News reports say that hearings on the Bears/megaprojects bill are scheduled to begin on Thursday in Springfield. At the same time, ongoing reports have made it clear that the ultimate decision lies with Pritzker and a small handful of top Democrats.  Whether this means that the Bears’ ploy of using proposed “free” sites in Indiana as a negotiating tool, which is inspiring local calls of “keep the Bears in Illinois!” will fail, or will be all too successful, is wholly a mystery to me.  After all, state politicians are keeping their cards close to their chest.  However, with the report in the Daily Herald that “There have also been suggestions that affordability measures be incorporated into a final deal, such as lower ticket prices for fans” and repeated suggestions that any outcome should include a resolution to the outstanding bonds for Soldier Field, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the final deal is entirely different than the existing legislation, possibly even scrapping the entire “megaproject” concept, in the same way as no one at all imagined that a toll road increase would be a part of the transit bill until they woke up to the news that it had been passed while they were sleeping.

Nonetheless, I am offering three principles for a way forward that protects residents and taxpayers rather than being held hostage to “Big Football” and its steamroller of giveaways in one city after the next.

First, to the extent that the Bears’ pitch is credible that they would be unfairly over-taxed due to a property tax system that disproportionately hits large capital investments, we should reform the property tax system itself in a broad-based manner so that neither of the Bears nor other similarly situated developments, pay excessive or punitive property taxes.  This reform is much better than creating a framework for special negotiations with mega-corporations since it would ensure that all businesses are treated similarly rather than picking winners and losers or creating circumstances in which those big corporations force towns to bid against each other for the best deals.  (As a side note, supporters use the phrase “property tax certainty” but it’s clear that this is a euphemism for lowered property taxes, along with guarantees they will not see the same relentless hikes the rest of us do.)

Second, to the extent that Pritzker’s statements of approval of infrastructure support are so vague because this is also under negotiation, we need norms for what sorts of infrastructure would be reasonably provided for any large job-creating, entertainment venue, or housing-creating project, especially around the transit and transportation access, rather than leaving everyone guessing.

Third, if this bill goes forward in a substantially similar form, a key public-protection provision that should be added to the bill is this:  even if the property tax negotiations themselves are occurring behind closed doors, the bill should require that all data on projected economic impacts be made public at the level of detail that makes it possible for the public to truly scrutinize the assumptions.  In particular, the law should mandate that those who make the claims of economic benefit respond fully and completely to those members of the public with the financial skills to properly evaluate whether those studies are being done according to sound principles and assumptions.  This release of information must occur far enough in advance of the final deal for community members to truly weigh in, and local decision makers must be obliged by the terms of the law to make themselves open to the public to hear their analysis.

Reports are that Pritzker is cautioning Democrats that the budget that he’ll propose this year will be cautious in its spending and mindful of the state’s economic situation.  The same holds for counties and towns.  We simply cannot get lured into a bidding war for any professional sports team.