Kansas City Zoo Tax for Kids Who Can’t Read Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too

July 26, 2010

Kansas City Zoo Tax for Kids Who Can’t Read Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too

Last week, the Kansas City Star ran a story about a recent debate among local politicians in the Kansas portion of the metro area. They were asked whether they supported a regional sales tax to support the zoo, in both Missouri and Kansas counties, and they all said “no”.

This will be played in some circles as a lack of regionalism in the community, with Kansas residents unwilling to support an institution on the Missouri side of the river. I don’t think it is a big deal, because Kansas residents support the zoo every time they attend by paying an admission fee.

This is a more complicated question in St. Louis, where residents of both St. Louis city and county pay a tax for the zoo, and everyone gets in for free. I think that residents of the surrounding counties should be given an option whether to tax themselves to support the zoo or instead have to pay an admission fee. But I don’t think certain people should pay a tax to support a free zoo so that everyone else can also enjoy it for free. (And, yes, I realize you pay for the parking lots, and the train, and the food and drink sales, and the children’s zoo, so you probably spend plenty of money when you attend no matter where you come from.)

I’d like to see St. Charles, Franklin, and Jefferson counties institute a property tax (in the long run, hopefully just a land tax) for support of the zoo. Then the rate could be lowered even further — and it is already a pretty low tax. I also think the other counties should get a representative on the governing board of the zoo if they opt in.

Again though, it’s perfectly fine with me if the residents of those counties choose not to tax themselves for the zoo. In that case, they should pay an admission fee — simple as that. I’d love to hear someone from a surrounding county argue that they should pay neither taxes nor an admission charge to come to the St. Louis Zoo. All aboard the free rider train!

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

8 Comments »

“I think that residents of the surrounding counties should be given an option whether to tax themselves to support the zoo or instead have to pay an admission fee.”

Imposing a tax means that individual residents would not have the opportunity to choose whether or not they support the zoo. Rather than any particular resident being able to decide whether she thinks the zoo is worth supporting, you’re suggesting that her neighbors should choose for her.

There’s no reason for a zoo to be funded by taxes. Both the city and the county should eliminate the zoo tax entirely, and the zoo should implement user fees across the board.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — July 26, 2010 @ 11:45 a.m.
I think it’s much better to have everyone pay an admission fee, and for a reason you don’t address – it prevents the organization from using your money, without your consent, to push ideas you are opposed to. This actually doesn’t matter too much with the zoo, but it matters a LOT with the Missouri History Museum, for example, which has become quite political in my opinion.

(Besides – do we actually have any say in who leads these institutions supported by our money? Maybe we do, I’m just not sure.)

Comment by David Shane — July 26, 2010 @ 4:48 p.m.
@ Mr. Shane,
The zoo-museum district and its various subdistricts is managed by a board appointed by both the St. Louis County Executive and the Mayor of the city of St. Louis.

@ Mr. Dixon,
Two responses. First, while many of the things we discuss or argue for here at SMI might have a limited chance of passing, such as the privatization of teh city water division, the removal of the zoo-museum tax in the city and county has absolutely zero chance of happening, and as such I ignored it.

Comment by David Stokes — July 27, 2010 @ 12:38 p.m.
Well, I screwed that up and accidently posted comment #3 before it was ready to go. So, forgive me the typos which I did not have a chance to correct, and also any snarky tone which would have been altered upon re-reading.

On to part two. I have never met anyone in St. Louis (except for some fellow SMI employees) who, in any conversation at all about taxes, advocated removal of the zoo-museum tax. (I exempt Ed Golterman from this because he has his own reasons for disliking the zoo-museum district.) The people of St. Louis voted decades ago to institute a tax on themselves to support the zoo and the museums. The tax is authorized by state law, unlike some other city taxes I could name. The tax is comparatively low – a $200,000 home pays $95 a year in property taxes to the district. And while I have no polling proof here, I believe the tax is overwhelmingly popular among the people who pay it, and I’d emphasize the last line if I knew how to do that in the comments.

What I am getting to is that at some point one should consider a basic respect for the results of democracy. While my own view is neutral in this exact case of taxes vs. user fees (I’d be perfectly happy to make the change you advocate), if the voters of the city and county choose to tax themselves for something the substantial majority view as a public good, and lacking any evidence that this particular tax is harming the economy, I don’t feel like telling them they are wrong.

As for the surrounding counties in St. Louis, everything I have heard points to it being extremely unlikely they would institute the property tax, which means they should pay an admission fee, just like the residents of Kansas do for the KC zoo.

Comment by David Stokes — July 27, 2010 @ 1:05 p.m.
“The people of St. Louis voted decades ago to institute a tax on themselves to support the zoo and the museums.”

Correction: Some of the people of St. Louis voted decades ago to institute a tax on themselves and on their neighbors, who may or may not have agreed — not to mention on future residents.

I don’t necessarily object to leaving aside a discussion of impractical ideals during a policy discussion, but I do, strenuously, object to use of terminology that makes it sound as though a vote by some people within an arbitrary political boundary represents a choice by all people within that boundary.

I do not respect unjust policies, no matter how democratically they were implemented.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — July 27, 2010 @ 4:42 p.m.
Believe it or not, every person who read the line about the people of the city of St. Louis voting for the zoo tax understood that 100% of the people didn’t vote for it. But that is how democracy works, for better or worse.

You consider the implementation of a local property tax to be “unjust” in this case (and probably most cases but I don’t want to speak for you). Myself, and probably most people (but I don’t want to assume that)- whether they like a particular tax or not – would disagree with you and feel that citizens have a right to enact taxes for public goods if they choose, within constitutional and legal boundaries, which this tax is. That certainly does not make you wrong and the majority right, it is just a different way of viewing things. Nonetheless, I would dispute the notion that the implementation of a local property tax after voter approval – even if I voted against it, as I usually do – rises to the level of an “unjust policy.”

And, knowing your penchant for winning blog disputes by wearing the opposition down through force of intellectual argument and a ferocious drive to always have the last word, I hereby officially submit…

Comment by David Stokes — July 27, 2010 @ 5:36 p.m.
“Believe it or not, every person who read the line about the people of the city of St. Louis voting for the zoo tax understood that 100% of the people didn’t vote for it.”

Word choice can obscure reality. Even if people implicitly understand that the process of voting involves coercively imposing the will of some people onto non-consenting others, they often ignore its implications unless specifically reminded of that fact. Even if you think this particular level of coercion is appropriate or justified in some sense, framing a vote simply as a choice by people in general makes it seem, rhetorically, as though there’s no coercion involved — as though it were strictly voluntary rather than an imposition on some by others.

A policy doesn’t have to entail enormous and egregious violations of rights in order to be considered unjust. In this case, in which some people have imposed a tax both on themselves and on non-consenting others, the force of government springs into action to expropriate more of the residents’ personal property than they would have otherwise had forcibly taken from them. The fact that this particular tax rate is relatively small makes this a small injustice, perhaps, but still an injustice.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — July 27, 2010 @ 5:58 p.m.
I agree with someone on this blog! Please please please make those free-riding soccer moms from Arnold pay! It’s entirely crazy that the ZMD chose so far to not implement user fees even though Joan Bray made that an option. By including more counties into a user fee the per capita cost would decline while we would also have more funding for capital improvements.

Majority rules and they voted to fund the ZMD decades ago. Don’t like it? Move to St. Charles, become a free-rider, destroy the environment every time you visit, and enjoy your TIF Wall-Mart.

Comment by Douglas Duckworth — July 28, 2010 @ 12:13 a.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Categories

“I think that residents of the surrounding counties should be given an option whether to tax themselves to support the zoo or instead have to pay an admission fee.”

Imposing a tax means that individual residents would not have the opportunity to choose whether or not they support the zoo. Rather than any particular resident being able to decide whether she thinks the zoo is worth supporting, you’re suggesting that her neighbors should choose for her.

There’s no reason for a zoo to be funded by taxes. Both the city and the county should eliminate the zoo tax entirely, and the zoo should implement user fees across the board.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — July 26, 2010 @ 11:45 a.m.

I think it’s much better to have everyone pay an admission fee, and for a reason you don’t address – it prevents the organization from using your money, without your consent, to push ideas you are opposed to. This actually doesn’t matter too much with the zoo, but it matters a LOT with the Missouri History Museum, for example, which has become quite political in my opinion.

(Besides – do we actually have any say in who leads these institutions supported by our money? Maybe we do, I’m just not sure.)

Comment by David Shane — July 26, 2010 @ 4:48 p.m.

@ Mr. Shane,
The zoo-museum district and its various subdistricts is managed by a board appointed by both the St. Louis County Executive and the Mayor of the city of St. Louis.

@ Mr. Dixon,
Two responses. First, while many of the things we discuss or argue for here at SMI might have a limited chance of passing, such as the privatization of teh city water division, the removal of the zoo-museum tax in the city and county has absolutely zero chance of happening, and as such I ignored it.

Comment by David Stokes — July 27, 2010 @ 12:38 p.m.

Well, I screwed that up and accidently posted comment #3 before it was ready to go. So, forgive me the typos which I did not have a chance to correct, and also any snarky tone which would have been altered upon re-reading.

On to part two. I have never met anyone in St. Louis (except for some fellow SMI employees) who, in any conversation at all about taxes, advocated removal of the zoo-museum tax. (I exempt Ed Golterman from this because he has his own reasons for disliking the zoo-museum district.) The people of St. Louis voted decades ago to institute a tax on themselves to support the zoo and the museums. The tax is authorized by state law, unlike some other city taxes I could name. The tax is comparatively low – a $200,000 home pays $95 a year in property taxes to the district. And while I have no polling proof here, I believe the tax is overwhelmingly popular among the people who pay it, and I’d emphasize the last line if I knew how to do that in the comments.

What I am getting to is that at some point one should consider a basic respect for the results of democracy. While my own view is neutral in this exact case of taxes vs. user fees (I’d be perfectly happy to make the change you advocate), if the voters of the city and county choose to tax themselves for something the substantial majority view as a public good, and lacking any evidence that this particular tax is harming the economy, I don’t feel like telling them they are wrong.

As for the surrounding counties in St. Louis, everything I have heard points to it being extremely unlikely they would institute the property tax, which means they should pay an admission fee, just like the residents of Kansas do for the KC zoo.

Comment by David Stokes — July 27, 2010 @ 1:05 p.m.

“The people of St. Louis voted decades ago to institute a tax on themselves to support the zoo and the museums.”

Correction: Some of the people of St. Louis voted decades ago to institute a tax on themselves and on their neighbors, who may or may not have agreed — not to mention on future residents.

I don’t necessarily object to leaving aside a discussion of impractical ideals during a policy discussion, but I do, strenuously, object to use of terminology that makes it sound as though a vote by some people within an arbitrary political boundary represents a choice by all people within that boundary.

I do not respect unjust policies, no matter how democratically they were implemented.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — July 27, 2010 @ 4:42 p.m.

Believe it or not, every person who read the line about the people of the city of St. Louis voting for the zoo tax understood that 100% of the people didn’t vote for it. But that is how democracy works, for better or worse.

You consider the implementation of a local property tax to be “unjust” in this case (and probably most cases but I don’t want to speak for you). Myself, and probably most people (but I don’t want to assume that)- whether they like a particular tax or not – would disagree with you and feel that citizens have a right to enact taxes for public goods if they choose, within constitutional and legal boundaries, which this tax is. That certainly does not make you wrong and the majority right, it is just a different way of viewing things. Nonetheless, I would dispute the notion that the implementation of a local property tax after voter approval – even if I voted against it, as I usually do – rises to the level of an “unjust policy.”

And, knowing your penchant for winning blog disputes by wearing the opposition down through force of intellectual argument and a ferocious drive to always have the last word, I hereby officially submit…

Comment by David Stokes — July 27, 2010 @ 5:36 p.m.

“Believe it or not, every person who read the line about the people of the city of St. Louis voting for the zoo tax understood that 100% of the people didn’t vote for it.”

Word choice can obscure reality. Even if people implicitly understand that the process of voting involves coercively imposing the will of some people onto non-consenting others, they often ignore its implications unless specifically reminded of that fact. Even if you think this particular level of coercion is appropriate or justified in some sense, framing a vote simply as a choice by people in general makes it seem, rhetorically, as though there’s no coercion involved — as though it were strictly voluntary rather than an imposition on some by others.

A policy doesn’t have to entail enormous and egregious violations of rights in order to be considered unjust. In this case, in which some people have imposed a tax both on themselves and on non-consenting others, the force of government springs into action to expropriate more of the residents’ personal property than they would have otherwise had forcibly taken from them. The fact that this particular tax rate is relatively small makes this a small injustice, perhaps, but still an injustice.

Comment by Eric D. Dixon — July 27, 2010 @ 5:58 p.m.

I agree with someone on this blog! Please please please make those free-riding soccer moms from Arnold pay! It’s entirely crazy that the ZMD chose so far to not implement user fees even though Joan Bray made that an option. By including more counties into a user fee the per capita cost would decline while we would also have more funding for capital improvements.

Majority rules and they voted to fund the ZMD decades ago. Don’t like it? Move to St. Charles, become a free-rider, destroy the environment every time you visit, and enjoy your TIF Wall-Mart.

Comment by Douglas Duckworth — July 28, 2010 @ 12:13 a.m.

July 26, 2010