Chicago lawmakers are unwilling to let the Chicago Bears go unless they get something in return. So what would it take to get a deal done in Arlington Heights?

The Bears need Chicago Democrats on board to get key legislation passed in Springfield. The megaprojects bill would allow the Bears to negotiate property tax breaks with the Village of Arlington Heights.

State Rep. Kam Buckner, a Democrat from Chicago, said the team offered a $25 million concession to leave the city, but that’s not enough. Buckner said the Cleveland Browns are a reference point for what he’s seeking. They’re paying the city of Cleveland $100 million to leave the city and go build a surburban stadium.

"It just seems truly outrageous, but the one thing I can say for certain is his analogy with Cleveland is completely off base, and I know that firsthand because I worked on that deal personally," said stadium consultant Marc Ganis.

Ganis said they’re different situations because the Browns are paying extra funding due to legislation with specific provisions if the team left Cleveland.

"There is no such provision in the Bears’ lease," Ganis said. "They do have a provision in a lease to pay the Park District a certain amount of money if they terminate the lease early, and right now, that number is somewhere in the range of $90 million, but it goes down each year."

Buckner said the team leaving Chicago "would be more than a monetary loss," so in addition to the concession, he’d also be seeking "a significant package for the city of Chicago."

Andrew Brandt, a professor of sports law at Villanova University and host of “The Business of Sports” podcast, explained how the deal in Hammond, Indiana, is a big influence on the situation.

"What has changed with the Bears and the Chiefs and, to an extent, the Browns, is not leaving the area, but leaving the jurisdiction, and this is a new leverage play we’re seeing from these franchises," Brandt said. "Once Indiana got involved, I thought I saw some more conciliatory language toward the Bears when that happened. So I would say, for the Bears’ point of view, mission accomplished."

Buckner also points out the Browns are less profitable than the Bears, and Cleveland is a smaller market than Chicago. But Brandt sees it differently.

"The only thing that gives leverage in negotiations is options," Brandt said. "The Bears, compared to the Browns, probably have some leverage here because they not only have a willing suitor in the suburbs, but they have one across state borders."

But Ganis wants lawmakers to consider if the Bears go to Hammond, Cook County would lose tax money, so Chicago would, too.

"They will lose their 6 percent ticket tax. They’ll lose their share of food and beverage tax. They’ll lose their parking tax," Ganis said.

When it comes to building new stadiums, Illinois lawmakers pointed to precedents for providing benefits to the community.

"The Atlanta Falcons earmarked $40 million for a parks and job training center. The Pittsburgh Penguins paid for a new grocery store in a food desert. The Milwaukee Bucks agreed to hire at least half of the workers at their new arena from the city’s poorest neighborhoods and pay them a livable wage," said State Rep. Sonya Harper, D-Chicago.

The megaprojects bill moved out of committee this week, but it won’t go anywhere for now because the House is adjourned until at least mid-March.

Meanwhile, Indiana Gov. Mike Braun already signed a bill that creates the framework for a Northwest Indiana Stadium Authority to help build and finance a stadium.