Animal control services are one of the prime municipal services ripe for privatization. The animal shelter in Chillicothe has long been successfully operated by the county Humane Society. There are numerous other examples in Missouri, but suffice it to say not every example has been a success.

Complaints about animal abuse in animal shelters are common. The St. Louis County animal shelter was subjected to a series of complaints and lawsuits from its own volunteers in 2018 and 2019.  Eventually, in late 2022, the animal shelter operations were privatized, with the APA running the shelter. Stray Rescue, a non-profit animal welfare agency that previously managed the City of St. Louis’s shelter, was the subject of multiple lawsuits around the same time from volunteers over a variety of issues, including a claim that it was violating its “no-kill” pledge. Stray Rescue soon after (in 2019) lost its contract to operate the city’s animal shelter to another non-profit, Care STL.

Jails are hard places to operate, whether they are for people or animals. The author suspects there is a core group of animal rights “volunteers” who are going to file complaints about any shelter that isn’t entirely a “no-kill” shelter. It doesn’t seem to matter if the shelter is operated by the government or by a non-profit. I don’t claim to have proof, but it is a consistent pattern going back to when Kansas City first privatized its shelter in 2009.

With that in mind, accepting volunteers at a shelter, particularly one that still euthanizes animals, should not be a haphazard process where just anyone can come help. Dedicated volunteers are an important part of any shelter operations, but euthanizing strays may still be a necessity at times. If St. Louis County wants to be more careful in choosing volunteers than most organizations usually are, I think that is understandable.

As is often the case, transparency is key. If you are going to be a “kill” shelter, as I believe is unfortunately necessary at times, just admit it and be clear about the criteria used to make such determinations. Don’t say you won’t and have someone draw up a plan to do it quietly.

As of February 21, St. Louis County is just starting to accept applications for volunteers. I wish them luck. Animal-loving volunteers are wonderful. Animal-rights activists posing as volunteers are quite another thing.

The post St. Louis County is Right to Be Concerned about Volunteers at the Animal Shelter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Wait . . . I Thought the Zoo Was Free appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We’re told early in life that nothing is truly free. If you’ve had to learn this lesson first-hand, you know that some “free” things are actually quite costly.

The Saint Louis Zoo, one of our region’s most beloved institutions, is one of those expensive free things. And soon it could get a whole lot more expensive.

Senate Bill 49 (SB 49), if signed into law, could mean voters in Saint Louis County and City will be asked to hike their sales taxes by one-eighth of one percent (0.125%) to help fund infrastructure, conservation projects, and other zoological activities at the Saint Louis Zoo. By all accounts, the needs at the zoo are genuine—many of its pipes, sewers, etc., are original. But the zoo already receives $21 million—about one-third of its budget—from county and city taxpayers through a property tax. Is ratcheting up the region’s already-high sales taxes the best way to raise additional funds?

Here are some reasons to think not.

Sales taxes in both the county and city just went up. The city’s sales tax rate will soon be 9.179%, higher than New York City’s or San Francisco’s—and another half-percent hike is on the horizon. Things don’t look much better in the county. With the passage of Prop P, Clayton will soon have a rate of 9.113%, as will places like Olivette, Webster Groves, and Ballwin. In Ferguson, sales taxes will sit even higher, at 9.613%. Add in the extra 2% levied by numerous, overlapping special taxing districts, and in some places you’ll be paying more than 11%! A new zoo tax will only make your shopping more expensive, and it will hurt the region’s poor the most.

Considering that policymakers have a seemingly never-ending list of “transformative” or “essential” projects that require tax hikes, is a zoo tax the best use of limited public resources? There is no formula to determine the optimal sales tax rate, nor is there a documented sales tax ceiling, but taxpayers will only stomach so much. If the sky isn’t the limit for tax rates, could a zoo tax help exhaust the region’s sales tax capacity?

And then there’s a basic math issue. The proposed tax could raise roughly $20 million per year if passed in both the county and city, and zoo officials have claimed there is a backlog of needed infrastructure projects that will require approximately $100 million. Accordingly, by conservative estimates, a mere six years of the tax could take care of all the zoo’s infrastructure needs, and an extra year or two could raise tens of millions for conservation efforts. But there is no language in the bill that states the tax would be temporary. So while zoo officials talk of specific needs that justify the tax, they fail to mention that, in addition to taking care of these needs, the tax would increase their annual budget by a third—and, apparently, permanently so.

Finally, a sales tax hike wouldn’t fix the underlying funding problems. Since the zoo does not charge admission, it has what economists call a free-rider problem. Not all of the visitors who enjoy the zoo pay for its operation. The result is a zoo with piling bills and no way to pay for them. But rather than address this problem, a zoo tax would simply exacerbate it. City and county taxpayers who currently subsidize the zoo for everyone would be forced to doubly subsidize the zoo for everyone. And while it’s convenient to say Saint Charles, Franklin, and Jefferson counties should impose a zoo tax too, residents from these counties comprise only 13% of the zoo’s visitors, and taxing them would likewise fail to address the free-rider problem.

There are alternatives to hiking sales taxes, and one in particular deserves greater consideration: charging a reasonable admissions fee. If other top zoos charge more than $50 for admission, visitors can pay a fraction of that to keep ours one of the best in the county. A small admissions fee—for those not currently paying property taxes for the zoo—could raise millions annually, and help avoid hiking an unnecessary, regressive tax.

It’d be great if some things in life were truly free, but they’re not. And nothing is wrong with that. The user-fee system works—it’s both fair and financially sustainable. Let’s hope policymakers and zoo officials keep that in mind in the coming months.

The post To Keep the Zoo Great, Keep It Out of Taxpayers’ Pockets appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Back in April, voters in the City of Saint Louis approved a half-cent “economic development” sales tax hike. The increase, which brings the city’s base sales tax rate to 9.179%, is slated to fund a north–south MetroLink expansion, public safety, workforce development, and other programs. It also makes Saint Louis home to one of the highest sales taxes in the nation. In fact, Saint Louis now has a higher sales tax than New York City and San Francisco.

But policymakers aren’t finished yet.

There are two new sales tax proposals coming down the pipeline. One would raise sales taxes by one-eighth of one percent (0.125%) to help fund infrastructure improvements and conservation efforts at the Saint Louis Zoo, which is already funded with tax dollars. The other would raise the rate by one-half of one percent (0.5%) to bolster public safety spending. If both hikes were approved, the base sales tax rate in the city would be 9.804%, the 6th-highest in the nation. In areas with overlapping special taxing districts (of which there are dozens in the city), the rate would be nearly 12%.

There is neither a formula to determine the proper sales tax rate, nor a proven sales tax “ceiling,” but policymakers should carefully consider the implications of these proposals and whether there are alternatives to raising taxes.

For instance, if these sales taxes are approved, will voters have an appetite for other, more pressing proposals? That is, will these proposals exhaust Saint Louis’s sales-tax capacity? Also, will the proposed hikes disproportionately affect the poor? Is it fair for the city’s poor to subsidize the zoo for visitors from surrounding counties? Moreover, are sales taxes an appropriate source of funding for public safety? Police and firefighters are essentially security guards for taxpayers’ persons and property, so shouldn’t they be paid from property taxes?

Sales taxes can generate significant revenue and are easy to collect, but that doesn’t mean rates should be hiked every time a public need comes around. Perhaps if officials weren’t so eager to hand out taxpayer dollars for corporate welfare, Saint Louis wouldn’t need such high taxes for basic services. So, before asking taxpayers for more, perhaps city officials can reflect and ask themselves, “Can we do more with what we’ve already got?”

The post Saint Louis, the Sales Tax Monster appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The version of the bill in front of the Governor has changed since it was first introduced. Previous drafts would have allowed for similar sales tax hikes in Saint Charles, Franklin, and Jefferson counties. The narrower focus of the bill means distant shoppers won’t have to subsidize the zoo (which is fair), but it also means a smaller portion of the public will shoulder the burden of supporting a “free” zoo. It also means city and county taxpayers could be taxed twice for the zoo. 

Currently, the zoo is supported by visitor spending, donations, and a property tax levied in Saint Louis City and County. So if a sales tax is passed, city and county voters will pay two taxes for the zoo. And while taxpayers would get an improved zoo for that extra money, the new funding wouldn’t fix the underlying problem with the zoo’s funding structure: free riders.

Since no admission is charged at the zoo, city and county taxpayers support the zoo for everyone, from Saint Charles residents to visitors from Hawaii. Predictably, the issue of fairness arises: why should just city and county residents pay for the zoo? While some propose a regional taxing structure to remedy the free-riding problem, in reality it would convert only a portion of the free riders into supporters. A fairer solution would be to charge admission for those not paying zoo property taxes. (For perspective, a $2 admission fee for residents outside the city and county, assuming a 10% reduction in visitors, could raise more than $3.5 million a year.)

A zoo sales tax would worsen the ever-growing sales tax burden for city residents. With the passage of the MetroLink sales tax hike in April, the city’s sales tax rate jumped to 9.179%, the 13th highest of major US cities (and higher than in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco). If a zoo tax were to be approved, the city’s base rate would top 9.3%, and in some areas littered with special taxing districts, be as high as 11.3%. For many city families, these tax increases mean hundreds of dollars a year they cannot spend on food, school supplies, and other goods and services.

We all love the zoo, and there’s no denying it could use some cash for infrastructure and other projects. But taxpayers should think hard about whether sales taxes are a fair way to fund this famous Saint Louis institution.

The post Double Taxation: Saint Louis Zoo Edition appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There are a number of questions surrounding this proposal, and how to fund the Zoo in general. This blog is not the place to exhaustively consider all of them. But there are two essential points that should be at the core of any discussion of the Zoo’s funding future.

First: Should shoppers across the four counties and the city—rich and poor alike—pay for a zoo they may never visit or directly benefit from? Sales taxes are easy to collect, and they can generate significant revenue, but that doesn’t mean they are an economically sound or fair way to fund the zoo. Is it fair to tax someone buying wine in Defiance or Augusta in order to support a zoo miles away in Saint Louis City, that they may never patronize? Moreover, should those in the Zoo-Museum district—working poor included—be taxed twice for the zoo?

One might object that many of the zoo’s visitors come from outside the Zoo-Museum District, often from Saint Charles, Jefferson, and Franklin counties, so they should help pay for this regional amenity. I wholeheartedly agree that those who visit the zoo should pay for it. But a sales tax across those counties would tax far more people who don’t visit the zoo than people who do. As a percentage of total annual visitors, residents from the three above-mentioned counties only comprise 13% of the zoo’s attendance. Now, one could argue that since some people in the Zoo-Museum District pay property taxes for the zoo and never visit, others in the region can make that sacrifice, too. While this reasoning might appeal to those already paying the zoo tax, exporting bad policy doesn’t make it any better.

Secondly: Can the Saint Louis region stomach any more sales tax increases? In many parts of the city and county, sales tax rates are close to 11%, and there is an almost never-ending list of public projects asking for sales tax hikes. In Saint Louis City, a MetroLink expansion proposal includes a 0.5% sales tax hike; in Saint Louis County, Proposition P includes a 0.5% hike for public safety. At what point will the sales tax capacity of the Saint Louis region be exhausted, leaving no room for other projects and initiatives?

It’s important that the zoo has the funds necessary to keep its property and infrastructure in good repair, and no doubt feeding elephants isn’t cheap. But that doesn’t mean just any funding mechanism is appropriate to keep the zoo running. Leaders and policymakers in the region should carefully consider the funding options before them, and not be too hasty to dismiss options like user fees as an appropriate path toward a sustainable funding future.

The post How Should Saint Louis Fund Its Zoo? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Today, more than half of all U.S. states have a private school choice program, but Missouri is not among those states.

It may be the fear of change that prevents opponents of school choice from envisioning what the current K-12 public education system would look like if replaced by a system of choice and competition.

As I found out in my search for the perfect preschool for my three-year-old son, if you want to see Friedman’s vision of a vibrant school marketplace in action, you don’t have to look much further than Missouri’s own preschool market.

In contrast to the increasingly standardized classrooms you might find in the K-12 sector, there are literally hundreds of options in early learning. This includes the Montessori approach, where children learn through their own experiences, as well as the Waldorf approach, where children are provided with a consistent routine in a homelike setting. There are language immersion preschools, religious preschools, and even preschools where children learn through nature, like the preschool program at the St. Louis Zoo.

Picking the right preschool requires consideration of a child’s strengths and weaknesses. My own son, for instance, could use some practice with early numeracy skills like counting, but he dislikes structured educational activities. For him, the play-based preschool approach is best.

Once I found a few preschools offering play-based learning in the St. Louis area, I had to find something in my price range. One of the arguments politicians often make for universal preschool or “preschool for all” is that preschool isn’t affordable for even middle-income households like mine. Therefore, they reason, it should be subsidized for everyone.

In reality, many preschools I found in the area were quite reasonably priced. When you consider that traditional public schools spend over $10,000 per student per year, the $3,500 tuition First Congregational Preschool charges begins to feel manageable.

Why the difference in costs? In the public school system, parents don’t pay for schooling directly and have little choice in where their kids go to school, so it shouldn’t surprise us when we see high costs and low quality. But in the private preschool market, competition (and picking up the tab ourselves) drives costs down.

This isn’t to say that squeezing $3,500 into an already-tight budget will be an easy feat. Obviously, it would be great to save $3,500 per year and send my son to the local school district tuition-free.

But then I remember a simple truth: making something free doesn’t make it quality. And as is the case with many parents, quality is my number one priority. Take Normandy School District: Would providing universal preschool fix the failing district’s problems? Or would it just add another grade onto an already failing school system?

Making preschool free for all could have other unintended consequences, like putting quality preschools out of business and diluting innovation in early learning with standardization and regulation.

Some policy leaders in Missouri and across the nation want to make preschool free for every child. But if we’ve learned anything from the failures of the K12 system, it's that we have to figure out how to leverage the marketplace that already exists, not destroy it. Efforts like Minnesota’s Early Learning Scholarship Program, for example, offer scholarships of up to $7,500 to low-income families to help them afford preschool options. Low-income children gain access to preschool, and the marketplace is preserved—it’s a win-win solution.

I am excited to send my son to a preschool that fits his needs. If Missouri wants to give low-income families that same opportunity, universal pre-K is the not the answer. 

The post Universal Pre-K May Destroy the Preschool Marketplace appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As his business grew, he began taking on local governments as clients. Many public spaces produce plant waste that needs to be disposed of, and cities also need mulch to cover ground in public parks.

Privatization can be controversial, but there are some instances where everyone agrees privatization is a smart move. Municipal mulching services seem to be one such case.

In 2010, the city of St. Louis contracted out its green waste disposal to St. Louis Composting. The move saved the city an estimated quarter-million dollars annually.

“Privatization just made sense,” said Greg Hayes, St. Louis’s forestry commissioner. “Antiquated equipment made our operation inefficient. It saved the city from having to invest a significant sum in new specialized machinery. St. Louis Composting is a well-capitalized, accomplished specialist that knows the business inside and out.”

This seems to be a common story. As a city’s older machinery needs to be replaced, it makes sense to contract out with a specialist like St. Louis Composting rather than burdening a city with the purchase of expensive new machinery.

Patrick estimates that his company now has contracts with around 20 to 25 cities in the eastern half of Missouri. His company even handles much of the animal bedding for the St. Louis Zoo.

I asked Patrick about the environmental aspect of his business and he tells me that soil quality has decreased in the last 30 to 40 years. Recycling organic matter back into the topsoil helps fix this problem. “You feel good about what you do” he said.

The post A Better Way of Doing Saint Louis’ Dirty Work appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Why the need for entrance fees or higher taxes? The district’s institutions, like the zoo, art museum, and history museum, face mounting expenses. For example, just from 2011 to 2014, the art museum’s operating losses grew from $20.2 million to $25.5 million. The zoo’s expenses have also been rising steadily. Add to that ambitious plans for capital improvements (like a gondola over Interstate 64/US 40), and the desire for more revenue is understandable.

The Zoo Museum District depends heavily on property tax revenue. The district’s museums receive the vast majority of their support via property taxes. The zoo, even with private supporters and charges for services, still relies on tax revenue for almost 40 percent of its budget. That property tax, (8 cents per hundred dollars of assessed value in Saint Louis City and County) is maxed out.

Supporters of reform want to broaden the district’s revenue base. They argue it is unfair that Saint Louis City and County taxpayers bear the entire burden of supporting these institutions. Only an estimated 39 percent of zoo visitors come from Saint Louis City and County. Twelve percent are from Saint Charles and Jefferson County, and 37 percent are visiting from outside the Saint Louis area altogether. Mr. Uchitelle’s proposal to make zoo and museum goers pay some sort of entrance fee would allow visitors to jointly invest in these destinations. After all, admission fees are the norm at other popular institutions in Saint Louis, like the Cardinals (obviously), the Botanical Garden, and even the Jewel Box. In other cities, zoos (including the country’s most visited) and museums charge entrance fees without losing their appeal.

Still, to many the idea that zoo or museum improvements should be paid by those who use them is an anathema. They argue that residents at large, regardless of whether they enjoy or approve of the institutions, should have to ensure zoo visitors always get free admission. And because some residents of Saint Charles County and Jefferson County use the zoo, the “fair” method of increasing revenue would be to charge all the residents of Saint Charles and Jefferson County.

There is nothing wrong with putting the question on the ballot in neighboring counties, but convincing residents in Saint Charles and Jefferson County to pay for a luxury hotel and gondolas in Saint Louis City via local property taxes is going to be a hard a sell, “fairness” aside. If the zoo really needs more money for large-scale improvements, perhaps they should take the idea of fairness to its logical conclusion and raise the money from people who actually visit, wherever they might come from. 

The post Zoos, Taxes, and Admissions Charges appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read more about this in Haleigh’s op-ed.

The post Free Rides In The Zoo Museum Taxing District? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Saint Louis Zoo is a great place for families to spend a summer day. Many people like that the zoo does not charge admission, but few visitors know how the zoo is funded. When told that a property tax in Saint Louis City and Saint Louis County pays for the zoo, some visitors were surprised. Residents of Chicago and Tennessee said the free admission is nice. However, two citizens of Saint Louis City think it is unfair that residents of surrounding counties can visit the zoo for free.

While the fairness of this tax is a worthy topic of debate, Haleigh Albers, an intern at the Show-Me Institute, said she is more concerned about the sustainability of this tax. The population of the tax district (Saint Louis City plus Saint Louis County) has been decreasing steadily over the past few decades, meaning that fewer and fewer taxpayers are supporting the zoo.

Not only is the population of the taxing district shrinking but — more importantly — the population also is getting smaller relative to the greater Saint Louis area. Haleigh writes:

At the time the Zoo-Museum District tax was levied on Saint Louis City and Saint Louis County, the residential taxpayers accounted for 62 percent of the population of the greater Saint Louis area. The majority of the typical Zoo-Museum District customers were contributing to its funding. Conversely, in 2010, Saint Louis City and Saint Louis County consisted of only 47 percent of the metro area. Therefore, less than half of the expected patrons were funding the District.

The post Is The Zoo-Museum District An Outdated And Unfair Tax? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When I was a little girl growing up in rural Southern Illinois, my parents often piled my sister and me into the car, packed a cooler full of our favorite foods, and headed across the bridge toward Saint Louis. Our destination: Forest Park. We spent our morning running around the park, ate our picnic lunch, and then strolled through the Saint Louis Zoo. My parents did this quite often, and for good reason: it did not cost them anything more than the gas in the car and food in the cooler.

I did not realize it at the time, but we were “free riders,” meaning we benefitted from public goods without paying for them. Free riders place an unnecessary burden on taxpayers. To reduce this burden, Saint Louisans need to consider long-term funding options to support the institutions like the zoo within Forest Park.

In 1972, Saint Louis City and County passed a property tax to fund the operation of the area’s cultural institutions. The Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District (ZMD) was created and initially funded the Saint Louis Zoo, Art Museum, and Science Center. Later, voters included the Missouri Botanical Garden and the Missouri History Museum in the taxing district. Today, a variety of sources fund the institutions, with the ZMD property tax as the primary source.

At the time Saint Louis City and County levied the tax, the residential taxpayers accounted for 62 percent of the population of the greater Saint Louis area. The majority of the typical ZMD customers were contributing to its funding. Conversely, in 2010, Saint Louis City and County represented only 47 percent of the metro area. Therefore, less than half of the expected patrons were funding the District.

The Zoo Museum District originally was established to help local institutions and residents enrich the area and draw individuals from around the country to experience the cultural wealth located in Saint Louis. The initiative did just that, but many years have passed. Why are the minority of typical patrons paying for the whole? It is time to re-examine the Zoo Museum Taxing District.

Providing neighboring counties in both Missouri and Illinois with the option to join the Zoo Museum Taxing District is a good place to start. If the counties choose not to participate, it may be worth considering admission fees.

The bottom line is that Saint Louis City and County need to strongly consider a more efficient funding strategy for these institutions. Many families like mine make the short trip into Saint Louis to make priceless memories. However, we should not expect Saint Louis City and County taxpayers to bear the entire cost of paying for those memories.

Haleigh Albers is an intern at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Free Rides In The Zoo Museum District? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

View the video here:

The post McGraw Milhaven – David Stokes on KTRS appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

No doubt, the Kansas City Zoo’s funding pales in comparison to some other parks. For example, in 2006, the Saint Louis Zoo’s budget topped $46 million, with nearly half of its funding coming from the Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District (ZMD), which Saint Louis City and County property tax dollars fund. For perspective, the Kansas City Zoo’s budget last year was roughly a quarter that size, at $11.6 million — $3.4 million of which came directly from the city.

Is there a funding disparity here? Has Kansas City, to date, placed a different priority on its zoological park compared to other metropolitan needs? Sure, on both counts. But according to a report in the Kansas City Star that may be changing, and soon:

The zoo on Nov. 8 will ask voters in Jackson and Clay counties to create a new zoo district by approving a 1/8-cent sales tax. It would give the animal park an assured stream of money safe from the uncertainties of the Kansas City municipal budget.

Supporters say it would vault Kansas City into the ranks of the truly great regional and national zoos.

“We’re looking at this as one chance in a lifetime,” said Randy Wisthoff, the zoo’s director. “It could be the most important thing to happen at the zoo in its 100-year history, or in the next 100-year history.”

When every big government project is marketed as a “one chance in a lifetime” opportunity to taxpayers, I have to say, the buzz of the suggestion wears off pretty quickly for me. Phraseology like this, of course, is intended to engender urgency for a cause, but while that’s a fine marketing strategy, it can facilitate really bad, and oftentimes silly, public policy decisions.

How much would a fully-implemented Kansas City zoo tax generate? Quite a bit, actually.

If approved in both counties — it must at least pass in Jackson to take effect — the zoo district could generate $14.2 million a year. That is more than the zoo’s entire budget now and would allow it to accelerate a master plan that calls for a $15 million penguin exhibit, an orangutan jungle and a new display for big cats. Plans also include a water play area for kids and a giraffe feeding station.

Another Kansas City Star report notes that “zoo officials say they need a regional tax base to compete with better-funded zoos,” but, is the market for zoos so lucrative that Kansas City really needs to raise its zoo game with a special tax? As someone who had the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy the zoo as a child two decades ago, I would love to see Kansas City expand its zoo, but I’m not convinced that (1) it’s needed, (2) the taxpayers need to pay for it, or (3) that the economic effect of the zoo justifies special taxpayer attention.

It’s the prerogative of Kansas City area residents to determine their tax burdens, so if they see a benefit from the tax, it shall be. But as someone from a family of zoo supporters, I’m not convinced it’s necessary.

Note: Platte County and Cass County, both of which contain parts of Kansas City, will not vote on the zoo tax next week. Residents in those counties might vote on the issue sometime in 2012.

The post A Wild Idea: Kansas City Votes Nov. 8 On Proposed Zoo Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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!

The post Kansas City Zoo Tax for Kids Who Can’t Read Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Should people from surrounding counties tax themselves to pay for the district like people in St. Louis county and city do? Or should the free riders just be allowed to continue enjoying the zoo without paying for it? I support the bill before the legislature requiring counties like St. Charles, Franklin, and Jefferson either to tax themselves or face having their residents pay an admission fee when they go to the zoo, history museum, et al. If they don’t want to pay the property tax, that is fine, but then say goodbye to free admissions for people outside St. Louis County and city.

I think the St. Charles county executive makes a fair point, though:

[…] Steve Ehlmann said his constituents would be unlikely to vote to join the district unless some of the tax money is earmarked for some institution or service in their county.

I think it is very reasonable to add one park or institution in each county that elects to pay the property tax into the fold of entities supported by the tax. We could add the Daniel Boone home in St. Charles, the historic Washington riverfront park in Franklin County, the first meth lab ever busted in Jefferson County, and — if Illinois got in the game — Pops could be included.

P.S. — Just kidding, Jeff Co., you know I love you. …

The post A Tax I Pay That Others Should, Too appeared first on Show-Me Institute.