I don't know that Prop U still exists in the timeframe where any of this happens. I see the most likely scenario if a stadium is built on this site being roughly what happened with the AAC. The City issues bonds to build the stadium ($1-2bn) backed not by its general obligation but by the tourism taxes (rental car and hotel occupancy). The stadium operator rents the stadium from the City for not nothing, but next to nothing (AAC netted the City only $3.4 million last year, all the debt has been paid off for a while). So, if there is rent to the City, it is probably not a large enough amount to really have Prop U change the calculus. And if there is a large rent payment, the City should just use it to pay down the debt.
What I don't see in your analysis is how Prop U figures in. Do you have thoughts on that?
I don't know that Prop U still exists in the timeframe where any of this happens. I see the most likely scenario if a stadium is built on this site being roughly what happened with the AAC. The City issues bonds to build the stadium ($1-2bn) backed not by its general obligation but by the tourism taxes (rental car and hotel occupancy). The stadium operator rents the stadium from the City for not nothing, but next to nothing (AAC netted the City only $3.4 million last year, all the debt has been paid off for a while). So, if there is rent to the City, it is probably not a large enough amount to really have Prop U change the calculus. And if there is a large rent payment, the City should just use it to pay down the debt.
Ok, thanks. That's helpful.