Brandon Johnson

When they had made an announcement in January, they were going somewhere else.

So don't dismiss the fact that the Bears were still in ongoing conversations as they were saying other things.

Here's the bottom line.

Bears fans deserve the opportunity to enjoy our beloved Bears on the lakefront.

The Bears agreed to that.

The reason why there was a shift in conversation is because we could not get Springfield to actually cooperate.

The irony is, they didn't cooperate over the initial proposal of which they actually drafted legislation that literally reflects our proposal.

But here's the difference.

Ours is protective of the taxpayers.

Property taxes or visitors who come to hang out in Chicago.

I believe that the people of Chicago, Bears fans, would much rather own our own stadium in which the Bears pay for and visitors pay for, not to mention our Chicago Public Schools sports teams could participate in the green space that we would have down there, not to mention the concerts that we would be able to hold, the community activations that we could have down there.

You all saw the renderings.

The only viable plan that has ever been discussed...

has been the plan that we proposed.

Have you all seen the traffic study?

Have you seen the environmental study for other places?

How are we voting on legislation and there's no, not only infrastructure proposal, but there's no traffic study.

So you can't even build an infrastructure proposal without a traffic study.

Have you driven on that site outside of Illinois?

It's like what, one road?