SCRAMBLING FOR THE BEARS: PRITZKER RUSHES BILL AS TAXPAYER BACKLASH EXPLODES

Illinois Politics| Business and Economy | Featured

April 29, 2026•5 min read

SCRAMBLING FOR THE BEARS: Why Illinois Is Rushing a Controversial Bill as Backlash Grows

As Governor Pritzker pushes for fast Senate action, critics warn the plan could benefit billionaire developers while taxpayers face the long-term cost

By Staff Writer | April 29, 2026

Property tax bills across Illinois could be shaped for decades by a deal now being rushed through Springfield.

Governor JB Pritzker says it is about keeping the Chicago Bears.

But as backlash spreads across the state, a deeper question is beginning to take hold.

Is that really what this is about?

The governor is pressing the Senate to act quickly on House Bill 910, a sweeping megaproject proposal that critics warn could shift long term costs onto homeowners while delivering major advantages to billionaire private developers.

The urgency is increasing.

So is the resistance.

“I cannot support freezing taxes for billionaires while homeowners pick up the tab.”
— Darren Bailey, gubernatorial candidate

That frustration is gaining traction in a state where residents already face some of the highest property taxes in the nation and have spent years waiting for relief that has not come.

Despite that, House Bill 910 is moving forward.

The Illinois House approved the measure by a vote of seventy-eight to thirty-two, with nine Republicans joining Democrats, including John M. Cabello, Mike Coffey, Amy Elik, Bradley Fritts, Martin McLaughlin, Jennifer Sanalitro, Kevin Schmidt, Brandun Schweizer, and Brad Stephens.

The vote triggered immediate backlash from taxpayer groups and conservative organizations.

“Relief is too complicated for families, but negotiable for billion-dollar projects.”
— Americans for Prosperity Illinois

Supporters say the bill is necessary to keep the Bears in Illinois and remain competitive with other states.

But recent reporting suggests that may not be the full story.

According to reporting from FactsFirstUS, sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations indicate the team may already be preparing to leave for Indiana.

“Multiple sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations indicate the decision is effectively made.”
— Thomas DeVore, Illinois attorney

If accurate, that raises a critical question.

Why is the bill still being rushed forward?

The answer may lie in the structure of the legislation itself.

FactsFirstUS reporting shows House Bill 910 is not limited to a stadium project. It creates a broader, statewide framework allowing large developments backed by billionaire private developers to receive long term tax advantages and negotiated financial structures.

“This is not a targeted stadium incentive. It is a massive, statewide framework designed to subsidize large private developments with public backing.”
— Thomas DeVore

In simple terms, when large projects pay less, someone else pays more.

Under the proposal, qualifying megaprojects could lock in property tax assessments for up to forty years, negotiate payments in place of traditional taxation, and receive construction related tax advantages. Local governments could still calculate revenue based on full projected value.

Critics say that structure creates a gap.

And that gap does not disappear.

According to prior reporting, when large portions of taxable value are reduced, surrounding taxpayers often make up the difference. In some cases, that shift could result in significant increases in property tax burdens.

“Taxpayers are being asked to commit, but the team is not.”
— Critics of the proposal

The Bears themselves have not committed to the deal and have raised concerns about elements of the proposal. Their position reflects ongoing negotiations, not a final agreement.

That leaves Illinois lawmakers being asked to move forward without certainty.

And it adds weight to a growing concern.

“The Bears are just the headline… politically convenient.”
— Thomas DeVore

If that is the case, the urgency surrounding House Bill 910 takes on a different meaning.

It is no longer just about keeping a team.

It is about passing a long-term framework while public attention is focused elsewhere.

Sources familiar with Capitol discussions, as reported by FactsFirstUS, indicate the timeline is being driven by a narrowing window to act rather than a finalized agreement.

“After the Bears leave, Illinois will be left with a far reaching piece of legislation that was sold under false urgency.”
— Thomas DeVore

Scrutiny is also increasing over who stands to benefit from the structure created by House Bill 910.

State Representative Mike Coffey, one of the Republican votes supporting the bill, serves as Chairman of the BOS Center and owns a business in downtown Springfield. Projects such as convention centers, hotels, and entertainment developments fall directly within the scope of House Bill 910.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing.

But the alignment is difficult to ignore.

Critics say this reinforces a broader concern that the bill creates long term advantages for large scale developments backed by billionaire private developers.

“Are decisions being made for taxpayers or for projects closer to home?”
— Question raised by critics and watchdog groups

That concern is separate, but it points to a broader question now emerging across Illinois.

Springfield Alderman Roy Williams Jr. has raised concerns about proposals that could shift authority away from local governments and into separate development or tourism bodies.

“The people making these decisions will not have to answer to Springfield voters.”
— Alderman Roy Williams Jr.

“This is a democracy, not a good old boy network.”
— Alderman Roy Williams Jr.

While Williams spoke about Springfield, similar concerns are emerging in other Illinois cities and counties, where officials fear local control over development, taxation, and major projects could be reduced.

For many observers, the distinction is clear.

One issue is about who benefits.

The other is about who decides.

Together, they are shaping a broader debate about power and accountability across Illinois.

House Bill 910 now moves to the Senate under direct pressure from the governor’s office, even as public opposition continues to grow.

The questions are not going away.

The Bears have not committed.

Multiple sources suggest they may already be preparing to leave.

The legislation creates a long-term financial framework that extends far beyond a single stadium.

And taxpayers are being asked to trust a process that is moving faster than the answers.

If the Bears stay, the debate will continue.

If they leave, the consequences will be harder to ignore.