them had the same hurdles to building something large and the same debates over taxation.

It isn't specific to Illinois, and in fact isn't substantially worse than in other states.

[The Marshall Plan]

It’s also an indictment of how petty and pathetic Illinois is.

This development will add billions of dollars of economic activity between the construction and the useful life. Plus the thousands of jobs and it putting Illinois on the national and maybe even international stage for big events.

But here we go. It doesn’t happen without greasing palms.

It only happens when palms get greased, because bribes and "favors" are the only way that publicly funded stadiums make sense for people in power (well, that or getting out of the job or town before the voters realize you screwed them, not helped them).

If they just stick to the public's best interest, it doesn't happen. The "net economic benefits" are a big scam.


https://www.brookings.edu/articles/spor ... -the-cost/
https://www.investigativepost.org/2021/ ... w-stadium/
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications ... facilities

Has the funding structure of Arlington Heights been settled or even seriously discussed yet?

[The Marshall Plan]

It’s also an indictment of how petty and pathetic Illinois is.

This development will add billions of dollars of economic activity between the construction and the useful life. Plus the thousands of jobs and it putting Illinois on the national and maybe even international stage for big events.

But here we go. It doesn’t happen without greasing palms.

No wonder people leave this state in droves every year.

Was thinking that also. Multi billions in construction, thousands of jobs during construction projects and who knows how many permanently. The Bears value alone probably doubles upon stadium completion. Lots of stupid stubborn people on both sides, choosing to fight over relatively minor sums in the greater scheme.

That's how I see it.

To @Moriarty 's point, the taxpayer should not be on the hook for the whole thing.

At the same time, just logically speaking, everybody benefits from this. Imagine having things like a Super Bowl, Olympics, World Cup, etc. in the area. Or the increased economic activity year round from the developments in the surrounding areas.

[Grizzled]

Was thinking that also. Multi billions in construction, thousands of jobs during construction projects and who knows how many permanently. The Bears value alone probably doubles upon stadium completion. Lots of stupid stubborn people on both sides, choosing to fight over relatively minor sums in the greater scheme.

That's how I see it.

To @Moriarty 's point, the taxpayer should not be on the hook for the whole thing.

At the same time, just logically speaking, everybody benefits from this. Imagine having things like a Super Bowl, Olympics, World Cup, etc. in the area. Or the increased economic activity year round from the developments in the surrounding areas.

And the issue of public funding hasn't been discussed much yet. We know the Bears are going to do their damnest to belly up to that trough.

[Atkins&Rebel]

All over the country, Towns and Countys are raising property tax assessments. My area just had a county wide 12% increase in all rural areas because of budget shortfalls from the state level. There are properties that might be worth more than the 12% increase, and probably several that are not. But they do the universal increase and let individuals fight it through the process in place or accept it. If you go through the process and still don't agree with the assessment, then you can take it to court. Going to court without going through the process will get your case thrown out because the judge is going to ask you if there was a process that you could have fought the assessment through and did you do it?

So I still believe this ends up in court, but the Bears have to go through the appeals process and see how much the County will adjust their own overblown assessment. I also believe that unless the County had started out with a ridiculously low assessment, the Bears probably would have challenged any number the County started with. From the County perspective, its hard to ask for more money in a negotiation, so start high and allow room to go down.

I also agree that AH offers the most revenue to the Bears organization.

[wulfy]

All over the country, Towns and Countys are raising property tax assessments. My area just had a county wide 12% increase in all rural areas because of budget shortfalls from the state level. There are properties that might be worth more than the 12% increase, and probably several that are not. But they do the universal increase and let individuals fight it through the process in place or accept it. If you go through the process and still don't agree with the assessment, then you can take it to court. Going to court without going through the process will get your case thrown out because the judge is going to ask you if there was a process that you could have fought the assessment through and did you do it?

So I still believe this ends up in court, but the Bears have to go through the appeals process and see how much the County will adjust their own overblown assessment. I also believe that unless the County had started out with a ridiculously low assessment, the Bears probably would have challenged any number the County started with. From the County perspective, its hard to ask for more money in a negotiation, so start high and allow room to go down.

I also agree that AH offers the most revenue to the Bears organization.

All of your points are spot on.

This will come down to who is going to make it easier (meaning $$) on the Bears.

AH School Districts are playing with fire because if the Bears call the bluff and sell the property, nothing is going to go into that space that can earn the same tax revenue as an NFL stadium, hotels and casino. Probably warehouse space which creates few jobs and has little upside revenue opportunity.

[Grizzled]

The Bears ranked 2nd to last in average attendance in 2023, with the Raiders being last, at 65,381. Soldier's Field is the worst in the NFL at 61,500. The Cowboys ranked first at 81,102.

[Moriarty]

https://deadspin.com/chicago-bears-new- ... 1851290862

A bit of history: As previously mentioned, the Bears purchased the Racecourse property in 2023 for $197 million. They then proceeded to demolish all the buildings on the property, in hopes of lowering the site’s property value. The Cook County Assessor’s Office, which is responsible for assessing the property for tax purposes, valued the property at $192 million, which would have stuck the Bears with a property tax bill of $15 million, slightly more than what the Bears freed up cap space per year by cutting safety Eddie Jackson. The team submitted their own property appraisals in an attempt to negotiate a deal with the three school districts that draw tax revenue from the Racecourse property. The Bears two appraisals valued the property at far less than they paid for it — claiming the site was worth around $60 million, which would have meant the team paid $5 million in taxes. The school districts, on the other hand, wanted the property valued at around $160 million, which is still $37 million less than the team paid for it in 2023.

If trying to get out of paying property taxes that largely go to funding public schools seems like a really shady thing for a pro sports franchise to do, especially when the team’s matriarch, Virginia McCaskey, is worth around $2 billion, welcome to the seedy underbelly of financing stadiums in 2024. Team owners are dyed-in-the-wool capitalists, until it comes time to ask for something they want, then everyone is more than happy to slide into the socialism of a public handout. You can’t take it with you, Virginia.

So the Bears, lacking any shame whatsoever, appealed the Assessor’s appraisal, and last week a Board of Review set the value of the property at $125 million, more than double the valuation the Bears had been asking for, but around $60 million less what they paid for it. Seems like a fair compromise, no? But the matter is far from settled, and the Bears could still appeal the assessment. In May, Bears’ CEO Kevin Warren said in a letter to school superintendents that the school districts’ valuation of the property was a “non-starter,” which is definitely a great look for a team that has an entire section on their website touting their dedication to education.

[Atkins&Rebel]

https://deadspin.com/chicago-bears-new- ... 1851290862

A bit of history: As previously mentioned, the Bears purchased the Racecourse property in 2023 for $197 million. They then proceeded to demolish all the buildings on the property, in hopes of lowering the site’s property value. The Cook County Assessor’s Office, which is responsible for assessing the property for tax purposes, valued the property at $192 million, which would have stuck the Bears with a property tax bill of $15 million, slightly more than what the Bears freed up cap space per year by cutting safety Eddie Jackson. The team submitted their own property appraisals in an attempt to negotiate a deal with the three school districts that draw tax revenue from the Racecourse property. The Bears two appraisals valued the property at far less than they paid for it — claiming the site was worth around $60 million, which would have meant the team paid $5 million in taxes. The school districts, on the other hand, wanted the property valued at around $160 million, which is still $37 million less than the team paid for it in 2023.

If trying to get out of paying property taxes that largely go to funding public schools seems like a really shady thing for a pro sports franchise to do, especially when the team’s matriarch, Virginia McCaskey, is worth around $2 billion, welcome to the seedy underbelly of financing stadiums in 2024. Team owners are dyed-in-the-wool capitalists, until it comes time to ask for something they want, then everyone is more than happy to slide into the socialism of a public handout. You can’t take it with you, Virginia.

So the Bears, lacking any shame whatsoever, appealed the Assessor’s appraisal, and last week a Board of Review set the value of the property at $125 million, more than double the valuation the Bears had been asking for, but around $60 million less what they paid for it. Seems like a fair compromise, no? But the matter is far from settled, and the Bears could still appeal the assessment. In May, Bears’ CEO Kevin Warren said in a letter to school superintendents that the school districts’ valuation of the property was a “non-starter,” which is definitely a great look for a team that has an entire section on their website touting their dedication to education.

Seems like a shitty position for the article to take. The assessment is inflated, not really even based on what the Bears paid for it. When the race track was operational, the county sniffed nowhere close to that number. So it makes the county and the school districts look just as petty to raise the value of the property before any development happened at all. But calling the Bears greedy so the greedy school districts can soak as much money out of those evil capitalists sure does hit home.

As the Bears moved to buy the site, during the triennial reassessment, the Cook County Assessor’s office increased the value of the property from $33 million to $197 million. That would have hiked the tax bill proportionally, nearly six-fold. The Bears’ attorney argued that increase amounted to “sales chasing,” in violation of state law.

Because property taxes in Cook County lag by a year, the former owner Churchill Downs was on the hook for that first bill at the higher value. Churchill Downs negotiated a one-year deal with the school districts for a $95 million value. The assessor’s office then raised the value again to $192 million and the Bears appealed once more.

-https://www.nbcchicago.com/investigatio ... s/3361988/

I have no problem with the Bears paying what the property is worth when they build on it, but the county is screwing up a cash cow by proactively being greedy IMO.

[Arkansasbear]

https://deadspin.com/chicago-bears-new- ... 1851290862

A bit of history: As previously mentioned, the Bears purchased the Racecourse property in 2023 for $197 million. They then proceeded to demolish all the buildings on the property, in hopes of lowering the site’s property value. The Cook County Assessor’s Office, which is responsible for assessing the property for tax purposes, valued the property at $192 million, which would have stuck the Bears with a property tax bill of $15 million, slightly more than what the Bears freed up cap space per year by cutting safety Eddie Jackson. The team submitted their own property appraisals in an attempt to negotiate a deal with the three school districts that draw tax revenue from the Racecourse property. The Bears two appraisals valued the property at far less than they paid for it — claiming the site was worth around $60 million, which would have meant the team paid $5 million in taxes. The school districts, on the other hand, wanted the property valued at around $160 million, which is still $37 million less than the team paid for it in 2023.

If trying to get out of paying property taxes that largely go to funding public schools seems like a really shady thing for a pro sports franchise to do, especially when the team’s matriarch, Virginia McCaskey, is worth around $2 billion, welcome to the seedy underbelly of financing stadiums in 2024. Team owners are dyed-in-the-wool capitalists, until it comes time to ask for something they want, then everyone is more than happy to slide into the socialism of a public handout. You can’t take it with you, Virginia.

So the Bears, lacking any shame whatsoever, appealed the Assessor’s appraisal, and last week a Board of Review set the value of the property at $125 million, more than double the valuation the Bears had been asking for, but around $60 million less what they paid for it. Seems like a fair compromise, no? But the matter is far from settled, and the Bears could still appeal the assessment. In May, Bears’ CEO Kevin Warren said in a letter to school superintendents that the school districts’ valuation of the property was a “non-starter,” which is definitely a great look for a team that has an entire section on their website touting their dedication to education.

Shaddy!?!?!?! That's a crappy take on it. The Bears have money so they should just pay? The property value for an operational race track with various buildings should be substantially higher than a track of land with no improvements on it (is teh $60M the team submitted low, I don't know but likely). When the site is developed with a stadium and "Bears City," the value would likely be extremely higher than the it was with an operational race track. I don't see why the team would want to pay more in property taxes than the value of the property, nor do I see why they should. Seems while the development is going on the taxes should be less and when the project is completed they would be more.

I wonder how much this shaddy organization has donated to various school and non-profit organizations over the years?

[Moriarty]

I'm no expert on real estate/valuation/taxation, but this is how I look at it.


The Bears had no intention of ever keeping or using the racetrack facilities there. They were paying 197M for the land/location. The racetrack facilities had ZERO value to them. (A slight negative value, actually, since it had to be demolished and cleared.) So removing them is no loss on the value to them.
Yes, at least one of the bidders wanted and valued the racetrack facilities. But most didn't. Most of the bids were purely for the land.
Maybe, hypothetically, the bidding was:
Bears 197M (breakdown: 198M land, -1M facilities)
Churchhill Downs 180M (140M land, 40M facilities)
Bidder X 170M (171M land, -1M facilities)
Bidder Y 160M (161M land, -1M facilities)
Now you don't go by what the 2nd or 3rd highest bid on a property is, you go by the highest offer. Somebody was willing to pay 197M for it (and all for the land), it's initial value is 197M.
From there, things impact it. The Bears build nice stuff on it, it gets more valuable. It sits empty and the real estate market crashes, it gets less valuable. Etc.


You can't make the argument "You have to valuate the land as-is, not based on potential".
If that were true, the Bears wouldn't have offered a 60M valuation (from their "independent" evaluation). A big, empty field, as-is, with nothing on it in the middle of the suburbs has almost no revenue generation value. It's only value is the potential to have something put on it. If you left it as-is, what revenue could you generate? A few summer markets? A little traveling carnival once a year? Undercut the town's $2 daily parking at the Metra by charging $1 car?
If the Bears turned around and resold it to someone else, as-is, with nothing on it, would they only get 60M for it? Hell, no.

[Atkins&Rebel]

I'm no expert on real estate/valuation/taxation, but this is how I look at it.


The Bears had no intention of ever keeping or using the racetrack facilities there. They were paying 197M for the land/location. The racetrack facilities had ZERO value to them. (A slight negative value, actually, since it had to be demolished and cleared.) So removing them is no loss on the value to them.
Yes, at least one of the bidders wanted and valued the racetrack facilities. But most didn't. Most of the bids were purely for the land.
Maybe, hypothetically, the bidding was:
Bears 197M (breakdown: 198M land, -1M facilities)
Churchhill Downs 180M (140M land, 40M facilities)
Bidder X 170M (171M land, -1M facilities)
Bidder Y 160M (161M land, -1M facilities)
Now you don't go by what the 2nd or 3rd highest bid on a property is, you go by the highest offer. Somebody was willing to pay 197M for it (and all for the land), it's initial value is 197M.
From there, things impact it. The Bears build nice stuff on it, it gets more valuable. It sits empty and the real estate market crashes, it gets less valuable. Etc.


You can't make the argument "You have to valuate the land as-is, not based on potential".
If that were true, the Bears wouldn't have offered a 60M valuation (from their "independent" evaluation). A big, empty field, as-is, with nothing on it in the middle of the suburbs has almost no revenue generation value. It's only value is the potential to have something put on it. If you left it as-is, what revenue could you generate? A few summer markets? A little traveling carnival once a year? Undercut the town's $2 daily parking at the Metra by charging $1 car?
If the Bears turned around and resold it to someone else, as-is, with nothing on it, would they only get 60M for it? Hell, no.

Sorry I'm not buying the "valuation of potential" argument. It doesn't happen with residential building lots (When the house gets final inspection the value is set), it doesn't happen in classic car restorations (none of the parts for the final car value are taxed at the final car value), it doesn't happen in Art (just because a famous artist buys materials, those materials cost him the same as everyone else).

And the key point is the inflated valuation was set before the purchase was completed.

I believe this is unlawful, and they made an exception for the previous owner. My guess after a brief court battle, is that the valuation will be set at the 95 million mark they allowed for the previous owner as the Bears did pay above the previous valuation.

I also believe that asking for anything more than that is the epitome of greed and abusing power on the part of the county.

[Atkins&Rebel]

Oh and @Moriarty If you really believe that potential is where the valuation should be set, I challenge you to contact the IRS and tell them that you could potentially work an extra 5-8 hours a week than what you currently do and wish to be taxed on that total earning potential rather than what you actually make. If you are unwilling to do that, In my mind your argument is completely flawed.

[Arkansasbear]

I'm no expert on real estate/valuation/taxation, but this is how I look at it.


The Bears had no intention of ever keeping or using the racetrack facilities there. They were paying 197M for the land/location. The racetrack facilities had ZERO value to them. (A slight negative value, actually, since it had to be demolished and cleared.) So removing them is no loss on the value to them.
Yes, at least one of the bidders wanted and valued the racetrack facilities. But most didn't. Most of the bids were purely for the land.
Maybe, hypothetically, the bidding was:
Bears 197M (breakdown: 198M land, -1M facilities)
Churchhill Downs 180M (140M land, 40M facilities)
Bidder X 170M (171M land, -1M facilities)
Bidder Y 160M (161M land, -1M facilities)
Now you don't go by what the 2nd or 3rd highest bid on a property is, you go by the highest offer. Somebody was willing to pay 197M for it (and all for the land), it's initial value is 197M.
From there, things impact it. The Bears build nice stuff on it, it gets more valuable. It sits empty and the real estate market crashes, it gets less valuable. Etc.


You can't make the argument "You have to valuate the land as-is, not based on potential".
If that were true, the Bears wouldn't have offered a 60M valuation (from their "independent" evaluation). A big, empty field, as-is, with nothing on it in the middle of the suburbs has almost no revenue generation value. It's only value is the potential to have something put on it. If you left it as-is, what revenue could you generate? A few summer markets? A little traveling carnival once a year? Undercut the town's $2 daily parking at the Metra by charging $1 car?
If the Bears turned around and resold it to someone else, as-is, with nothing on it, would they only get 60M for it? Hell, no.

That's simply a bad take. Land has value, large tracks have value because they are rarer to find, and location can increase the value. My house is on amazing lot and that lot has far more value than many around it due to where it is located. Someone might want to buy it, tear it down and build their dream house there. Let's just assume the value from property tax right now is $400,000. That person buys it and tears it down, but before they can start building the hit some sort of financial crisis. If the value was $400,000 with a house on it, do we think it's going to have the same value as an empty lot?

[Mikefive]

Great discussion, fellas. Well thought out points all around.

[The Cooler King]

Oh and @Moriarty If you really believe that potential is where the valuation should be set, I challenge you to contact the IRS and tell them that you could potentially work an extra 5-8 hours a week than what you currently do and wish to be taxed on that total earning potential rather than what you actually make. If you are unwilling to do that, In my mind your argument is completely flawed.

I think the potential part flies out the window when you have an actual arms distance sale to establish its actual market value. It's not equivalent to potential value at that point, it's very real value. I work in accounting for investments and a recent arms length sale is about as good of value support as you can get to support a market value.

The only political wonk part of this is the operational v non operational aspect. The Bears tearing down the assets should lower the assessed base verse an operational commercial property in Illinois. Arguably they got screwed with that aspect of the ruling for 2023, but I believe they'll be good on the lower assessed base in 2024 and going forward until they build anything.

[Moriarty]

The terms land, location, & potential are inseparably intertwined. They're all related and splitting hairs about the semantics of it is silly.


If a totally empty 9000 sq foot lot of dirt in a nice residential suburb sells for 500k and an absolutely identical plot on the fringes of nowheresville goes for 50k, why is that?

Because in the former you can build a house that will generate high demand and sell for a lot and on the latter an identical construction will sell for far less.
Call it "potential", call it "demand", call it "future sales prospects", call it "location". Whatever you prefer, the reason is clear and the value of it is obvious.

[Moriarty]

Land has value, large tracks have value because they are rarer to find, and location can increase the value.

That's the point I'm making.

Depending on the circumstance, the land/location can be vastly more valuable than any construction on it.
Sometimes the construction on it can be valueless or even a negative value, for clean-up costs.

Horse racing facilities (track, stables, grandstands) are of highly questionable value. It's not a very good moneymaker, which is why the owners took the money and bailed. Their prime fans are aging into death and serious/hardcore bettors are into other things. There's very few potential buyers.
And it's not a setup that easily and usefully converts to anything else.

My house is on amazing lot and that lot has far more value than many around it due to where it is located. Someone might want to buy it, tear it down and build their dream house there. Let's just assume the value from property tax right now is $400,000. That person buys it and tears it down, but before they can start building the hit some sort of financial crisis. If the value was $400,000 with a house on it, do we think it's going to have the same value as an empty lot?

It depends.

In your specific case, if you're talking about a reasonably nice house, then, sure, the value takes a temporary hit before the new construction raises it again.
But there's also dumps where, as above, the value of the property is all in the land. The decrepit house is just a nuisance to spend money on bulldozing. Somebody would rather buy it with the house already removed (if it were possible) versus buying it with the house still there. I've seen lots of these, even in above average quality suburbs.

[Atkins&Rebel]

Oh and @Moriarty If you really believe that potential is where the valuation should be set, I challenge you to contact the IRS and tell them that you could potentially work an extra 5-8 hours a week than what you currently do and wish to be taxed on that total earning potential rather than what you actually make. If you are unwilling to do that, In my mind your argument is completely flawed.

I think the potential part flies out the window when you have an actual arms distance sale to establish its actual market value. It's not equivalent to potential value at that point, it's very real value. I work in accounting for investments and a recent arms length sale is about as good of value support as you can get to support a market value.

The only political wonk part of this is the operational v non operational aspect. The Bears tearing down the assets should lower the assessed base verse an operational commercial property in Illinois. Arguably they got screwed with that aspect of the ruling for 2023, but I believe they'll be good on the lower assessed base in 2024 and going forward until they build anything.

I think the fact the County raised the valuation before the sale was completed, then lowered the valuation for the previous owner's benefit, then raised the valuation again for the Bears, will be the absolute sticking point when this reaches the courts.

[Arkansasbear]

Land has value, large tracks have value because they are rarer to find, and location can increase the value.

That's the point I'm making.

Depending on the circumstance, the land/location can be vastly more valuable than any construction on it.
Sometimes the construction on it can be valueless or even a negative value, for clean-up costs.

Horse racing facilities (track, stables, grandstands) are of highly questionable value. It's not a very good moneymaker, which is why the owners took the money and bailed. Their prime fans are aging into death and serious/hardcore bettors are into other things. There's very few potential buyers.
And it's not a setup that easily and usefully converts to anything else.

My house is on amazing lot and that lot has far more value than many around it due to where it is located. Someone might want to buy it, tear it down and build their dream house there. Let's just assume the value from property tax right now is $400,000. That person buys it and tears it down, but before they can start building the hit some sort of financial crisis. If the value was $400,000 with a house on it, do we think it's going to have the same value as an empty lot?

It depends.

In your specific case, if you're talking about a reasonably nice house, then, sure, the value takes a temporary hit before the new construction raises it again.
But there's also dumps where, as above, the value of the property is all in the land. The decrepit house is just a nuisance to spend money on bulldozing. Somebody would rather buy it with the house already removed (if it were possible) versus buying it with the house still there. I've seen lots of these, even in above average quality suburbs.

That's a fair point. If you buy a piece of land that is overgrown with a falling down house and you level the building and clean up the overgrown, you've likely increased the value of the land. If you level the livable house, you likely take a hit on the value.

I simply think based on the amount of structures the Bears took down, it should cause the property to decrease in value. Like I said, I think their suggestion of 60M is likely very low because you have location, location, location as well as it being a large track of land that has a ton of developmental options that give it value.

[Umbali]

Wow this last page of discussion has some great posts, showing well thought out arguments and business acumen. It shows a level of intelligence not normally seen on this board! Going to reload and make sure I wasn't misdirected.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

White Sox, Bears discussing ‘financing partnership,’ for two stadiums, developer says

The developer working with the White Sox to build a new stadium in the South Loop said Monday he is trying to forge a “financing partnership” with the Bears that could pave the way for Chicago to build two new stadiums at the same time.

“Wouldn’t it be unbelievable for our city if you were to see two amazing facilities for these great sports teams built at once?” said Curt Bailey, president of Related Midwest, which oversees the vacant 62-acre site known as “The 78,” where the new White Sox ballpark would be built.

“I’m a Bears fan. I want to partner with the Bears to create these two great environments and make our city even better. Yes, we have spoken with [the Bears] and I am very optimistic on putting together something with that great franchise. … They’re a terrific franchise, and we look forward to both trying to do something great for the city of Chicago at the same time.”

Bailey said he hasn’t seen the renderings of a domed lakefront stadium south of Soldier Field — possibly surrounded by a hotel and entertainment district accessible to public transit — that the Bears have shown to state legislative leaders, including House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch, D-Hillside. But he supports the concept.

“That sounds awesome, and I am for that," Bailey said. "We’re working with them … to have a financing partnership that makes sense for us and for them and for the city and the state.”
...

Full article: https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/ ... -financing

[Grizzled]

White Sox, Bears discussing ‘financing partnership,’ for two stadiums, developer says

The developer working with the White Sox to build a new stadium in the South Loop said Monday he is trying to forge a “financing partnership” with the Bears that could pave the way for Chicago to build two new stadiums at the same time.

“Wouldn’t it be unbelievable for our city if you were to see two amazing facilities for these great sports teams built at once?” said Curt Bailey, president of Related Midwest, which oversees the vacant 62-acre site known as “The 78,” where the new White Sox ballpark would be built.

“I’m a Bears fan. I want to partner with the Bears to create these two great environments and make our city even better. Yes, we have spoken with [the Bears] and I am very optimistic on putting together something with that great franchise. … They’re a terrific franchise, and we look forward to both trying to do something great for the city of Chicago at the same time.”

Bailey said he hasn’t seen the renderings of a domed lakefront stadium south of Soldier Field — possibly surrounded by a hotel and entertainment district accessible to public transit — that the Bears have shown to state legislative leaders, including House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch, D-Hillside. But he supports the concept.

“That sounds awesome, and I am for that," Bailey said. "We’re working with them … to have a financing partnership that makes sense for us and for them and for the city and the state.”
...

Full article: https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/ ... -financing

Definitely a unique idea. Of course, there needs to be some type of agreement for the Bears to use the South Lot. That's going to be a political bloodbath.

[Mikefive]

It would be absolutely amazing if they could think outside the box and save $$$ by building one truly convertable stadium for the two teams instead of a baseball stadium with NFL lines painted on it with poor viewing as has been done previously. Probably not possible, but something to consider. At least two stadiums in the same area could share a single parking lot and vendors. That's something of value, I guess.

[thunderspirit]

It would be absolutely amazing if they could think outside the box and save $$$ by building one truly convertable stadium for the two teams instead of a baseball stadium with NFL lines painted on it with poor viewing as has been done previously. Probably not possible, but something to consider. At least two stadiums in the same area could share a single parking lot and vendors. That's something of value, I guess.

This is how KC did it.

Of course, it's also like 10 miles from anything resembling downtown, in the far-flung burbs.