Reason Foundation

Los Angeles City Council Pursuing Zoo Privatization

Posted on August 15, 2011, 11:00pm | Harris Kenny

In March 2009 Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa proposed a bundle of privatization initiatives as the city faced a nearly $1 billion budget deficit. The Los Angeles Times reports that over two years later, one of Mayor Villaraigosa’s proposals–privatizing the Los Angeles Zoo–is a step closer to reality after the City Council voted to begin soliciting proposals from prospective operators. City officials are also charged with exploring alternatives to privatization to see whether or not the zoo could remain open under public operation.

The city is currently struggling to close a $200 million budget deficit, and the LA Daily News reports that the zoo’s operating budget is projected to increase from $26 million to $33.7 million over the next five years. Mayoral aide Jim Bickhart testified before the city Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Committee last month saying, “The zoo was identified (by Mayor Villaraigosa’s office) as something that is important for the city but is not something we would do in a pinch.”

A recent report by City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana found that “Without an alternative (operating) model, the city’s fund subsidy is very likely to be reduced further or eliminated, resulting in the continual increase of admission fees and the possible eventual closure of the (zoo).” (A PowerPoint presentation of Santana’s report is available online here.)

City analysts estimate privatization would save nearly $20 million over the next five years, and implementation is feasible considering the recent proliferation of privately operated zoos. The majority of accredited urban zoos across the U.S. (over 70% according to some estimates) now rely on private operators – this includes major cities like Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Fresno, Houston and Seattle. In fact, eight publicly owned zoos and aquariums have been transferred to private operators in the last ten years alone.

Reason Foundation highlighted Dallas Zoo’s recent privatization in Annual Privatization Report 2010: Local Government:

In August 2009, the Dallas, Texas City Council voted unanimously to privatize the Dallas Zoo, turning over operations to the nonprofit Dallas Zoological Society through a partnership expected to save the city $1.5 million in 2010 and $16 million over the next five years. Privatization discussions began earlier that year when Mayor Tom Leppert began exploring ways to close a $190 million city budget deficit. According to the Dallas Morning News, Leppert enthusiastically supported the move, stating that the privately operated zoo “can and will be regarded as one of the best in the nation.”

Under the privatization, the Dallas Zoological Society is responsible for all zoo management, operations and animals, while the city retains ownership of all related land and the zoo’s nearly 200 physical exhibits. In the short term, the city plans to continue contributing operating funds to the zoo, though the level of subsidy is expected to fluctuate over time as the operator implements strategies to increase visitation and self-generated revenues. The agreement also requires the Zoological Society to meet or exceed current operating standards, lest it risk having to return operations back to city control.

Another benefit of the privatization is found in the potential for greater private sector support through donations, according to supporters. Michael Meadows, president and chief executive of the Zoological Society, told the Dallas Morning News in 2009 that, “There is a perception when something is run by a public entity, that they don’t have a need for private donations. [The City] found that donors prefer to give to privately funded institutions.” Meadows’ point was later validated after four private donors pledged $2.25 million to the zoo within the first four months after privatization.

Read the full report online here, which also features coverage of the recent Tulsa Zoo privatization. For more on privatization, see Reason Foundation’s privatization research archive.

ANWR Morass Redux

Posted on March 18, 2009, 2:05pm | Adrian Moore

The latest round of statements about drilling for oil under the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) are finally getting a bit more rational.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Monday he would consider tapping oil from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by drilling outside its boundaries if it can be shown that the refuge's wildlife and environment will remain undisturbed. 

But Salazar emphasized that the Obama administration stands firm that the Alaska refuge, known as ANWR, "is a very special place" that must be protected and that he is not yet convinced directional drilling would meet that test.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has introduced legislation that would allow companies access to oil beneath the Arctic refuge's coastal plain through directional drilling from outside the refuge itself. Murkowski contends such drilling would leave the refuge surface land undisturbed, protecting wildlife.

OK, so Salazar is opening the door--you can drill the oil if doing so will leave the wildlife and environment "undistrubed."  I think unharmed is a more rational standard than undisturbed.  And Murkowski is also obviously opening the door a bit, but clings to the bit more unreasonable "leave the refuge surface land undisturbed, protecting wildlife." 

You don't have to leave the land undisturbed to protect wildlife.  Habitat can be both more delicate and more resilient than people think.  What actions in a given area will actually harm habitat and wildlife is an empirical question.  The door Salazar and Murkowski are opening hear needs to be a bit wider, to allow a rational look at if there are ways to extract the oil under ANWR without doing harm to the habitat there, a rational look based on objective measures and science.

Such approaches are commonplace on lands held by private conservation groups.  In Reason's Policy Brief  Digging Our Way Out of the ANWR Morass, Michael DeAlessi laid out how it might work in ANWR

If drilling in the ANWR must meet a set of environmental performance measures, then industry can use them as a basis to plan its operations, and environmental groups will have not only the assurance that a certain level of environmental protection will be met, but the leverage to hold industry and government to those standards.

. . .

It is time for the ANWR debate to move forward and leave the bickering behind. Uncertainties over just how many barrels of oil will be recovered or what new technologies may allow will never be resolved. We do, however, have the management/performance tools and the guiding principles of ENLIBRA to work with to ensure that whatever development does take place is done so in an environmentally responsible manner.

Some Possible Performance Measures for ANWR (and other public lands)

Many performance measures are site specific, and the following list is very much a work in progress.
â–  Increases or decreases in specific species population numbers over time; likely species include porcupine caribou, musk ox, grizzly bears, wolves, and many species of birds;
â–  Well-defined recovery targets for these species, such as minimum population size over a specific area;
â–  Increases or decreases in other species that may be common or unthreatened, but which are often good indicators of overall ecological health;
â–  Increases or decreases in acreage of specific wildlife habitat types;
â–  Increases or decreases in invasive species over a specific area;
â–  Specific measures of water quality such as parts per million of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen;
â–  Specific measures of pollution releases; and
â–  Percentages of targeted habitat that meets specific criteria for ecological health.