Here we go again, Vernon Brown defending spending tax dollars on the Zoo. This broken record is getting older then my monkey crapper jokes;
“Today when we fund the zoo, it’s coming out of our general fund, which would normally fund street repairs, police and things like that. Philosophically, the zoo should be funded with an entertainment tax,” city council member Vernon Brown said.
Philosophically it SHOULD NOT BE FUNDED BY ANY TAXES! Vernon will fight tooth and nail to not provide a service like snowgates (even though a majority of taxpayers support there use) then turn around and complain that the zoo isn’t getting there ‘piece of their (Banana Creme) pie.’
It’s time to get the zoo off of the city’s books and hand it over to a private non-profit. I would even suggest that the city gifts the property to them, and cut our losses. Is the Zoo good for our community? Yes. Should we fund it? No.
I can’t argue with you when we completely agree!
On a related note, How is the Sertoma Butterfly House funded?
Non-Profit thru Sertoma. But I do think the city provides some kind of TIF. Which I think is completely okay. Just because we gift the zoo over to a non-profit doesn’t mean we can’t still be helping out (maintaining the surrounding grounds, TIF’s etc.). I’m just saying, stop the subsidies. As I understand it anyway, a majority of zoo funding doesn’t come from the city anyway, we might as well just pull that bandaid off already.
what vern doesn’t address is, if we give money to the zoo from the entertainment tax, what does that take money away from? and how will vern replace it? if we have enough extra money from this tax, shouldn’t the tax rate be lowered?
Reduce it? LMAO!
All these other subsidized funhouses in the city are scrambling for the money because the Pav will be paid off soon, and won’t need as much of a subsidy.
I see the first reading for Vernon’s proposal is on the Council agenda tonight, Item# 13.
http://siouxfalls.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=22
What is it with the people wo write on this blog? Negativity about everything! Do you support anything that has to do with the City you live and work in? If you all had your way there would be no parks, no swimming pools, no Pavilion, no Zoo, no Convention Center, no Arena. I am all for fiscal responsibility but you all seem to want our community to never grow or provide any quality of life venues for this area. Go live in some small SD community somewhere else and be happy there with nothing going on. Oh, right..you wouldn’t have anything to bitch about then, would you.
The Zoo needs promotion and privatization. A real business entity could make it profitable. The city has never made a profit at anything but traffic camera tickets and unenforceable citations. It’s starting to look like even these are red ink. I worked on amusement park projects for Six Flags and others. The zoo could use an elevated rail ride over the animals with sharp turns through the building.
You are right, it could be profitable. I think the new director has done a fantastic job improving the facility, it’s time to make that final step of separation from the city.
We’ll see what happens in two weeks when they vote on the subsidy.
Pam – What are you talking about? I don’t see how gifting the zoo to a non-profit is negative. My contention with any of these facilities is the same. If there is a need, they would at least break even. The golf courses make money for the city. Parks are not a part of the debate, because they are free to use and I get really tired of people comparing our parks to the zoo or the pavilion, apples and oranges. I think the zoo could be very successful if it was privately run, and I think that is a very positive thing for our community.
I am weary of the lies about these projects. We wre promised that the Pavilion would pay for itself, and it doesn’t. Yet new projects and buildings are being put forward with the same promises as if the taxpayers won’t remember from one year to the next. Each project is presented as necessary for further growth and objections are dismissed as mere obstruction to progress. These projects are enormously expensive and benefit only a small fraction of the population and enrich a handful of politically connected people.
Yet Sioux Falls is growing anyway. Sioux Falls draws people to town from all the surrounding communities for shopping and entertainment already many of whom come to live here.
Growth is not a result of government spending or projects. If this were the 19th century and we were talking about a canal or railroad, that would be one thing, but these projects are ENTERTAINMENT venues. Servicing the least important of economic activities which create their own service industries without gov’t aid.
I’ll say it again, the two greatest assets SF has is our park system and public safety (police and fire) that’s all we need to sell to people.
Agreed.