Public goods vs private goods vs public-private partnerships

In Pennsylvania, there is a proposal to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike to a private investor group for 75 years. The linked article is at the website of Barron's, a business magazine. The group would pay $10.5 billion upfront, will take over $2.3 billion of existing turnpike bonds, and commit to $5.5 billion in capital improvements on the turnpike, which definitely needs the work, over the life of the lease. That's the equivalent of $18.3 billion dollars.

Barron's considers the offer to be "lucrative". Goldman Sachs, the top US investment bank, bid $12.1 billion, but that excludes capital improvements; the winning bid was $12.8 billion excluding capital improvements.

If the state invests that money wisely. (They might also waste it by pandering to special interests. However, for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume they do not.) The state thinks they can generate 5-10% returns on the money, presumably by placing it in financial investments. They could use the interest to boost the state budget. They could invest some of the money in health programs or public transport, to benefit Pennsylvania residents. However, the State of New Jersey faced a similar situation, and their legislature voted not to lease the New Jersey turnpike. Barrons considers the chances of Pennsylvania voting yes on this issue to be 50-50.

The question is, are there some things that should only be publicly operated? All else equal, I'd be fine with my state leasing a turnpike to a private entity. The Pennsylvania deal caps yearly toll increases at the greater of 2.5% or the annual inflation rate.

However, there are for-profit prisons in the US. They have even more incentive to skimp on food and medical care for prisoners than state run prisons. I do not approve of privately run prisons ... but the problem could just be negligent oversight by state authorities, rather than privately operated prisons per se.

A similar question has come up for the Episcopal Dioceses of Wisconsin and Michigan. Both Dioceses own large campgrounds; Michigan's campground was donated by a former bishop of the Diocese.

People have warm and fuzzy memories of taking their kids to the camps, or going there as kids. Wisconsin's bishop apparently intends to close the camp and sell the land, and members of the Diocese are protesting vociferously. I know first hand that in the Diocese of Michigan, whenever the question of closing the camp and selling the land is brought up, there is a lot of shouting and screaming.

But the Diocese of Michigan is also losing its ability to provide financial assistance to its seminarians, and it can no longer offer them a guaranteed placement in the Diocese upon ordination. Our social programs are also suffering cuts. And the camps are expensive to operate - the buildings were built and financed when gas and electricity costs were a lot lower.

I will say that I wish people would shout and scream as loudly over the fact that people are dying of malnutrition and disease in many countries in the Global South, or that LGBT people are still victims of hate crimes and exclusion from certain key church conferences and offices.

But, the shouting and screaming does point to the same issue that the Pennsylvania turnpike lease issue does. The Diocese of Wisconsin seems to be leaning toward commercial developers, who would build condominiums. The Diocese of Michigan has preliminarily evaluated some proposals including commercial developers. The commercial option would be the most lucrative for both the Dioceses. However, given the history of the land, should we be looking to sell it to non-commercial interests instead? Some parties might be able to continue operating as campsites. Some parties might build affordable housing.

So, there's no easy answer. But, are there some goods that can only be public goods? Are there some circumstances where public-private partnerships should be off limits?