THE BILLION DOLLAR QUESTION BEHIND THE BEARS BAILOUT

As Illinois lawmakers move HB 910 closer to reality, taxpayers are asking whether this is really about saving the Bears or protecting the people positioned to profit from the deal

By Staff Writer | April 25, 2026

The story began with a warning.

Not a rumor. Not a political talking point. A warning about what could happen when Springfield tries to solve one problem by creating another one for taxpayers.

For months, the Chicago Bears have been weighing their future. Arlington Heights remains on the table. Indiana has been waiting. Illinois leaders have been under pressure to keep one of the NFL’s most historic franchises from crossing state lines.

Then came HB 910.

Supporters call it a megaproject bill. They say it is about economic growth, investment, jobs, and keeping Illinois competitive.

Critics call it something else.

A bailout.

A property tax shift.

A sweetheart deal for powerful developers.

And now, after the Illinois House moved the bill forward with help from Democrats and nine Republicans, a more explosive question is spreading across Illinois.

Are some lawmakers supporting this bill because they believe it is good public policy, or because people close to these projects may personally benefit if it becomes law?

How the Bears Bailout Story Started

FactsFirstUS.com first raised the alarm in its report titled The Bears Bailout: The Springfield Deal That Could Double Your Property Taxes.

That report explained the heart of the concern. Under the megaproject structure, large developments could receive major property tax reductions while local governments would still be able to collect revenue as though the full value of the development were on the tax rolls.

That sounds technical. It is not.

It means a massive project could be built, its value could increase dramatically, and yet the developer could pay taxes based on a much lower value. The missing amount would not vanish. Local governments would still need money for schools, services, pensions, infrastructure, police, fire protection, and debt.

So who pays the difference?

Critics say homeowners, small businesses, and surrounding property owners would.

The first FactsFirstUS report laid out examples showing how removing large portions of a district’s taxable value could force remaining taxpayers to make up the gap. The article warned that if 50 percent of a district’s Equalized Assessed Value were effectively removed from taxation, other taxpayers could face a 100 percent increase. In plain English, their property taxes could double.

That was the first major warning.

The Bears deal was not just about football.

It was about who carries the bill when politically favored projects get relief that regular taxpayers never receive.

Full report:
https://factsfirstus.com/post/the-bears-bailout-the-springfield-deal-that-could-double-your-property-taxes

Then Came the Fumble

The next chapter came as Illinois leaders appeared to be scrambling to keep the deal alive.

FactsFirstUS followed with reporting under the headline Fumble: Illinois Property Taxes Could Double as Pritzker Administration Scrambles to Save Bears Deal.

That story focused on the timing and political pressure surrounding the negotiations. For years, the Bears had signaled that they were serious about Arlington Heights and open to alternatives. Indiana was watching. While Illinois hesitated, Indiana moved aggressively and positioned itself as a serious option.

That matters because when a state waits too long, it often loses leverage.

By the time Illinois leaders began pushing hard, the Bears were no longer simply asking Illinois for help. They had options. They had another state interested. They had leverage of their own.

That is when critics say the deal became more dangerous for taxpayers.

The second story raised concerns that Illinois was no longer negotiating from strength. Instead, Springfield was reacting under pressure. And when government reacts under pressure, taxpayers are often the ones handed the emergency invoice.

Full report:
https://factsfirstus.com/post/illinois-bears-stadium-tax-shock

They Passed It Anyway

Then came the latest development.

FactsFirstUS reported in They Passed It Anyway: Illinois Locks Taxpayers Into 40 Years of Costs as Bears Still Not Committed that the Illinois House approved HB 910 even though the Bears still had not fully committed to the deal.

That is the part that has stunned many taxpayers.

Illinois moved the bill forward.

The Bears still want changes.

The risk moved closer to taxpayers.

The commitment from the team still is not guaranteed.

After the House vote, the Bears said they welcomed progress, but also said additional amendments were necessary to make the Arlington Heights site feasible. FactsFirstUS correctly noted that this was not a commitment. It was not a final agreement. It was the Bears saying the bill still was not good enough.

That is a major point.

Illinois taxpayers could be locked into a structure that lasts for decades, but the team at the center of the entire debate has not said yes.

Full report:
https://factsfirstus.com/post/hb910-illinois-bears-stadium-tax-impact-indiana

Now Even the Bears Are Pushing Back

The newest problem is the 9 percent tax.

According to public discussion surrounding the bill, the Bears are not happy that Illinois Democrats added a new additional 9 percent tax to the megaproject plan. The team reportedly does not want a 9 percent tax layered on top of the other taxes already included in the bill.

That is important for two reasons.

First, it shows the Bears are still negotiating.

Second, it shows that even the team this bill is supposed to help believes parts of the proposal do not work.

Governor JB Pritzker also acknowledged the broader tax structure by referring to the other taxes contained in the bill. That comment matters because it undercuts the idea that this is a clean, simple economic development proposal. It is not.

There are taxes.

There are fees.

There are long term obligations.

And there is still no guaranteed Bears commitment.

The Vote That Changed the Political Conversation

When HB 910 moved through the Illinois House, the vote did not fall only along party lines.

Nine Republicans voted with Democrats to support the bill.

They were:

John M. Cabello
Mike Coffey
Amy Elik
Bradley Fritts
Martin McLaughlin
Jennifer Sanalitro
Kevin Schmidt
Brandun Schweizer
Brad Stephens

That vote immediately triggered anger from conservatives, taxpayer groups, and residents who have spent years hearing Republican lawmakers campaign against higher property taxes.

State Representative John M. Cabello posted on Facebook defending his vote. He said the bill was not final passage. He said it still had to go to the Senate. He said it could be changed. He said he would review the final version before deciding whether to remain a yes or move to a no.

He also argued that the bill would not raise taxes on people who do not live in a project area and that local governments would still have to approve projects before anything moves forward.

But that explanation did not calm the backlash.

It sharpened it.

Americans for Prosperity Illinois Responds

Americans for Prosperity Illinois responded with a blistering statement that captured the anger many taxpayers are feeling.

Their argument was simple. Illinois lawmakers have rejected meaningful property tax relief for regular families for years. They have not passed a two year property tax freeze. They have not capped property tax increases at inflation. They have not delivered the type of relief many homeowners have begged for.

But when wealthy developers and major projects come to Springfield, suddenly lawmakers are willing to discuss long term property tax breaks.

That contrast is what makes this story so emotionally powerful.

The people who pay the bills are told relief is impossible.

The people building megaprojects are told relief can be negotiated.

Americans for Prosperity Illinois warned that the bill could freeze property taxes for ultra wealthy interests while shifting costs onto neighbors and surrounding taxpayers. They also rejected the idea that people are protected simply because they do not live inside a project boundary.

Their message was direct.

You do not have to live in a project area to be affected.

You just have to live in an Illinois county with a megaproject.

That is the kind of sentence taxpayers understand.

Because it turns a complicated bill into a kitchen table issue.

Why Springfield Is Now Under the Microscope

This is where the story moves from statewide concern to local suspicion.

One of the Republican yes votes came from State Representative Mike Coffey.

Coffey is not just a lawmaker.

He is also Chairman of the BOS Center, the convention center in Springfield that has been at the center of discussions about expansion, renovation, and efforts to revitalize downtown Springfield.

That matters because projects like downtown convention center redevelopment, hotel districts, entertainment zones, and surrounding commercial improvements are exactly the kinds of projects that could potentially benefit from megaproject style incentives.

To be clear, raising that question is not the same as proving wrongdoing.

But the question is fair.

If a lawmaker supports a bill that could benefit large redevelopment projects, and that same lawmaker holds a leadership role with a major downtown facility that could benefit from redevelopment, taxpayers have a right to ask what interests are being served.

The concern grew even louder because Coffey is also a downtown Springfield business owner. His restaurant sits in the area that could benefit from downtown revitalization efforts.

That is why social media exploded with accusations and warnings.

One post from Pray Springfield put it this way:

Republican House Representative Mike Coffey stands to make a windfall of cash. His restaurant is right in the middle of the project they are starting in Springfield, Illinois. Pray Springfield.

That statement should be presented carefully as public commentary and concern, not as a verified financial finding.

But the emotion behind it is real.

People are asking whether elected officials are voting for taxpayers, for developers, for local power structures, or for themselves.

The BOS Center And The Fight Over Local Control

The Springfield concern does not stop with HB 910.

Before the megaproject vote, Springfield Alderman Roy Williams Jr warned residents about another proposal tied to control over local tourism and downtown development.

He said a bill connected to the broader legislative package could create a new Capital Area Tourism Authority. According to his warning, the proposed body would give Sangamon County more control than the City of Springfield, even though the decisions would affect Springfield residents, downtown Springfield, and local tax dollars.

His warning was blunt.

The people making these decisions won’t have to answer to Springfield voters. Roy Williams Jr.

He also wrote:

This is a democracy and not a good old boy network. Roy Williams Jr.

That line lands because it connects directly to what people already fear.

Shadow boards.

Special authorities.

Unelected decision makers.

Deals made away from voters.

Taxpayers are not just worried about how much they will pay. They are worried about who gets to decide.

The Central Question

This is the question now hanging over HB 910.

What is really behind the Republican support for Governor JB Pritzker’s Bears bailout plan?

Supporters will say the answer is simple. Jobs. Growth. Investment. Competition with Indiana. Keeping the Bears in Illinois.

But critics say the answer may be more complicated.

They see a bill that could help billion dollar projects receive tax advantages. They see taxpayers being asked to shoulder risk. They see Republicans who normally oppose tax hikes voting with Democrats. They see local projects that could benefit. They see lawmakers with ties to downtown development. They see governing bodies being proposed that could shift power away from elected city councils.

And they are asking one thing.

Who really wins?

The Part Taxpayers Cannot Ignore

The hardest part for Illinois residents is not just that the bill could cost them money.

It is that they have heard this story before.

They have been told that higher taxes are necessary.

They have been told relief is too difficult.

They have been told local governments are responsible.

They have been told Springfield cannot simply fix the property tax problem.

Then a major sports franchise and powerful development interests enter the picture, and suddenly Springfield finds a way to create special tax treatment.

That is why people are angry.

Not because they hate the Bears.

Not because they oppose development.

Not because they want Illinois to fail.

They are angry because they feel like the rules are different depending on who is asking.

What Happens Next

HB 910 now moves through the next stage of the process.

The Senate may amend it. The Bears may demand more changes. Lawmakers may try to soften the language. Supporters may continue to argue that no project moves forward without local approval.

But the public pressure is growing.

The Bears have not fully committed.

The 9 percent tax has become a new obstacle.

Taxpayer groups are warning of long term consequences.

And lawmakers who voted yes are now being asked to explain why they supported a bill that critics say could expose Illinois families to decades of higher costs.

This story is no longer only about the Bears.

It is about trust.

It is about power.

It is about whether taxpayers still have a voice when billion dollar projects come calling.

And it is about whether the people voting on these deals are protecting the public interest or protecting something much closer to home.

Sources

FactsFirstUS: The Bears Bailout
https://factsfirstus.com/post/the-bears-bailout-the-springfield-deal-that-could-double-your-property-taxes

FactsFirstUS: Tax Shock Looms
https://factsfirstus.com/post/illinois-bears-stadium-tax-shock

FactsFirstUS: They Passed It Anyway
https://factsfirstus.com/post/hb910-illinois-bears-stadium-tax-impact-indiana

Illinois General Assembly HB 910 records
Chicago Bears public statement on stadium legislation
Americans for Prosperity Illinois public statement
Rep. John M. Cabello public Facebook statement
Alderman Roy Williams Jr. public statement
Public commentary from Pray Springfield