Says the Virginian (if your location is accurate) who doesn't pay county Erie county taxes. In recent years the game day expense reimbursement is up to 1.44mil and the county also forks an additional operating expense reimbursment of 2.57mil. Thats a total of over 12mil a year. This is a county that has reduced many of its services due to budget contraints. The last thing its should be worried about is paying to support a sports team that doesn't need the money at all and doesn't bring jobs to the area.
Btw your per resident cost is missing a few facts
1. the expenses werent the same every year. They've steadily risen each year. If you can't undertand how 12+mil could be better spent by a cash strapped county I don't know what to tell you. You've also ignored the fact that we are nowing going to be aske to fork over 200+mil to refurbish the stadium.
2. The county tax budren is not evenly distributed. Evryone pays the County sales tax but obviously not in equal proportions. But no where near the county population pays county property taxes. Believe it or not there are actually county residents that aren't fans of pro football let alone the Bills.
Also the comparison to buying a movie ticket is ridiculous.
1. Everyone going to a movie wants to go and chose to spend the money to do so. Every Erie county tax payer is not in agreement with spending that money on the Bills (that includes fans of the team like me) nor had a choice in the matter.
2. If I pay money to see a movie, I actually get to see the movie. My tax dollars going to the Bills does not get me into the stadium nor does it get me a game on TV.
At the of the day you're still asking a pretty daft question. Why do fans around here think they are owed anything? Because we've paid millions to help Ralph make obscene amounts of money and wouldn't mind a bone hrown our way.
I do pay Erie county taxes for various reasons that are irrelevant.
I'll try to make this fairer, then. Say you've personally personally put in $200 in taxes over the past 15 years. I'd say that covers the first objection. The second is a fair objection from your perspective but it reads more as an argument against taxation in proportion. That's fine, but it's not really relevant here, as under the current system people will always be paying more than others for services that they may not personally take advantage of.
For your second set of points I think you're splitting hairs. The only reason I used the example was comparing payment for entertainment, which forced or not will have the same relationship. If you pay money to go see a movie, you have to pay gas money to drive there, pay for parking, etc. There are extraneous costs with every form of entertainment. Buy an AM/FM radio for 10 bucks at target and you've got the Bills in your ear.
You've not paid millions. You haven't even paid thousands, most likely. The Bills don't owe any individual more than what they already provide.