Some of the things I noticed:

1. The musicians just assume that corporations will throw their money to sponsor an entity they get nothing from. Companies don't make money and pay their employees by giving it away. If they sponsor the Symphony there needs to be a return. Did that sponsorship drive business back to them? Just because the population has grown does not mean that attendance has grown. What did the symphony do to increase ticket sales? Did they advertise? Did they do community outreach to create interest in a form of music many are never exposed to, (unless they have good school music programs)? Stop demanding others give you their money. Earn it!

The "elephant in the room" loses me before I ever read it when it leads in saying "what a city the size of San Antonio can or cannot support". According to who? The writer? The musicians? The tax payers? The tourists? Some major cities won't pay for pro sports anymore because the tax payers have said no more. Just because a few people want something doesn't mean enough people do.

If the musicians can organize and move forward without the Symphony society good for them. But are they moving forward at the same pay scale they were demanding with benefits? Or did they have to make cuts to make it happen? If they did it without cuts, good job. If they had to make the cuts then now they understand how budgets and income work.

I love classical music but admit I have been a paying customer to a Professional symphony 1 time in the last 10 years. I have spent a LOT of money over that same time frame on Theater, both drama and musicals. Is it the symphony's fault I don't attend? Maybe. But those musician's working with the theater are getting paid and I have limited entertainment funds available and limited time.