Ballet companies, museums and philharmonics are money losing propositions in nearly every case, and cities invest in these typically without complaint. Complaining about about a sports stadium because it's low culture rather than high is elitist and undemocratic.
On the other hand complaining because the benefits of a ballet company are enjoyed by the city's ballet fans, while the benefits of a sports stadium are split between the team ownership and city's sports fans is legitimate.
What I would like to see more of is stadium deals in which the municipality gets an equity stake in the team.
> We generally don't build stadiums costing hundreds of millions so a billionaire can bring in Ballet.
I specifically pointed that out -- but I get it, you said 'billionaire' where I said 'team ownership'.
As your the other point, yes NYC built Lincoln Center to the benefit of generations. But they also put about $2.5 million annually into the New York City Ballet's operating budget. (Which is absolutely fine -- but don't kid yourself that they're self funding.)
>What I would like to see more of is stadium deals in which the municipality gets an equity stake in the team.
What other businesses should the government get involved in? FAANG companies bring tons of tax revenue to their cities, why not have every government have a VC arm too?
The same promise of economic growth and touted fears of not being a 'real city without a stadium' applies.
> The stadium profits won't cover operating costs, so ratepayers will have to top it up to the tune of $4.2m a year ($4.1m already budgeted).
>It will bring $395.6m in economic benefits, which includes $53.9m in "civic pride".
Civic pride....
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/117262170/christchurch-stadium... https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/117978037/christchurchs-...