Comments on: A Tax I Pay That Others Should, Too

By: S/A

S/A — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:52:08 +0000

Re: The blog post- I can see not taxing the districts outside of St. Louis City and County (although perhaps we should consider Eureka as elsewhere) with the expectation that being further away the residents of other counties are less likely to visit the district and will come less often than city/country residents at all. I don’t think trying to charge only them admission is a reasonable solution unless you look for it to be based solely on good faith. You would need resident cards issued for everyone in STL and someone to check them at each entrance to each museum. I don’t think the admission from non-STL residents would make up for the costs of enforcing admission.

Re: Josh’s comment- Obviously zoos and museums can be run privately. In most US cities they are. The district here is not entirely funded by property taxes either. All of the district places have gift shops, snack bars and special exhibits that have admission as well as fund raising events and donor ladders.

I do think that the quality of our institutions would be diminished if they were entirely private. The Detroit Zoo charged $14.00 admission when I lived there. (Hence me never having gone as my family could not afford to spend $56.00 admission on a day at the zoo.) The St. Louis Zoo is consistently ranked as one of the best in the US so to maintain that I imagine they would have to charge more than Detroit. (Although with the spread of urban prairie in Detroit one could make the argument that the whole city is turning into a free zoo.) SLAM is also well above average and manages to get many exhibits that no other US cities except NYC and SFO get. While I think the decline in quality would suck this is not really the biggest part of why I am in favor of the district.

I am not opposed to government in general. At local levels I think government can (and should) be used to do really great things for the community. Since on smaller levels it is east to opt out (in this case by residing in St. Charles, Jefferson, or Lincoln counties in MO or by moving to IL) I don’t find this oppressive.

I believe in public support of education. Public schools are not public education. They are only available to those within a certain age range. Libraries and the District ARE public education. They are open to the public. Anyone can go and learn. I realize a lot of people are unaware of the programs each district institution has in addition to the obvious go and look around attraction but they all do. They all have various workshops and lecture series that are open to the public. As I think children could learn more from just spending the time they do in school at libraries and district programs I would be happy to allow you to reduce the public funding by abolishing all the public schools and splitting that money between local libraries and the district however I think most people (unless they have a love of unschooling/Montessori/homeschooling) would not be willing to support something like that. ;)

I have some other points but am tired so if you want to hear them call me.

By: Jake Voss

Jake Voss — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:06:36 +0000

There are so many better spots to tax in WashMo. Let’s see, there’s the ever popular parking lot between Big Lots and Taco Bell. There is the Civil War reenactment house where high schoolers go to smoke. You could always tax the parking lot by Lions Lake that is filled to the brim with 4×4’s 24/7. Oh and of course, Williams Brothers’ Meat Market, home of the Washington Sausage.

By: Josh Smith

Josh Smith — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:14:34 +0000

I may get heavy blowback from this, I know that Sarah Anne is a big fan of the zoo, too. Oh well, here goes.

The proposed change of charging admission to non-residents under the assumption that they have not paid sounds to me like forcing people within the taxing district to buy “memberships” which come with unlimited free admission, and charging prices based on the size of your house. If movie theaters were run this way, I pray that few would stand for it. It would be lamentable if changing the zoo to paid-admission-only resulted in the end of the zoo, but I doubt that this would happen. The important thing is that we are currently forcing the people in the taxing district to pay for “memberships” which many never use, and simply allowing anybody in. The zoo is nice, but if it is not the case that enough people are willing to pay to keep it, then I would be comfortable with them spending their money elsewhere.

Although I can’t deny the “transaction costs” argument that perhaps the people want it, if it only costs them what they currently pay in property tax(and it is desired even by those who never visit or visit very infrequently), but if it meant higher amounts for the people attending it couldn’t sustain itself. This is a slightly tougher argument to get around. Then again, people can always send a check tel-a-athon style. This would prevent the situation where people who don’t care at all about the zoo are forced to pay to keep it.