"So that's $1.3. billion in tax dollars raised specifically to fund the museums and zoo in the largest park of one mid-sized U.S. city."

That's divided amongst 5 public organizations. Not all going to one billionaire.

"That tax raises 35 times the $5 million per year the city pays on the bond for the old Rams stadium"

Stadium for one purpose, for a team owned by a billionaire, who also left town.

The cost to the city was also far more than just $5 million a year; the total amount the city put behind the stadium was $280 million.

"Of course, HuffPo doesn't write any articles about the zoo tax, because literal rams in cages is a more noble use of money than figurative Rams throwing a football, one presumes."

Or maybe it's because NFL teams, with the exception of the Green Bay Packers, are owned by billionaires who could easily afford to build their own stadium.

And I've never seen a zoo threaten to leave town unless the city agreed to pay for a new elephant habitat.

> Stadium for one purpose

how many of them now are actually one purpose? Local example is AT&T Stadium (also known as "Jerry World") which in addition to the occasional Dallas Cowboys win also hosts a lot of UIL sporting events, high school football playoffs, motocross, monster trucks, rodeo events, and a bunch of concerts.

Nearby Globe Life ballpark has... well, baseball.

> And I've never seen a zoo threaten to leave town unless the city agreed to pay for a new elephant habitat.

Never seen one threaten to leave, but I've seen them threaten to close down exhibits.

This is moving the goalposts, to choose an apt metaphor. The point is twofold:

1) We spend money on other types of cultural amenities all the time and nobody cares; and...

2) That spending is of an amount that lodges it appropriately within this conversation.

Paying taxes to sponsor nonprofits that don't charge for admission is a bit different from paying taxes to sponsor private enterprises that charge hundreds of dollars for tickets and pay multi-million dollar salaries.

Yes, there are differences. For example, another difference is that the people in museums don't wear jerseys, but athletes do. The question isn't whether there are differences; it's whether those differences matter. I don't think they matter. More specifically, I don't think they're relevant to the objections here, which are largely cultural in nature.

In fact, what the high salaries in sports reveal to me is that the public wants sports a lot more than they want museums.

No, I don't believe it's moving any goalposts. The fact of the matter is, the stadiums are for teams owned by billionaires who could easily build their own stadium, and they get far more in subsidies than the other things you mentioned. $1.3 billion was raised in your article, but it was split between several different things.

I think the numbers I posted speak for themselves. You looked at the same numbers and drew a wildly different conclusion (for reasons I think I know).

So I guess that means we're at an impasse.

They did. But you ignored the fact that your original number was the amount raised for several different organizations over a longer period of time. You chose not to mention that, for reasons I think I know.

You're inordinately focused on the fact that the zoo-museum district includes "several different organizations." You seem to think this is a crucially-important fact, one I'm trying to conceal, for some reason, but neither of those beliefs are true.

> You chose not to mention that, for reasons I think I know.

You should re-read my original comment, the one that started this truly silly subthread, which twice reveals that there are multiple organizations included in the district.