MOORE’S SUMMARY: Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson tested his clout in Springfield this week by — publicly and privately — urging state lawmakers to reject a megaprojects bill that would clear the way for the team to leave the city’s lakefront for a domed stadium in suburban Arlington Heights.
WHY IT MATTERS: Johnson’s relationship with state lawmakers has ranged from poor to nonexistent for large portions of his three years leading the nation’s third-largest city. He’s also had a tense relationship with Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker, who’s championed the megaprojects legislation as a way to spur economic development across the state and to keep the Bears from bolting across the state line to Hammond, Indiana.
Johnson is keeping hope alive for a 2024 proposal to build a publicly owned Bears stadium on the city’s lakefront that would require at least $900 million in state funds for stadium construction and $1.5 billion for surrounding infrastructure.
Pritzker and state lawmakers have long dismissed the proposal as a non-starter. And Bears CEO Kevin Warren said last month that the team believes “strongly” that Arlington Heights is “the only site in the state of Illinois” that’s feasible, citing the need for space for a surrounding mixed-use district surrounding the stadium.
Despite this, Johnson — up for reelection in less than a year — is urging lawmakers to punt on the megaprojects bill this spring while he makes a Hail Mary pitch to keep the team in the city. The bill passed the House 78-32 last month but changes are being negotiated in the Senate.
Officially, Johnson was in Springfield with an army of suburban mayors to call on lawmakers to boost funding for local governments. He also urged supermajority Democrats to explore progressive revenue options to fund priorities like education.
But behind the scenes, Johnson was also urging lawmakers to at least delay action on the megaprojects legislation to give Chicago a chance to keep the Bears, including at a dinner meeting with members of the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus Tuesday evening, according to a source familiar. The mayor also met with House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch, D-Hillside, and Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, on Wednesday.
‘SILENT’ SPRINGFIELD: “Do you know why the Bears shifted their focus? It’s because Springfield went silent,” Johnson told reporters outside the Capitol on Wednesday. “But we’re here to make sure that we’re calling attention to all of the options that I believe are still available to us to ensure that we’re doing right by the taxpayers.”
Johnson’s previous advocacy for the Bears to stay in Chicago appeared to have little sway in the House last month, where only two Chicago lawmakers voted against the megaprojects proposal.
But he hopes to stop it in the Senate. It’s unclear if he has enough clout to do so, but he’s got at least one prominent legislator in his corner: state Sen. Willie Preston, D-Chicago.
“The extent to my communications with the mayor and anybody else is simple: I don’t believe that the Chicago Bears should play anywhere other than Chicago. That’s it,” Preston, the Senate chair of the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus, told me. “I think that is the way things should go.”
Any incentives that can play in Arlington Heights, he said, should also be available in the city.
Preston said he supports the concept of a megaprojects bill that keeps the Bears in the city. But, as it’s written, he doesn’t think they “can achieve those two at the same time.”
On the mayor’s late push, Preston said simply: “If he were not advocating for the Chicago Bears to stay in Chicago, that would almost be treasonous.”
CHICAGO-SPRINGFIELD RELATIONSHIP: Johnson and members of his team have long been criticized for not building strong relationships with lawmakers in Springfield — even among some city progressives viewed as natural allies. They have also been accused of swooping in late with budget and legislative requests that lawmakers say should be submitted months in advance.
For example, Johnson in 2024 late in the game said the state “owes” Chicago Public Schools more than $1 billion in additional funding. It hasn’t moved Pritzker or lawmakers to allocate those resources.
And Democratic lawmakers have been unusually bold in openly challenging his policies, advancing bills out of committee this year that would, for instance, preempt the city’s planned phaseout of the subminimum wage for tipped workers and prevent the city from imposing a per-employee head tax on business with more than 100 workers.
AN IMPROVEMENT: That said, some Chicago lawmakers told me that Johnson and his team have improved their relationships after a rocky start.
“I’m a member of the city of Chicago delegation, so they’ve certainly flagged concerns about bills that they have issues with,” said state Rep. Eva-Dina Delgado, D-Chicago. “And that is an improvement over time. I think with anybody, there’s a learning curve to being in that seat, right?”
Delgado said there’s more “give-and-take communication” and “texts going back-and-forth” than there used to be, calling it “markedly better” than it was.
DIFFERENT DYNAMICS: Gone are the days of Mayor Richard J. Daley, who controlled a political machine that most Cook County Democratic legislators owed their elections and, oftentimes, city jobs to. And unlike in past years where Illinois governors were Republican or politically weak Democrats, Pritzker, a self-funding billionaire, holds considerable sway in the party.
Sen. Bill Cunningham, who was first elected to the House in 2011 and is leaving Springfield after this year, said things have changed in more ways than one.
“My first couple years in the House, you would hear legislators say, ‘Where’s the city on this?’ That was a common refrain you would hear,” Cunningham, D-Chicago, said. “You don’t hear that much now. I think mayors need to be more engaged. But I also think part of that is Springfield has changed. The Democratic caucuses are not dominated by Chicago members to the extent they used to be. Our caucuses are now dominated by suburban members. So that’s changed the calculus.”
State Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago, said that many view the Chicago-Springfield relationship “based on an old model where clout is this centrifugal force.”
“I just think things are different now,” Buckner said. “I think the governor’s office is different. The House is definitely different. The Senate is definitely different. I think the mayor’s office is different. So I think we’re still trying to figure out what the cadence is and what the interplay is and how we operate with each other, which I think is fine.”
STATE OF PLAY: Based on Johnson’s track record in Springfield, many are skeptical that he wields enough clout to kill the megaprojects legislation — at least on his own. There is a school of thought, though that, like the demise last year of legislation championed by Pritzker to regulate the state’s hemp industry, Johnson could declare victory if the legislature fails to approve the megaprojects bill this spring.
But his continued insistence on pushing a publicly owned stadium in Chicago — a non-starter from jump — has raised some eyebrows.
For one, the Bears have made clear that it’s either Arlington Heights or Hammond. The writing’s been on the wall for awhile now that Chicago isn’t an option anymore.
And the team is expected to decide soon on the site of their future home. If the megaprojects bill isn’t approved, the widespread belief under the Capitol dome is that the Bears will leave for Indiana.
Meanwhile, the megaprojects bill contains other provisions for Chicago, such as an incentive for redeveloping blighted and underused railyards and allowing the use of Sales Tax and Revenue, or STAR, bonds within city limits.
And while the Chicago Park District is unlikely to receive the full $630 million it has sought to revamp Soldier Field, state lawmakers are expected to consider allocating some state capital funding for the lakefront facility.
The point? There are real wins the mayor can help secure for Chicago in a megaprojects bill if he can read the writing on the wall in Springfield.
In the meantime, you can sign up for our twice-weekly Capitol News Insider newsletter. You won’t be charged, but will have the option to become a paying subscriber to retain access to coverage like this once we fully launch Capitol News Insider.
