Fiscally strapped local governments have increasingly turned to public—private partnerships (P3s) for redevelopment assistance, empowering private actors to exercise functions typically performed by the public sector. While P3s can enhance project funding and completion, they create the possibility of agency loss, that is, public means—tax dollars, public powers, and other resources—being diverted toward private purposes. Using a principal— agent approach, the authors examine an ambitious and widely heralded P3 in San Diego to build a downtown ballpark and encourage private investment in surrounding neighborhoods. The authors identify a set of political, institutional, and partnership conditions exacerbating agency loss and thwarting redevelopment’s public mission.
Altshuler, Alan, and David Luberoff.2003. Mega-projects: The changing politics of urban public investment. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
2.
Baade, Robert A., and Richard F. Dye .1990. The impact of stadiums and professional sports on metropolitan area development. Growth and Change21 (Spring): 1-14.
3.
Baxamusa, Murtaza H.2005. The bottom line: Solutions for San Diego’s budget crisis: A comparative analysis of California’s largest cities . San Diego, CA: Center on Policy Initiatives.
4.
Braun, Gerry.2005. The smooth operator: Jack McGrory led city hall before the storm hit. Did he lead it into trouble?San Diego Union-Tribune , December 18, A1.
5.
Brown, Trevor L., and Matthew Potoski .2003. Transaction costs and institutional explanations for government service production decisions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory13 (4): 441-68.
6.
Cagan, Joanna, and Neil DeMause.1999. Field of Schemes. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
7.
Centre City Development Corporation.2007. Ballpark scorecard: more than a ballpark. San Diego, CA : Centre City Development Corporation.
8.
Chapin, Tim.2002. Beyond the entrepreneurial city: Municipal capitalism in San Diego. Journal of Urban Affairs24 (5): 565-81.
9.
Chapin, Tim.2004. Sports facilities as urban redevelopment catalysts: Baltimore’s Camden Yards and Cleveland’s Gateway. Journal of the American Planning Association70:193-209.
10.
City of San Diego. 2009. 2011-2015 five-year financial outlook.
11.
Clarke, Susan, and Gary L. Gaile .1998. The next wave: Local economic development strategies in the post-federal era. Economic Development Quarterly6:189-98.
12.
Coase, Ronald.1937. The nature of the firm. Econometrica4:386-405.
13.
Conlan, Timothy J.1988. New federalism: Intergovernmental reform and political change from Nixon to Reagan. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
14.
Corrigan, M., J. Hambene, W. Hudnut III, R.L. Levitt, J. Stainback, R. Ward, and N. Witenstein.2005. Ten principles for successful public/private partnerships. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
15.
Crowley, Gregory.2006. The politics of place: Contentious urban development in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.
16.
Davis, P., ed. 1986. Public-private partnerships: Improving urban life. New York: Academy of Political Science.
17.
Donohue, Andrew.2006. Terms Expired, Board Members Remain for Years. December 20. http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/government/article_13e7aa41-b09c-5f56-b37a-67850d9f958d.html
18.
Donohue, Andrew.2008. SD unique in redevelopment. August 12. http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/this_just_in/article_0e5a957c-142b-58f0-9dd0-577dda8bf448.html .
19.
Eisinger, Peter.1998. City politics in an era of federal devolution. Urban Affairs Review33:308-25.
20.
Fainstein, Susan S.1994. The city builders: Property, politics, and planning in London and New York. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
21.
Fernandez, Sergio, Jay Eungha Ryu, and Jeffrey L. Brudney .2008. Exploring variations in contracting for services among American local governments. American Review of Public Administration38 (4): 439-62.
22.
Fosler, S., and R. Berger.1982. Public private partnerships in American cities. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath .
23.
Frieden, Bernard J., and Lynne B. Sagalyn .1989. Downtown Inc.: How America rebuilds cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
Gordon, D.L.A.1997a. Battery Park City: Politics and planning on the New York waterfront. New York: Gordon & Breach.
25.
Gordon, D.L.A.1997b. Financing urban waterfront development. Journal of the American Planning Association63 (2): 244-65.
26.
Jezierski, Louise.1990. Neighborhoods and public-private partnerships in Pittsburgh . Urban Affairs Quarterly26 (2): 217-40.
27.
Kantor, Paul.1988. The dependent city: The changing political economy of urban America. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
28.
Karjanen, David.2005. Priced out: An analysis of housing in downtown San Diego . San Diego, CA: Center on Policy Initiatives.
29.
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and Mathew D. McCubbins .1991. The logic of delegation . Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press .
30.
Kousser, Thad.2005. Is San Diego a low-tax city? Policy brief prepared for the 2005 mayoral debates.
31.
LaVelle, Philip J.1999. Grand jury rips golding over efforts for ballpark . San Diego Union-Tribune, June 5, B1.
32.
LaVelle, Philip J.2000. Padres avoid tough financial questions in PR campaign . San Diego Union-Tribune, January 10, B1.
33.
Levin, Jonathan, and Steven Tadelis. Forthcoming. Contracting for government services: Theory and evidence from U.S. cities. Journal of Industrial Economics .
34.
Levitt, Rachelle L., and John J. Kirlin, eds. 1985. Managing development through public/private negotiations. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute and the American Bar Association.
35.
McCarthy, Kevin F., Steven P. Erie, and Robert E. Reichardt .1998. Meeting the challenge of charter reform. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
36.
McCubbins, Mathew D., and Thomas Schwartz .1984. Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science28 (1): 165-79.
37.
Miller, Gary J.2005. The political evolution of principal-agent models . Annual Review of Political Science8:203-25.
38.
Mullin, Stephen P.2002. Public-private partnerships and state and local economic development: Leveraging private investment. Washington, DC: U.S. Economic Development Administration.
39.
National Council for Public-Private Partnerships.2002. For the good of the people: Using public/private partnerships to meet America’s essential needs. NCPP white paper, Washington, DC.
40.
Noll, Roger G., and Andrew Zimbalist, eds. 1997. Sports, jobs, and taxes: The economic impact of sports teams and stadiums. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
41.
Office of the City Auditor, City of San Diego.2009. Performance audit of the Centre City Development Corporation . Audit report, July 10.
42.
Office of the City Manager, City of San Diego.2001. Offering document, continuing disclosure agreement, contract of purchase and certain other actions in connection with the city’s ballpark and redevelopment project. Rep. 01-239, November 14.
43.
Peterson, Paul.1981. City limits. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
44.
Pierre, Jon, ed. 1998. Partnerships in urban governance: European and American experience. New York: St. Martin’s.
Rosenau, Pauline Vaillancourt.1999. Introduction: The strengths and weaknesses of public-private policy partnerships. American Behavioral Scientist43:10-34.
Rosentraub, Mark S.2010. Major league winners: Using sports and cultural centers as tools for economic development. New York: CRC Press.
49.
Sagalyn, Lynne B.1996. Meshing public and private roles in the development process . In Real estate development, edited by Mike E. Miles, Gayle Berens , and Marc A. Weiss.Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
50.
Sagalyn, Lynne B.2007. Public/private development. Journal of the American Planning Association75 (1): 7-22.
51.
Saito, Leland T.2009. From "blighted" to "historic": Race, economic development, and historic preservation in San Diego, California. Urban Affairs Review45:166-87.
52.
San Diego CountyGrand Jury.1998. Standards of disclosure re: ballpark financing project. Interim Rep. No. 2to San DiegoCity Council.
53.
San Diego CountyGrand Jury.2008. CCDC: What does it develop and with whose money? Report . San Diego, CA: County of San Diego .
54.
San Diego County Grand Jury.2009. Redevelopment in the City of San Diego-A call for transparency report . San Diego, CA: County of San Diego.
55.
Steele, Jeanette.2009. Ballpark, as catalyst, is batting .500. San Diego Union-Tribune, April 6, A1.
56.
Stephenson, Max O., Jr.1991. Whither the public-private partnership: A critical overview. Urban Affairs Quarterly27 (1): 109-27.
57.
Stoker, Robert P.1987. Baltimore: The self-evaluating city? In The politics of urban development, edited by Clarence N. Stone and Heywood T. Sanders.Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas.
58.
Stolz, Martin.2005a. Critics take swing at JMI’s pitch for Ballpark Village. San Diego Union-Tribune, May 31, B1.
59.
Stolz, Martin.2005b. Panel calls Ballpark Village deal presentation misleading . San Diego Union-Tribune, October 2, B7.
60.
Stone, Clarence.1989. Regime politics. Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas.
61.
Task Force on Ballpark Planning.1998. Report of the City of San Diego Task Force on Ballpark Planning. San Diego, CA: Task Force on Ballpark Planning.
62.
Vining, Aidan R., Anthony E. Boardman, and Finn Poschmann.2005. Public-private partnerships in the US and Canada: There are no free lunches. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis7 (3): 199-220.
63.
Walzer, Norman, and Lori York.1998. Public-private partnerships in U.S. cities. In Public-private partnerships for local economic development , edited by Norman Walzer and Brian D. Jacobs.Westport, CT: Praeger.
64.
Weisberg, Lori.1999. Padres unveil details about development. San Diego Union-Tribune, March 13, A1.
65.
Williamson, Oliver E.1988. The logic of economic organization. Journal of Law Economics, and Organization4 (1): 65-93.
