While Illinois Comptroller Susana Mendoza’s call to put students above politics sounds noble, her push for Illinois to opt in to a federal scholarship program for private schools misses the forest for the trees (“Put Illinois students above politics, and opt in to the federal scholarship program,” Feb. 19). True advocacy for Illinois students isn’t found in siphoning public interest — and potentially public resources — away from the system that serves nearly 2 million children.
The rhetoric of “choice” often acts as a Band-Aid for the systemic underfunding of our public schools. When we prioritize federal- or state-incentivized scholarship programs for private institutions, we are essentially admitting that we’ve given up on the promise of a high-quality, equitable education for every child, regardless of their ZIP code.
Illinois has made significant strides with its evidence-based funding formula, but we are still far from fully funding our public districts. Instead of looking for an exit ramp through federal programs, our leaders should be doubling down on the schools that are mandated to serve everyone — including students with disabilities and those in our most underserved communities, who are often left behind by private programs.
Putting students first means ensuring that the school down the street has the resources, staff and facilities it needs to succeed. Let’s keep our focus, and our funding, on the public system that remains the backbone of our state.
— Stephen Hogan, Westmont
Wall between church, state
Rabbi Shlomo Soroka wrote in a Feb. 6 op-ed that it is a “no-brainer” for Illinois to opt in to the federal tax credit tuition program (“Pritzker shouldn’t let politics block free help for the state’s students”). According to Soroka, it is the equivalent of free money because the tab will be paid by the federal government and not the state of Illinois.
As in most deals that appear to be too good to be true, there is a tremendous cost to this tax credit program. It severely weakens one of the most basic provisions of the U.S. Constitution: the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from passing laws that promote or prohibit the free exercise of any religion.
Since the founding of our nation, we have carefully protected a deep wall of separation between church and state. This is especially true of Jews and others who practice non-Christian religions, as well as those who practice no religion. They understood the danger if the country declared itself a Christian nation — as many in the current presidential administration have done. That’s why it was historically a “no-brainer” for the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, among many other groups, to oppose voucher programs that cover private and religious school tuition. They see those programs as Trojan horses to undermine church-state separation.
Soroka is apparently so enticed by the offer of some help with private and religious school tuition that he is willing to risk the danger of weakening the separation of church and state. But he should stop the charade of claiming that the scholarships depend on tax credit incentives.
Donors who want to provide scholarships to cover religious school tuition can do that now — and can still get a federal tax deduction for their philanthropy. There is no need for the generous, dollar-for-dollar tax credits offered by the federal program. And it certainly does not justify the risk of contributing to the dismantling of one of our most fundamental constitutional protections.
— Martin Gartzman, Chicago
Let the Chicago Bears go
Don’t you just love the Bears management? Hapless Chairman George McCaskey and boneheaded President and CEO Kevin Warren oversaw the purchase of the Arlington Park racetrack three years ago for a new Bears stadium. Then there was a lengthy push for a site on Chicago’s lakefront, then back to Arlington Heights — and now Indiana. Still no stadium.
Warren has now announced that season ticket holders will be hammered with a 13.5% ticket price increase. He cited his “detailed analysis and market research” as the basis for this decision.
The Bears want to own a new stadium so they can make more money than they do at Soldier Field. Warren has said that they want the fans to have the best possible experience. (Apparently that experience comes with higher ticket prices.) News flash: Only a small portion of fans watch Bears games in the stadium. The rest of us are very happy watching on TV with our beer and pizza, warm and peaceful.
Let’s sum up the situation. Individual Bears tickets may cost hundreds of dollars, depending on various factors. Not exactly affordable for the average fan or family. Only a small percentage of fans attend games at the stadium. The Bears want money from Illinois for a new stadium. They want tax breaks and freezes. (Do you get a tax freeze on your house?) A new stadium could cost roughly $5 billion based on the cost of other new NFL stadiums. The Bears have pledged only $2 billion; where will the rest come from?
Now the Bears are threatening to move to Indiana. Not a good thing, but let them go. Illinois has serious problems, and if there’s an extra couple billion dollars lying around, use it for something important.
The Bears, an $8.9 billion corporation, want Illinois citizens to help pay for their new stadium, but they will keep the profits. What a bargain! This Bears fan is fed up.
— Blaise J. Arena, Des Plaines
State funding for the Bears
In a desperate pitch to keep the Chicago Bears from moving out of the city of Chicago — whether to Arlington Heights or to Indiana — Better Government Association President David Greising argues that the McCaskey family that owns the team should look instead to the site of the former Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago’s Bronzeville neighborhood (“Why the Bears should give serious consideration to building on the former Michael Reese site,” Feb. 13).
While that might otherwise be appealing for a number of reasons, the suggestion seems fatally flawed because of the proposed financing. According to Greising, “back-of-the-envelope estimates” would have taxpayers picking up two-thirds of the tab, when we are already on the hook for the millions still owed for construction of the Bears stadium inside Soldier Field.
That’s right; according to Greising, the Bears would chip in $2 billion, state taxpayers would have to pony up another $2 billion and city taxpayers yet another $2 billion to make the Michael Reese site workable. This, in a state with a budget deficit of over a quarter billion dollars just for the current fiscal year. City taxpayers are also state taxpayers.
All of this is for the always-promised but never-delivered revenue pot at the end of the rainbow. Every econometric study I’m aware of shows that publicly financed sports stadiums are ultimately net losses to taxpayers.
The San Francisco 49ers play in Santa Clara, California; the New York Giants and the New York Jets across the Hudson River in New Jersey; and the Chargers left San Diego for Los Angeles, to which the Rams returned after years in St. Louis, which now has no NFL team. And the Raiders left Oakland for Los Angeles and then moved on to Las Vegas.
If Chicago and the state of Illinois want to keep the Bears in Chicagoland, then they should stop stalling and get serious about building out the necessary infrastructure — at a cost of less than $1 billion and far less than $4 billion — to enable the Bears to proceed with their plans for a privately funded stadium and entertainment complex in Arlington Heights.
Go Bears!
— David L. Applegate, Huntley
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
