Readers: Expand the Zoo-Museum District
More than half the readers that voted in the poll last week said the five Zoo-Museum Institutions (Zoo, Art Museum, History Museum, Science Center, and Botanical Gardens) should not offer discounts as proposed by one member of the ZMD Board:
Q: Should Zoo-Museum Institutions Offer Discounts to City & County Residents?
- No, more of the region should fund these institutions so we all pay a lower rate. 41 [32.03%]
- No, leave it as is. 30 [23.44%]
- Yes they should offer something, but not free parking 19 [14.84%]
- Yes they should offer something, especially free parking 16 [12.5%]
- Maybe, let each institution how to thank city & county residents 13 [10.16%]
- Other answer… 5 [3.91%]
- No, reducing the tax rate would be better 2 [1.56%]
- Unsure/no opinion 2 [1.56%]
I think expanding the size of the district so more of the region shares in the costs is a good idea. Of course those of us already paying wouldn’t see a rate reduction, does that ever happen? Still I could see counties such as Jefferson and St. Charles paying something, just not the same as St. Louis City & County. But the more of the region paying in then there will be those who think some or all of the institutions should leave the city. Â I suppose there are already institutions in the region that could be added?
Here are the other answers that were provided:
- erect big signs thanking STL/CO citizen funding to make freeloaders feel guilty
- Yes. City/County residents should get basic member discounts.
- County residents should get a discount; they subsidize City residents.
- Perhaps free parking for out-of-state cars to encourage local usage of other tra
- expand the district
I thought #3 was interesting. Â The city has about 25% of the combined population of the city & county and it only contributes 15% of the tax revenue, so one could twist that into the county subsidizing the city. Of course the city foots the bill for police & fire services to these institutions.
– Steve Patterson
The responses mirror those associated with any subsidy – if you benefit, it’s a good thing, if you pay, not so much – it doesn’t matter if it’s the Botanical Gardens, Busch Stadium or Maplewood Commons. The ZMD tax isn’t that much different than a commercial TIF – taxes go to enhancing the income stream of favored institutions, while others are left to fend for themselves. Why is the Art Museum deserving of a subsidy while the Contemporary Art Museum is not? Why does the History Museum get support while the Griot Museum of Black History & Culture does not? Why does the Science Center get dollars while the City Museum doesn’t? Since we probably won’t get the voters in St. Chuck or Jeffco to join the district, nor will we be able to convince the current taxpayers to increase taxes to add more deserving institutions, the better answer would be to gradually phase out the subsidies, and let all the institutions survive or fail based on their ability to attract paying visitors and wealthy benefactors (kind of like how religion works).
The responses mirror those associated with any subsidy – if you benefit, it’s a good thing, if you pay, not so much – it doesn’t matter if it’s the Botanical Gardens, Busch Stadium or Maplewood Commons. The ZMD tax isn’t that much different than a commercial TIF – taxes go to enhancing the income stream of favored institutions, while others are left to fend for themselves. Why is the Art Museum deserving of a subsidy while the Contemporary Art Museum is not? Why does the History Museum get support while the Griot Museum of Black History & Culture does not? Why does the Science Center get dollars while the City Museum doesn’t? Since we probably won’t get the voters in St. Chuck or Jeffco to join the district, nor will we be able to convince the current taxpayers to increase taxes to add more deserving institutions, the better answer would be to gradually phase out the subsidies, and let all the institutions survive or fail based on their ability to attract paying visitors and wealthy benefactors (kind of like how religion works).
Can see your argument and can always counter argue that the City Museum was a private venture decidely based on one persons desire and therefore never a guarantee of public support. Plus, you will always have these arguements, why should something be supported and something else is not whenever taxes are involved. My family clearly benefitted by Shrewsbury parks yet it is only a matter of time before my son out grows a jungle gym. So why should I have to be anymore taxes? this will never go away and your never going to resolve it. My point, the voters agreed to create the museum district and that is what it is.
That being said, I think the crux of the problem is that we essentially got four institutions/tax districts between the city, county, localities and museum district in which any resident of the city or county is paying into three of the four. So what would be better in my mind? Time to consolidate the cities major parks such as Forest Park and Tower Grove, the Museum District and County park system into one tax district/Authority with a designated percentage for the musuem district institutions. This would consolidate the park systems for city and county residents into two distinct tax districts, Large parks/museum district under the same tax rate for city and county residents while it leaves individual cities/munis to decide on what amenitities their tax base will be willing to support. or if you want to use that word that everybody hates but makes sense for the region, time to start MERGING something.
Can see your argument and can always counter argue that the City Museum was a private venture decidely based on one persons desire and therefore never a guarantee of public support. Plus, you will always have these arguements, why should something be supported and something else is not whenever taxes are involved. My family clearly benefitted by Shrewsbury parks yet it is only a matter of time before my son out grows a jungle gym. So why should I have to be anymore taxes? this will never go away and your never going to resolve it. My point, the voters agreed to create the museum district and that is what it is.Â
That being said, I think the crux of the problem is that we essentially got four institutions/tax districts between the city, county, localities and museum district in which any resident of the city or county is paying into three of the four. So what would be better in my mind? Time to consolidate the cities major parks such as Forest Park and Tower Grove, the Museum District and County park system into one tax district/Authority with a designated percentage for the musuem district institutions. This would consolidate the park systems for city and county residents into two distinct tax districts, Large parks/museum district under the same tax rate for city and county residents while it leaves individual cities/munis to decide on what amenitities their tax base will be willing to support. or if you want to use that word that everybody hates but makes sense for the region, time to start MERGING something.