Posted May 7, 2024, 8:15 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 456
|
|
^ Yes, that's been my question all along. Public investment could very well be worth it if the bears sign a lucrative lease/revenue share model for the new PUBLIC stadium. Hell, since the stadium cannot be privately owned on the Lakefront, of course the capital expense WOULD/SHOULD be publicly financed. But the Bears better sign a contract that guarantees the city/state will get more than enough revenue (including concert, other use leasing of the space) to pay for the debt and ongoing maintenance of the new facility. The fact that a model like this isn't even presented/discussed could mean the whole proposal is smoke and mirrors to provide leverage for AH or even a lease renewal at existing SF.
|