You're going to compare a public park to a stadium? Go to a stadium without a ticket, and see for yourself just how "public" it is.
Really, really large numbers of people use public parks. Small, small numbers of people (by percentage, in large metro regions) ever see the inside of a stadium.
While I understand that there are many that enjoy professional sports, I certainly don't want my tax dollars supporting it.
Also, you might not want your tax dollars going to support professional sports, but many people do. That was my other point. We live in a democracy and the people generally are in favor of sports. The exact entertainment value it generates is debatable, but it is enough that these deals can be justified without requiring them to turn a profit. That was the only way I was comparing parks and stadiums. They don't need to be profitable to be a good use of money.
So let the taxpayers vote! If a majority wants to waste their money, then let them. But even then it is an absolute waste no matter your arguments because these are commercial entities backed by obscenely wealthy interests _that can afford to build them themselves_.
That is completely not true. But even if it was, why does the stadium have to be brand new and built in a high property value area? What's wrong with existing arenas?
> You can watch a game on free over-the-air TV
There are very few games that are shown OTA. And on top of that, there are commercials so it isn't free. Good luck trying to watch every game without paying money or doing something illegal. I'm willing to bet that this has never been accomplished by any fan in the history of sports.
There are very few games that are shown OTA.
And the reason why the stadium need regular upgrades is to attract the team in the first place. If a team doesn't have a new stadium like the St Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, or Oakland Raiders they will move to a market that either offers them subsidies or would simply be more profitable. That is the fundamental cause of all these problems.