St. Louisans Should Support the Zoo!

April 15, 2009

St. Louisans Should Support the Zoo!

I love zoos. Some of my fondest memories of my youth are of my trips to the zoos in Knoxville, Birmingham, and Atlanta. When my wife and I lived near the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., the fact that my morning runs took me right past the elephants, cheetahs, and gibbons gave me motivation to get up and get going. Since moving to St. Louis, I have happily gone to visit our fabulous zoo with several of my nieces and nephews.

That having been said, I have to disagree with Dave’s take on proposals to expand taxation in support of St. Louis’ zoo and museums. My problem with the plan is this: Taxation forcibly strips people of hard-earned money. These are dollars that, if not for taxation, citizens could use to buy flowers for their significant other, pay down debt, improve their home, put into a college fund, or give to charity — whatever was most important to them. If the government is going to take that money away from those who earned it, it should only take as much as is necessary to provide the services and infrastructure necessary for the well-being of society — such as roads, law enforcement, education, and so forth.

No matter how much I love zoos, they are not institutions vital to the well-being of a community. They are a luxury, and not even a luxury that everyone will want to enjoy. Why should people with no interest in going to the zoo be compelled to financially support those who do? And, on the flip side, why should those who would like to go to a zoo be able to force their neighbors to subsidize their entertainment? I’m sorry, Dave, but zoos should be supported only by people who don’t have to be coerced to give them funding.

Thus, the ideal free-market solution in this case would be to replace taxation on behalf of the city’s zoos and museums with a reasonable admission fee of $20–$25, perhaps charging half price for children aged 5–13 and letting kids younger than five get in for free. The zoo’s board could even choose to adopt a policy that would offer free or reduced-price admission to people of slender economic means, if it felt strongly that no one’s ability to experience the zoo should be limited by their ability to pay. This sort of arrangement would guarantee that the zoo would continue to be supported by those who want to enjoy it, solving the “free rider” problem while lightening the tax burden for those living in the area. And, once the government quit taking that portion of their money, area taxpayers who were so inclined could then use it to, y’know, support the zoo!

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

12 Wordpress Comments »

And though it is something of a lofty pipe dream at present, there may come a day when a sufficient amount of wealthy benefactors (or one sufficiently wealthy benefactor) decide that the zoo should be free for all and write an endowment check that will keep it free.

Comment by Josh Smith — April 16, 2009 @ 9:59 a.m.
Dave,
As much as you think you are disagreeing with me, you really aren’t. I didn’t say to tax the people of St. Charles, Jefferson, Franklin Co., etc., I said they should be allowed to choose if they want to tax themselves and if they choose not to they should pay an admission fee. I really don’t care if they choose to tax themselves or not – that is up to them.
This is what the bill in Jefferson City is about. There is no proposal to change the way the zoo, history museum, etc. are funded by taxes on residents of St. Louis city and county, nor is there any public support to make a change.

Comment by David Stokes — April 16, 2009 @ 10:20 a.m.
To the contrary, Dave, I do think it’s a problem that there is even a proposal for this question to be put to a vote. Residents in nearby counties already have the choice to support the zoo if they wish – it is not dependent on any vote. If residents of those counties vote on this issue, at stake will be whether donations to the zoo will be involuntarily taken from those who DO NOT wish to support it – as is currently the situation in the zoo-museum taxing district. There may not currently be sufficient support to get the tax repealed in St. Louis City and County, but (as I pointed out) this does not mean that everyone paying the tax would rather their money go to these institutions than, say, toward their mortgage payment or retirement account. Regardless of whether people are currently motivated to change the status quo, the free-market ideal is something along the lines of what I proposed.

Comment by Dave Roland — April 16, 2009 @ 10:38 a.m.
So should the residents of outlying counties get to continue going for free as much as they want to? Or should they be forced to pay admission fees even if the overwhelming majority of them wanted to join the zoo-museum district?

Comment by David Stokes — April 16, 2009 @ 10:49 a.m.
Perhaps my original post wasn’t clear, so I’ll attempt to clarify. As it currently stands, ALL residents of the taxing district (even those with no interest in zoos or museums) are paying EVERYONE’s admission fees. It’s “payment mandatory, attendance optional”, as one of my friends likes to point out. If my plan were adopted, the difference would be that anyone interested in attending the zoo (regardless of where they live) would pay their own admission fee, based on the guidelines I discussed in the original post. I will point out again that anyone who wanted to could go the extra mile by pursuing any of the options on the “Support the Zoo” portion of the zoo’s website. And if the institutions’ boards wanted to encourage these kinds of donations, they could offer free/reduced price admission to those who chose to make charitable contributions. Thus, the zoo/museums would be completely supported by willing patrons rather than compulsory taxation. If, as you suggest, the “overwhelming majority” of the population chooses to pursue this route, the zoo will be as prosperous as ever – and those who are not interested in such things will be more prosperous as well because they can redirect part of their money from taxes to wherever they think that money would be most useful for them.

Now I’ve got a question for you: how does it fit with free-market ideology to allow a majority of voters to force their unwilling fellow taxpayers to pay for other people’s entertainment?

Comment by Dave Roland — April 16, 2009 @ 11:17 a.m.
So you think people in outlying counties should be required to pay admission fees to the zoo and not even be given the option of joining the taxing district, and you think Senator Bray’s latest version of the bill should become law. That is all I wanted you to say.

The zoo-museum district was adopted by voters a long time ago in the city and county. It has worked very well, judging by the quality of the assets, and, judging by the lack of any movement whatsoever to change it, it is popular. I could not care less whether it fits into a nicely packaged free-market ideology.

Comment by David Stokes — April 16, 2009 @ 11:36 a.m.
Nothing I have said suggests that I support Senator Bray’s bill. Broadening the general theme of my argument to address this specific proposal, I would say that it is poor policy to legislatively impose admission costs for an entertainment venue on a limited group of people. Thus, it is poor policy both to tax residents for the support of St. Louis’s Zoo AND it is poor policy to say that only residents of outlying counties should be charged admission. A wiser, less ideological policy that concedes the unlikelihood of repealing the currently-existing taxes would be for the zoo to charge admission, but to grant free or reduced-price admission to those who can demonstrate that they live or work in the tax district.

Comment by Dave Roland — April 16, 2009 @ 11:53 a.m.
The Missouri Botanical Garden has a policy of charging reduced price admissions to St. Louis city and county residents. Currently, the zoo charges pretty hefty fees to get into some of its “premium” attractions, like the Children’s Zoo and movies, and for parking.
I personally like the fact that admission is free. It makes it possible to drop in for quick visits or just go for a walk among the animals. At some level, it’s inevitable that we’re all going to pay for things we don’t use through our taxes. Where do you set the cut-off? For instance, I think most people would agree that it’s OK for tax money to support parks, even though some of us might not ever visit them.

Comment by Mike S. — April 16, 2009 @ 12:29 p.m.
“it should only take as much as is necessary to provide the services and infrastructure necessary for the well-being of society — such as roads, law enforcement, *education*, and so forth.”

boo

Comment by vroman — April 16, 2009 @ 12:33 p.m.
I agree with the eminent Mike S. – having a free zoo is a fantastic thing – as anyone with small children who lives near Lincoln Park in Chicago. Here in London all museums are free but special exhibits are not. Hence, if we go to the Natural History museum and my daughter has a meltdown after 20 minutes (not that this has ever occurred) I’m not out £15 to do so. Same with visitors to St. Louis – if they want to stop in and see one of America’s best zoos for an hour while they tour Forest Park they can do so without factoring in the issue of cost.
There are little things that often make a city worth living in and/or visiting. Free admissions are one of them.

Comment by Mike — April 17, 2009 @ 3:12 a.m.
I will agree with you that it is incredibly nice and convenient to be able to drop into a zoo or museum without the hassle of paying at the front gate or waiting in line. The point that you seem to be missing is that it is not “free,” and the price of your convenience and entertainment is – unnecessarily – being foisted upon many people who might prefer to use their money on something else. For example, many zoos (and museums and theme parks) allow patrons to buy season passes that grant unlimited access. This gives purchasers the kind of convenience you praise without passing along the cost to people who don’t even like those kinds of attractions.

Another point (that Josh hinted at in his comment) is that if enough people in the community value being “a city worth living in and/or visiting” due to the absence of admission fees, they can (and should) make that a reality as well without putting the cost on unwilling neighbors. If you value these things in your city, launch a drive to persuade people to join you in building the endowments of these institutions!

The reason I am hitting this point so hard is because once the majority of a population is willing to force their neighbors to bear the costs for purposes that sound nice, but are not truly necessary, there is no longer any principled reason why a majority should refrain from doing the same for ANY purpose. After all, many may think it’s a nice idea for a city to offer low-cost public transportation. Or for a city to have publicly-funded stadiums or arenas for professional sports franchises. Or to make sure that historic buildings cannot be significantly altered. Or to replace a working-class neighborhood with a classy shopping center.

But all of these unnecessary “conveniences” come with a cost. It simply cannot be sufficient for those in favor to say “I will gain enjoyment and/or prosperity from the implementation of this idea, so you should have to pay for it.” Unless a goal or policy is truly needed for the well-being of society, the associated costs should be borne exclusively by those who are willing and able to do so.

Comment by Dave Roland — April 17, 2009 @ 4:23 p.m.
Speaking of the zoo, it looks like SLPS is counting on that institution to turn them around:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/1D42DA35299139398625759A000E2948?OpenDocument
Stay tuned for details…

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — April 19, 2009 @ 2:21 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Or you can use our new Facebook commenting system!

Categories

And though it is something of a lofty pipe dream at present, there may come a day when a sufficient amount of wealthy benefactors (or one sufficiently wealthy benefactor) decide that the zoo should be free for all and write an endowment check that will keep it free.

Comment by Josh Smith — April 16, 2009 @ 9:59 a.m.

Dave,
As much as you think you are disagreeing with me, you really aren’t. I didn’t say to tax the people of St. Charles, Jefferson, Franklin Co., etc., I said they should be allowed to choose if they want to tax themselves and if they choose not to they should pay an admission fee. I really don’t care if they choose to tax themselves or not – that is up to them.
This is what the bill in Jefferson City is about. There is no proposal to change the way the zoo, history museum, etc. are funded by taxes on residents of St. Louis city and county, nor is there any public support to make a change.

Comment by David Stokes — April 16, 2009 @ 10:20 a.m.

To the contrary, Dave, I do think it’s a problem that there is even a proposal for this question to be put to a vote. Residents in nearby counties already have the choice to support the zoo if they wish – it is not dependent on any vote. If residents of those counties vote on this issue, at stake will be whether donations to the zoo will be involuntarily taken from those who DO NOT wish to support it – as is currently the situation in the zoo-museum taxing district. There may not currently be sufficient support to get the tax repealed in St. Louis City and County, but (as I pointed out) this does not mean that everyone paying the tax would rather their money go to these institutions than, say, toward their mortgage payment or retirement account. Regardless of whether people are currently motivated to change the status quo, the free-market ideal is something along the lines of what I proposed.

Comment by Dave Roland — April 16, 2009 @ 10:38 a.m.

So should the residents of outlying counties get to continue going for free as much as they want to? Or should they be forced to pay admission fees even if the overwhelming majority of them wanted to join the zoo-museum district?

Comment by David Stokes — April 16, 2009 @ 10:49 a.m.

Perhaps my original post wasn’t clear, so I’ll attempt to clarify. As it currently stands, ALL residents of the taxing district (even those with no interest in zoos or museums) are paying EVERYONE’s admission fees. It’s “payment mandatory, attendance optional”, as one of my friends likes to point out. If my plan were adopted, the difference would be that anyone interested in attending the zoo (regardless of where they live) would pay their own admission fee, based on the guidelines I discussed in the original post. I will point out again that anyone who wanted to could go the extra mile by pursuing any of the options on the “Support the Zoo” portion of the zoo’s website. And if the institutions’ boards wanted to encourage these kinds of donations, they could offer free/reduced price admission to those who chose to make charitable contributions. Thus, the zoo/museums would be completely supported by willing patrons rather than compulsory taxation. If, as you suggest, the “overwhelming majority” of the population chooses to pursue this route, the zoo will be as prosperous as ever – and those who are not interested in such things will be more prosperous as well because they can redirect part of their money from taxes to wherever they think that money would be most useful for them.

Now I’ve got a question for you: how does it fit with free-market ideology to allow a majority of voters to force their unwilling fellow taxpayers to pay for other people’s entertainment?

Comment by Dave Roland — April 16, 2009 @ 11:17 a.m.

So you think people in outlying counties should be required to pay admission fees to the zoo and not even be given the option of joining the taxing district, and you think Senator Bray’s latest version of the bill should become law. That is all I wanted you to say.

The zoo-museum district was adopted by voters a long time ago in the city and county. It has worked very well, judging by the quality of the assets, and, judging by the lack of any movement whatsoever to change it, it is popular. I could not care less whether it fits into a nicely packaged free-market ideology.

Comment by David Stokes — April 16, 2009 @ 11:36 a.m.

Nothing I have said suggests that I support Senator Bray’s bill. Broadening the general theme of my argument to address this specific proposal, I would say that it is poor policy to legislatively impose admission costs for an entertainment venue on a limited group of people. Thus, it is poor policy both to tax residents for the support of St. Louis’s Zoo AND it is poor policy to say that only residents of outlying counties should be charged admission. A wiser, less ideological policy that concedes the unlikelihood of repealing the currently-existing taxes would be for the zoo to charge admission, but to grant free or reduced-price admission to those who can demonstrate that they live or work in the tax district.

Comment by Dave Roland — April 16, 2009 @ 11:53 a.m.

The Missouri Botanical Garden has a policy of charging reduced price admissions to St. Louis city and county residents. Currently, the zoo charges pretty hefty fees to get into some of its “premium” attractions, like the Children’s Zoo and movies, and for parking.
I personally like the fact that admission is free. It makes it possible to drop in for quick visits or just go for a walk among the animals. At some level, it’s inevitable that we’re all going to pay for things we don’t use through our taxes. Where do you set the cut-off? For instance, I think most people would agree that it’s OK for tax money to support parks, even though some of us might not ever visit them.

Comment by Mike S. — April 16, 2009 @ 12:29 p.m.

“it should only take as much as is necessary to provide the services and infrastructure necessary for the well-being of society — such as roads, law enforcement, *education*, and so forth.”

boo

Comment by vroman — April 16, 2009 @ 12:33 p.m.

I agree with the eminent Mike S. – having a free zoo is a fantastic thing – as anyone with small children who lives near Lincoln Park in Chicago. Here in London all museums are free but special exhibits are not. Hence, if we go to the Natural History museum and my daughter has a meltdown after 20 minutes (not that this has ever occurred) I’m not out £15 to do so. Same with visitors to St. Louis – if they want to stop in and see one of America’s best zoos for an hour while they tour Forest Park they can do so without factoring in the issue of cost.
There are little things that often make a city worth living in and/or visiting. Free admissions are one of them.

Comment by Mike — April 17, 2009 @ 3:12 a.m.

I will agree with you that it is incredibly nice and convenient to be able to drop into a zoo or museum without the hassle of paying at the front gate or waiting in line. The point that you seem to be missing is that it is not “free,” and the price of your convenience and entertainment is – unnecessarily – being foisted upon many people who might prefer to use their money on something else. For example, many zoos (and museums and theme parks) allow patrons to buy season passes that grant unlimited access. This gives purchasers the kind of convenience you praise without passing along the cost to people who don’t even like those kinds of attractions.

Another point (that Josh hinted at in his comment) is that if enough people in the community value being “a city worth living in and/or visiting” due to the absence of admission fees, they can (and should) make that a reality as well without putting the cost on unwilling neighbors. If you value these things in your city, launch a drive to persuade people to join you in building the endowments of these institutions!

The reason I am hitting this point so hard is because once the majority of a population is willing to force their neighbors to bear the costs for purposes that sound nice, but are not truly necessary, there is no longer any principled reason why a majority should refrain from doing the same for ANY purpose. After all, many may think it’s a nice idea for a city to offer low-cost public transportation. Or for a city to have publicly-funded stadiums or arenas for professional sports franchises. Or to make sure that historic buildings cannot be significantly altered. Or to replace a working-class neighborhood with a classy shopping center.

But all of these unnecessary “conveniences” come with a cost. It simply cannot be sufficient for those in favor to say “I will gain enjoyment and/or prosperity from the implementation of this idea, so you should have to pay for it.” Unless a goal or policy is truly needed for the well-being of society, the associated costs should be borne exclusively by those who are willing and able to do so.

Comment by Dave Roland — April 17, 2009 @ 4:23 p.m.

Speaking of the zoo, it looks like SLPS is counting on that institution to turn them around:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/1D42DA35299139398625759A000E2948?OpenDocument
Stay tuned for details…

Comment by Sarah Brodsky — April 19, 2009 @ 2:21 p.m.

April 15, 2009