First of all, I wish you would quit referring to me as an anti-tax purist that wants to see teams move out of long-established cities. That is not what I am saying. My position is that there should be some sort of law or national policy against public funding for any professional sporting venue so teams can't play one city against another.
Secondly, because a person votes against a stadium proposal doesn't make them an "anti-tax purist". As has been cited above, there are lots of studies out there that show that these pursuits have a very poor return on investment. A person could vote to tax themselves by voting for schools, hospitals, roadways, et al, but not on propositions that gives taxpayer money to filthy rich billionaires who can afford to pay for it themselves.
I'm sure that the dynamics in KC's no vote were varied. Some have speculated that part of the objection was due to a lack of transparency, that the Royals missed their own self-imposed deadline to produce a concrete plan. But 58% is a pretty solid majority, and one has to take into account the popularity of the KC Chiefs. If they can't win a vote, how in the heck would a team like the Washington Commanders, who are also looking for a new venue, be able to win a public vote?
