In Turken v. Gordon, 223 Ariz. 342, 3457, 224 P.3d 158, 161 (2010), the Arizona Supreme Court made plain that the proper focus in assessing the adequacy of consideration is what the private entity "has promised to provide in return" for payments by the government. Id. at 35035, 224 P.3d at 166. Accordingly, in Turken, the Court rejected the argument that indirect benefits, such as projected sales tax revenue, constituted adequate consideration. Id. at38. The contract there did not obligate the developer to produce the tax revenue for the City's benefit. Id. The only benefit the City objectively bargained for was exclusive use of 200 parking spaces, of 3,180 total. Id. at 35142, 224 P.3d at 167. The Court observed--because the trial court did not separately address the value of the parking spaces--that $97.4 million was "quite likely" a grossly disproportionate amount to pay for the benefit of only 200 parking spaces. Id. at43.