ABSTRACT
Ironically, in no instance where a public sector partner provided a substantial investment in a facility was there a commitment or assurance given that similar returns in the form of new private investments in the downtown area would take place to produce additional tax dollars (or a return for the public sector’s investment). Each city could follow in Indianapolis’ footsteps and put forward a sports and entertainment strategy that included new venues for arts and culture and then actively broker additional real estate development deals that might generate additional tax revenues to offset its investment. But those returns were the responsibility of the government. While each city assured residents it would try to enhance development and secure new taxes, in essence, taxpayers were left to hope something positive in terms of real estate development and new tax revenues would occur. Voters in San Diego would not support a typical ballpark deal-a public investment without an assured rate of return. San Diego had a strained relationship with the San Diego Chargers. The Chargers secured a change in their lease prior to the Padres seeking a new ballpark that included a guarantee that the public sector would buy any tickets that were not sold for any Charger regular season game. That guarantee would, after its acceptance, create a substantial political backlash that made any public participation in the financing of another sports facility contingent on substantial investments by a team owner.
