May 09, 2006
Zooillogical Garage

I like the Woodland Park Zoo, but I'm not persuaded by the logic behind the proposed parking garage:

Although the garage is expected to cost about $16.2 million to build, by the time the debt and interest is paid, it will total more than $30 million. The zoo and the city are committed to coming up with $1.5 million in payments each year for 20 years.

The city and the zoo anticipate that $19 million of that debt will be covered by parking fees, but the rest of it -- $11 million -- won't be, and will have to be covered 75 percent by the city and 25 percent by the zoo.

The amount projected to be paid for by parking fees appears to be based solely on wishful thinking. We also learn that
According to city studies, there are now plenty of spaces in zoo lots for visitors 264 days of the year.
It seems more than a little silly for the zoo and the city to commit to spending $1.5 million a year to create more parking for the peak 100 days of the year. After all, that's roughly $2.65 a head for every man, woman and child who lives in Seattle. It would be both more fair and more logical to simply raise parking rates during the high season.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 09, 2006 10:41 PM | Email This
Comments
1. interesting article--i'm a vested interest so not unbiased; but not subject to the local zoo tax burden; so, i'm a fan of user fees in general; i want it, so I pay; zoos or stadiums; why have someone else foot the bill like welfare for a narrow group of users; however, zoos are not like bridges, so some common tax is necessary for practicality; anyone else share this view? a mix of free market and socialism depending on goal and practicality?

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on May 9, 2006 10:51 PM
2. ASAP banned from parking at your home, but you can park at the zoo . . .

Next, Paddy Crap will be telling us that a fancy parking facility is required at the zoo by the 14th Amendment.

Liberal? Want something? Just make it up as you go along -- it doesn't need to make sense . . . especially since it isn't your money.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 10, 2006 12:51 AM
3. They got to find something to spend all the money on so they can come back broke next season, that's the Liberal Way.

By the way I see the Mayor of Portland is now driving a Hybrid Prius himself. Unlike the Fatso Mayor and King County Executive, and the Queen herself, who all ride in Brand New Lincoln Town Cars or Cadillacs, or SUV's which leave their depo's everyday to go pick them up at their homes and bring them back, plus take them anywhere their hearts desire during the day.

While they tell us to get out of our cars and get green!

Lead and We will follow! Heh Libs!

Posted by: GS on May 10, 2006 01:39 AM
4. Oh, you silly! Sims is buying a bus per person in King County, they take more space than cars, and they need to be parked someplace!

Posted by: BananaLand on May 10, 2006 09:02 AM
5. I take my kid to the zoo on a regular basis, usually late Saturday mornings, we have a yearly pass and live 10 minutes away. I have never parked in a lot and never walked more than 2 blocks. I have a hard time believing there is a real parking issue at the zoo.

Posted by: Steve on May 10, 2006 09:30 AM
6. Steve,

With all due respect -- there isn't -- and that's the point.
The only point any of the "leadership" in the Seattle area has is "power."
Having no good ideas whatsoever of what to do with power, they will spend money and destroy things.
They have no notion of service to the public and in fact laugh out loud when such ideas are uttered as though service to anything but yourself is naive or passe.

A self professed liberal himself, Raw Data nailed it saying about Richard Conlin, is "a 'nanny' if there ever was one...who wants to impose his values on everyone else. And not deeply [held] values; . . . Behind that smile and his treacly 'sweetness and light' is a very unpleasant political personality who is constantly grasping for power." Very accurate and well said. Posted by Raw Data at May 10, 2006 06:31 AM

Never try to underestimate liberals -- in that regard they will fool you every time.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 10, 2006 12:05 PM
7. I live two blocks from the zoo and I go there regularly. Steve you probably parked in MY spot in front of my house on NUMEROUS ocasions. I stand to benefit from a parking garage so that I don't have to park even further away on Saturdays throughout the year.

Oh yeah and Steven, those 264 days are not an off-peak season, they're called "week days" and they happen all year. There are 104 weekend days a year and the only thing crowded in the zoo on these days is the parking lot. Raising rates on the weekends won't achieve the goal of all this. The goal which you seem to have missed: getting more people to go to the zoo!

Posted by: Dumble Dork on May 10, 2006 01:31 PM
8. People who go to the Zoo should pay for Zoo parking, not the general taxpayer.

The Zoo is a private corporation. Another name for a taxpayer subsidy to a private corporation is "corporate welfare." It violates the principles of free market economics. It steals from the taxpayers in order to benefit a special interest; Zoo officials, attendees and patrons.

If the zoo needs more parking, they should buy the land, or build their own garage.

If they accept corporate welfare, that might be a good reason to reduce your voluntary contributions, and your patronage. The next time you write them a check, send half the amount, and tell them it would have been bigger had they not accepted government handouts.

Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 10, 2006 05:35 PM
9. Just 100 days a year where we need more parking? Build a garage 1/2 the size planned and maybe the 100 days will to down to 50? 30?. Then when they need more, build the other 1/2. I wonder about the cost of interest on public works projects. A business or homeowner can have a ROI on capital, and 'see' making it back. But government projects, where 'the payback' is not clear, should pay for that ambiguity with a faster payoff schedule. Why should not government have a requirement for a faster payback schedule, anyway?

Posted by: gregg on May 10, 2006 10:25 PM
10. Golly whiz Bruce, thanks for the education about the zoo. This is truly a bad thing they are planning to do eh? If they accept this here corporate welfare . . . it might be a good reason to reduce all of our voluntary contributions, and our patronage. We might also not go to the zoo or . . . we could go less often as well (just a thought).

Those darned corporations, pesky zoo officials, attendees and patrons . . . . golly what will we do? After all, if the zoo needs more parking, they should buy the land, or build their own dagum garage don't you think?

Daresnuffit I'm with you there feller, the next time anyone writes them a check, they should send half the amount, and tell them it would have been bigger had they not accepted government handouts.

That'll fix it by golly.
Fine work there feller.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 10, 2006 11:20 PM
11. "The goal which you seem to have missed: getting more people to go to the zoo!"

How about getting more people to the zoo off of peak hours or days. Discounts may work. It seems that if the zoo is at capacity during peak times and more parking will only bring more people which will in turn further strain the zoo's facilities and not provide for an enjoyable visit. After several years of stained facilities, the city will have to expand Zoo facilities and further tax the city folk. Love good planning for problem creation. New parking garage leads to more people which in turn creates a need for more facilities to serve the growing population of visitors. Growing the problem is the vision of Democrats as expressed in various other arenas and forums, is it not?

Posted by: Snuffy on May 10, 2006 11:51 PM
12. Today more parking for the Animalcatraz or Zoolag if you prefer...tomorrow ???

Posted by: Pacific Grove Phlash on May 11, 2006 08:20 AM
13. Regardless of what the price is, if we were to go to the zoo, it would be on the weekend, not by choice that's just how our schedule and most other people's I would guess works. What I don't get is some of the neighborhood opposition to the garage. If the garage will alleviate some of the parking in front of homes in the neighborhood, isn't that a good thing?

Posted by: Palouse on May 11, 2006 04:26 PM
14. Palouse,

Yeah.
"Regardless of what the price is," good for the neighbors.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 12, 2006 08:29 PM
15. Come on, they're not spending thier money, they're spending your money. Everytime the brilliant and benevolent people of Seattle vote special leveys for medic one, and parks, and every other core service we expect of government to free up discressionary spending dollars for the liberal politicians to buy more votes with thier feel good programs; they embolden more spending. How high can the tax burden get in Seattle before the only people who can afford to live there won't?

Posted by: Dan on May 13, 2006 02:32 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?