Sass Still Incompetent  |   Home  |   Sheriff Clarke Backs Taking DNA Upon Arrest

Walker to Propose Privatizing Zoo

Good idea?

The idea would be to save money, although Walker said that would be a long-range goal. Marketing for the zoo could be done more cheaply if it were centralized in a private entity rather than having the county and the zoological society run separate promotions, he said. Management costs also could be cut if the society took over operations, Walker said.

Privatizing also would allow the society to focus more of its fund raising on operating costs, in addition to collecting cash for new exhibits and facilities, the county executive said. The society reported $8.6 million in revenue for 2007, on its most recent nonprofit tax filing.

Walker also said he’d like to freeze the county’s zoo funding at the current $5.9 million.

He called the privatization move a major step, but one that would not be unusual among major zoos in the country.

Our family has been a frequent patron of the zoo and think it’s a great facility.  On the surface, this looks like a great idea that could lead to the zoo being even better.  It’s certainly worth doing some homework and seeing what the details might be.

Posted by Owen at 0641 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. I am not sure if it makes fiscal sense, but I question the political sense.  It an governor’s race, it is too easy for the opposition to paint this in any light they want.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 0831 hrs
   
   
   

2. Frankly I’d like to see the government out of as many things as possible. Private sector is much more efficient.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 0900 hrs
   
   
   

3. I wonder if they couldnt lease some space to private entities and in doing so improve revenue?  If that works out they could privatize some aspects of the zoo without losing control of the overall management. 
   If it works well over a few years time that could lead to privatization of the overall operations.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 0953 hrs
   
   
   

4. Privatizing only makes sense if its NOT a non-profit. Otherwise at some point in the (near) future they will just be asking for a $$ check for operations from the county. If they have to show a profit, you’d get people trying to run it as a real business with a real bottom line to work with trying to make real profits. That breeds real ingenuity and management to make a venture successful.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 1026 hrs
   
   
   

5. Supposing it was a private, for-profit enterprise.  Suppose they did well and became profitable.  Supposing they did so by pricing a lot of county residents out of attendance.  Would we call that a success?

   I don’t really have a firm opinion on whether it should or shouldn’t go private, but I often think that people want to make the decision out of ideology rather than a broader look at the service in question.  (Bill’s comment reminds me of this.)

   The point of having a zoo is to enrich the standard of living in the county.  To provide education, entertainment and recreation for all residents.  What guarantees would we have that a private company would do that?  Do we care if it does not do them?

   Posted by scott on September 21, 2009 at 1107 hrs
   
   
   

6. So the other question to your answer scott is do taxpayers want to subsidize entertainment for others?

   We certainly saw a lot of opposition to Miller Park when that was supported with the sales tax (which will never end).

   I would expect to see the same level of concern for a subsidized zoo.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 1208 hrs
   
   
   

7. I am not sure if this is a good idea, but it is worth looking into.  I am more disturbed by the other part of the article where he basically shuts down the park system.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 1322 hrs
   
   
   

8. I would expect to see the same level of concern for a subsidized zoo.

   Miller Park was built to support a private, for-profit business: The Milwaukee Brewers baseball team.  The zoo is a completely different animal.

   do taxpayers want to subsidize entertainment for others?

   I think that’s a legitimate question.  Do we want to put tax dollars into things like parks, zoos, museums, etc.?  Does the money invested create a commensurately better community in which to live and work?  I’m certain for you the answer is definitely not—others have historically felt differently, as evidenced by our long history of support for such things in the past.  But it’s a legitimate discussion to have, for sure.

   Posted by scott on September 21, 2009 at 1327 hrs
   
   
   

9. Privatizing?  I thought he wanted to eliminate the county board. 

   Thanks, I’ll be here all night.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 1433 hrs
   
   
   

10. I’m not against parks, museums or zoos. But I think it is prudent to investigate all avenues. Government is a poor business person.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2009 at 2234 hrs
    
    
    

11. I’m sure dissertations have been penned on the topic. Other cities—San Francisco, Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston among them—are grappling with the same issue. See TheBlushingNun (one of my million dollar ideas, a site that searches local issues across cities, that never went anywhere).

    A zoo is more than a park to walk around and look at animals. It’s a place where science lives, where a common good is pursued (genetics, ecology, sociology), but one which is not likely to be reproduced by the private sector.

    By all means lease, lease, lease service contracts (think Lake Park Bistro), but by no means give up perpetual stakes.
    
    Remember, only the great societies produced art.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 0144 hrs
    
    
    

12. I think the County should subsidize a few movie theaters. That is more artful and entertaining to me.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 0804 hrs
    
    
    

13. Well, joey, if you think movie theaters aren’t being provided adequately by the private sector, and that they represent an education, recreational and entertainment public good that enhances the overall standard of living—then simply convince your neighbors of it.  Then they’ll be wiling to fund one or two.

    Good luck.

    Posted by scott on September 22, 2009 at 0855 hrs
    
    
    

14. I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but I do like how Walker has held the line on taxes in Milwaukee.  Not sure how many of you have been to parks in Milwaukee lately, but let’s just say it’s a good move, especially during these down economic times.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 1302 hrs
    
    
    

15. I support selling the zoo to the highest bidder and having it run as a for-profit enterprise.

    It is IMO, not the place of the government to provide affordable recreation for the populace.

    I would also advocate selling all of the pools and waterparks the county operates.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 1334 hrs
    
    
    

16. I guess we can assume you feel the same way about all city, county and state parks in the area?

    Posted by scott on September 22, 2009 at 1341 hrs
    
    
    

17. Privitization not only has worked for other zoos, it has been BETTER for all involved. 

    http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=1654

    Anyone who is against exploring the possibility of doing the same thing in Milwaukee clearly doesn’t have the best interest of the Zoo, its patrons, the animals, OR the taxpayers in mind.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 1405 hrs
    
    
    

18. Hey Doug, how do you feel about selling off libraries?
    

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 1550 hrs
    
    
    

19. The message to those who freely contribute gifts to a village, town or city with the idea that the gift is to remain part of the public’s assets is that this is not necessarily so.

    Some questions that may come up:
    1. Would the Zoological Society of Milwaukee continue to supply animals if the Milw. government is no longer maintaining the Zoo?
    1b Do the animals come with the Zoo grounds?
    2. Would Pick ‘n Save continue its “We Care” Program that allows shoppers to elect the Zoological Society as their favorite charity?  Will people contribute less to a private zoo?
    3. Could all the names of all the contributors to the Zoo’s current state be erased or replaced?
    4. Would a buyer get a loan from the city (the taxpayers)?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 22, 2009 at 1930 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.