Then again, this can easily be dismissed because it relies on a small set of data for only one market and because it uses average attendance as a substitute for revenue and wins as a substitute for actual team quality, but I have neither the data nor the time to throw it all together, so this'll have to do. And the results are completely logical. Thank you for sending them along. It seems to me that the decision whether to fund a stadium should be approached the same way as whether to build a park or a museum. If a democratic majority feels that making the expenditure would enhance the quality of life in the area it is within their rights to do so.
Intellectual honesty is a lot to ask of politicians, of course.
I think you raise a few issues. One is whether the results of a vote where one side has so badly misrepresented its position as do sports teams seeking new facilities should be considered legitimate. Sadly, the American population does not do much homework before deciding for whom they will vote, and the average American has little background in economics. The other major issue you raise is whether such a large expenditure should be left to a simple majority. Take New York City, with eight million inhabitants living on a total of three and half acres.