Earlier quoted context omitted.
They might be unhappy when the profitable business are all ran out of town and the unprofitable ones collapse leaving neither behind.
Why do things that serve the public need to be profitable? Are roads profitable? Is sewage treatment profitable? Do you maintain that they should be?
The same ends up being true for publicly ran things as well. Flint is a great example of a town that was not profitable and so Michigan stepped in and changed their water supply to decrease the towns cost (a scenario that would've been avoided if Flint wasn't broke, amongst other ways it could've been avoided). It's just that at the government level you can have many services that cost more than they take in (often because you just don't charge people for the service; which is fine) which get balanced out (eventually) by other "services" (often more general taxes) that take in more money than they cost.
If you live in a town and continuously it spends $X a year and takes in $<X a year, that difference is going to eventually cause a problem. Perhaps it means that roads will stop being repaired. Perhaps it means you'll have boil water notices all the time.