CHICAGO | The 78 Site

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

So, IN THEORY, could a true slugger hammer the ball to deep right and potentially hit a rock island train down in that open trench?

That'd be something unique.

Ha, maybe that's why they pushed the highrises from being over the tracks to now east of the tracks

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Home of YOUR Chicacago White Sox

LOL, way to spend a few minutes reviewing the pretty pictures you commissioned before releasing them to the press, Related.

[Tombstoner]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I thought that was the AT&T building for a second but you're right, I think it is supposed to be 311 (in the wrong place) due to the top.

It's amazing how people can f*ck up a rendering of a city where you can just find a picture and get it right. I guess they know your average person won't notice or care.

There seem to be multiple farms involved; the absence of 311 S. Wacker and the misspelling of Chicago aren't even consistent.

[mh777]

I know this is a long shot with many moving parts, but does anyone have an idea when/if we'd get word on this actually going through? When does the Sox current lease expire? I'd assume they'd want to break ground on something like this 2 or 3 years before that point.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by mh777

I know this is a long shot with many moving parts, but does anyone have an idea when/if we'd get word on this actually going through? When does the Sox current lease expire? I'd assume they'd want to break ground on something like this 2 or 3 years before that point.

Their lease is up after the 2029 season.

[left of center]

Report: Reinsdorf to seek $1 billion in public money for new Sox Stadium

CHICAGO — A new report Friday revealed that not only will Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf pursue roughly a billion dollars in funding from the City of Chicago and State of Illinois for a new baseball stadium in “The 78,” he’s confident the team will get it.

According to Crain’s Chicago Business, Reinsdorf and Related Midwest President Curt Bailey, the developer behind The 78 site where the stadium would be built, have had meetings with a number of elected officials and leaders in the Chicago business and labor world to gauge interest before meeting with Governor JB Pritzker to propose a deal, which Crains said is bullish on being able to sell the argument stadium subsidies will bring billions in private investment, while also being structured so that no new or increased taxes are required.

...


Crains said another interesting factor is that the deal could oust the Bears from tapping into the ISFA to pay for a new stadium, if they continue to pursue staying along the lakefront in the city.

Crains said a source familiar with both teams and their stadium plans told them the two are not working together to find stadium deals, but are in competition for Illinois’ limited amount of public dollars dedicated to new stadiums.

Since the ISFA issued the $399 million in bonds for the Soldier Field renovations, Crains said $384 million in principal still remains outstanding, meaning the ISFA has — for the most part — only made interest payments the last two decades and faces a tricky road toward repaying the debt on those bonds.

Source: https://wgntv.com/sports/white-sox/r...ic-money-from/

Well, I guess St. Petersburg is getting a baseball team, and Arlington Heights is getting a new football team. Not a single dime should go to billionaire owners. Not. One. Dime.

[CaptainJilliams]

*sigh*

[left of center]

What really irks me is his utter confidence that he will get handed a billion dollars from the taxpayers. This isn't 1991 anymore, Jerry.

[Steely Dan]

JR has always been a man behind the times.

He ain't gonna change.



Say hello to the Nashville White Sox!

[Randomguy34]

LMAO this will be the third plan for the 78 that Related Midwest has failed to push forward

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by left of center

Well, I guess St. Petersburg is getting a baseball team, and Arlington Heights is getting a new football team. Not a single dime should go to billionaire owners. Not. One. Dime.

This is such an innumerate position. What's important is that the citizens of Chicago get a good return on our public investments. The Crains article says Reinsdorf is seeking a tax-overlay district surrounding the proposed stadium that would capture the state’s portion of sales taxes generated in the area — roughly $400 million. That sort of subsidy is quite efficient. If there's no stadium, there's no revenue; if there is a stadium, the revenue that only exists because of the stadium subsidizes the loans used to build the stadium. Obviously there's more to it than that, but often these specific sorts of win-win arrangements are branded quite unfairly as "corporate welfare."

As an intuition pump, think about the value that Wrigley Field and its environs bring to the city in branding, tourism, real estate development, property taxes, amusement taxes on ticket sales, CTA ridership and sales taxes at nearby bars and restaurants. Your position is that spending $0.10 to secure that value is wasteful?

[dewbs]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

This is such an innumerate position. What's important is that the citizens of Chicago get a good return on our public investments. The Crains article says Reinsdorf is seeking a tax-overlay district surrounding the proposed stadium that would capture the state’s portion of sales taxes generated in the area — roughly $400 million. That sort of subsidy is quite efficient. If there's no stadium, there's no revenue; if there is a stadium, the revenue that only exists because of the stadium subsidizes the loans used to build the stadium. Obviously there's more to it than that, but often these specific sorts of win-win arrangements are branded quite unfairly as "corporate welfare."

As an intuition pump, think about the value that Wrigley Field and its environs bring to the city in branding, tourism, real estate development, property taxes, amusement taxes on ticket sales, CTA ridership and sales taxes at nearby bars and restaurants. Your position is that spending $0.10 to secure that value is wasteful?

That logic also says I shouldn't have to pay income taxes because if I didn't work there'd be no income to tax.

All marginal taxes disincentivize behaviors. A sales tax disincentivize all consumer spending. Why should a baseball stadium face different incentives?

[Mr Downtown]

I don't understand why Related feels the need to swing for the fences on every pitch, instead of just developing the site a bit at a time. So far as I know, General Mediterranean (the real owner of the dirt) is patient, willing to have the substantial rewards go to the next generation of family.

They've now got a road, got water, got sewerage. And the South Loop is absorbing about 500 units of new product each year, even without having a major league ballpark across the street. So why not start with a 300-unit highrise at 14th, then another the following year, then two more and some riverwalk retail? The Southbank model, in other words.

[Busy Bee]

How many of those engraved donor bricks would it take to fundraise a billion dollars? Let's see ... 1,000,000,000 divided by $100 brick = oh jeez 10,000,000. Do the Sox have 10 million fans? Let's do $1,000 a brick... 1,000,000... hmmm... Do the Sox have 1 million fans?

[left of center]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

This is such an innumerate position. What's important is that the citizens of Chicago get a good return on our public investments.

Sure. So for the billion dollars invested from the taxpayers, we will be earning our share of the ticket sales, concessions, events hosted at the stadium, etc? Sounds like an excellent ROI from where I am sitting

[MorganChi]

Prediction: Chicago Bears will loose the battle to friends of the park for the land on the lake front and be looking to the 78 as their next move , soldier field will be the new Sox par

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

This is such an innumerate position. What's important is that the citizens of Chicago get a good return on our public investments. The Crains article says Reinsdorf is seeking a tax-overlay district surrounding the proposed stadium that would capture the state’s portion of sales taxes generated in the area — roughly $400 million. That sort of subsidy is quite efficient. If there's no stadium, there's no revenue; if there is a stadium, the revenue that only exists because of the stadium subsidizes the loans used to build the stadium. Obviously there's more to it than that, but often these specific sorts of win-win arrangements are branded quite unfairly as "corporate welfare."

As an intuition pump, think about the value that Wrigley Field and its environs bring to the city in branding, tourism, real estate development, property taxes, amusement taxes on ticket sales, CTA ridership and sales taxes at nearby bars and restaurants. Your position is that spending $0.10 to secure that value is wasteful?

That really isn't true. Consumer spending shifts from one location to another so the total sales tax collected will be lower than it would be otherwise. Reinsdorf also wants money through the hotel tax (which the city has to also been making up the shortfall for out of general funds). Total looks to be much closer to 1 bil

[JMBasquiat]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

This is such an innumerate position. What's important is that the citizens of Chicago get a good return on our public investments. The Crains article says Reinsdorf is seeking a tax-overlay district surrounding the proposed stadium that would capture the state’s portion of sales taxes generated in the area — roughly $400 million. That sort of subsidy is quite efficient. If there's no stadium, there's no revenue; if there is a stadium, the revenue that only exists because of the stadium subsidizes the loans used to build the stadium. Obviously there's more to it than that, but often these specific sorts of win-win arrangements are branded quite unfairly as "corporate welfare."

Sure, let's split *all* revenue 50/50 with Reinsford, including tickets, jerseys, concessions, concerts, etc.

As an intuition pump, think about the value that Wrigley Field and its environs bring to the city in branding, tourism, real estate development, property taxes, amusement taxes on ticket sales, CTA ridership and sales taxes at nearby bars and restaurants. Your position is that spending $0.10 to secure that value is wasteful?

Did the Ricketts get 1 billion in taxpayer money that I'm not aware of?

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

That really isn't true. Consumer spending shifts from one location to another so the total sales tax collected will be lower than it would be otherwise.

The economy isn't zero sum. People who go to a White Sox game in this new stadium could very well be daily commuters from the suburbs, business folks in from out of town, or tourists in town. Those people could be simply spending more money than before, shifting spending from the suburbs to the city, or represent entirely new spending from new visitors.

[munchymunch]

Subsidies are almost never a net positive when it comes to economic benefit vs. lost tax revenue. Also have people seen Sox attendance when they’re bad? The G-Spot had five thousand people in it some games. If Reinsdorf wants this I say stick an 85 win requirement for him to get it because lord knows he won’t invest in his teams.

Signed a disappointed Sox fan.