Normally I don’t do quick hitter news stories, and two in one night is unusual. But flipping through my blogs and papers this drew my interest, it’s a story about the Maryland Zoo in Baltimore, whose chief is also leaving. From tomorrow’s Sun:
Late last year, zoo officials requested a $4 million increase in state aid, pointing to a looming $3 million budget deficit. The state has since pledged a $2 million increase for fiscal 2008; the city has increased its funding by $200,000 and Baltimore County by $50,000, according to zoo officials.
Obviously having a governor who used to be Baltimore mayor probably helps grease some of the state skids, but still that’s a lot of tax money. However:
Largely subsidized by the state, the zoo’s budget has increased about 1 percent annually since 1993. While its funding has remained steady, the number of visitors has declined markedly. Last year, the zoo tallied about 332,000 visitors, compared with 537,000 in 1993. The standard adult admission is $15 — a price that zoo officials concede might affect attendance, but they said it is necessary to generate revenue.
So we have two extremes here. The Salisbury Zoo charges no admission and gets very little revenue because of that fact. On the other hand, visitor numbers are declining in Baltimore because they charge too much. It’s a lot like tax rates, which is why tax cuts always stimulate the economy and end up bringing in more revenue. The key is finding the perfect rate to generate revenue but not strangle commerce. In this case, I think a small user fee is appropriate and have said so on several occasions.
But I’d like to ask a favor of the Maryland Zoo board. It’s more than likely you’ll have several excellent candidates to choose from. Since you can’t hire them all, could you send a couple of your good runners-up Salisbury way?
Excellent work Michael.
It’s not just the fee that keeps people out of the zoo. Frankly, $15 is cheap for a Baltimore attraction.
I think the bigger impact is that the exhibits have really gone downhill in the last 15 years. And, on top of that, the zoo is in a HORRIBLE neighborhood. You have to drive through what we up here call “Indian Country” to get there. Druid Hill used to be a great neighborhood, but it really hit the toilet in the Schmoke administration, and it has not benefited from the renaissance in other enclaves in the city.
Simply put… it’s not a great attraction anymore. And you can tell.
I have to agree, a small fee is revenue they say they badly need. With all of the employees and even more volunteers they should be able to do enough fund raisers to make up for the budget cut.
When they decide to charge a dollar or two to get in I promise to be one of the first to make a $20 donation.
Let me set the record straight. The reason for the decline in the number of visitors to the Maryland Zoo in Baltimore is due to poor management. Half of the zoo has been shut down and the animals sent to other zoos. Visitors are still being charged as if the zoo is at it’s full capacity. They feel cheated and don’t come back. Many ask for refunds on a daily basis. The zoo is extremely top heavy and these employees command large salaries, way larger than a not for profit organization can afford. It’s crazy and way out of hand. This is hurting the zoo greatly. This is where all the money goes, not into the zoo. Nothing is kept up. What was once a beautiful zoo, has been reduced to just a shadow of its former self. The Board needs to hire someone who will come in and clean house, so the revenue can go where it’s needed, and get the zoo back on track. As for Salisbury Zoo, yes, I believe that there should be an admission fee. Sounds like it is going to surpass the Maryland Zoo in the number of animals in its collection. I am sure that something like a $5.00 admission wouldn’t break the bank for visitors. It is a small zoo but has the reputation of being a nice one. In this day and age, free just doesn’t work anymore.