St. Louis...Home of Free Stuff To Do

[northbayeric]

Originally Posted by CarNutCass

Residents from many counties outside St. Louis County visit the St. Louis Zoo. It's not their fault the city is unable to manage it's money and charges you a tax for something you may or may not use.

When my family and I visit the St. Louis Zoo, rest assured that we leave quite a bit of money there to support it. That goes for the area around it as well.

We pay for parking, special attractions (Children's Zoo), we ride the train, and buy souvenirs. I'd be willing to bet we spend more on a single visit than St. Louis residents pay in 10 years of any "Zoo Tax" imposed. We usually conclude our visits by patronizing a local restaurant like Seamus McDaniels, Southwest Market & Deli, O'Connell's, or the like.

I think my having lived here in hyper-expensive California these past nearly 22 years has a lot to do with why I totally agree with you. I think it's terrific that these places have free admission to all. Why go somewhere where you feel like you've been either ripped off or feel remorse for having spent an obscene amount of money just for admission?

At the zoo, there is a main parking lot where you pay to park. You can also get there real early and park for free on Government Drive or one of the other streets in Forest Park in most places. I grew up near St. Louis, and some of my best childhood memories are going to the Zoo, Grant's Farm and the Art Museum--all fun and educational places to visit. And they were destinations I was and still am very enthusiastic about going back and visiting many times.

To charge residents who live in St. Charles or anywhere else outside of the immediate area to see these great attractions sends the message that St. Louis does not welcome tourists, and is insular and cliquish. No thanks!

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Does St. Louis City support Forest Park, or does the state?

[TGS]

The main reason that people want to bring St. Charles (and other metropolitan area counties) into the Zoo-Museum District is that these cultural attractions are for the entire metropolitan area, not just the city or St. Louis County.

The taxing district was set up in the 1970s, when places like St. Charles weren't really a large part of the metropolitan area. St. Charles was mainly rural back in the 1970s, so it wasn't included. Now that the metropolitan area has grown, it would be wise to include the areas that have built up into full-fledged suburbs into the taxing district in order to ensure that the cultural amenities will continue to remain so inexpensive.

I also don't think that this is a case of mismanagement on the part of the city or county, either. While the tax base left the city in the 1970s, St. Louis County was at least wise enough to realize that the cultural attractions in the City were worth preserving, since even if the county residents don't live in the City, they certainly patronize the attractions. It is far less expensive to maintain what is already built instead of building a new zoo or science center in the county. If the money was completely mismanaged, these attractions wouldn't be free today. The Zoo, Science Center, History Museum, and Art Museum have all gone through significant upgrades in order to handle all the additional visitors. That doesn't sound like fiscal mismanagement to me.

However, if St. Charles doesn't want to come into the taxing district, that is fine by me. If the taxing district can't expand with the metropolitan area, then it wouldn't be a bad idea for the places to start charging for those who live out of the district. The places have been expanding to serve a larger and larger number of patrons, mainly due to the growth in the outer suburbs. It doesn't make sense for those places to continue to expand to serve (for free most of the time) parts of the metropolitan area that don't want to put money into the pot even though that is where the population is moving. Just about every other major city charges admission for these attractions anyway.

[northbayeric]

Originally Posted by STLCardsBlues1989

Does St. Louis City support Forest Park, or does the state?

Click on this link Forest Park Master Plan (http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/parks/forestpark/fpmasterplan.html - broken link) and scroll down to the "Funding" section, and this will give you some information. Looks like a combination of public and private funding.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by STLCardsBlues1989

Does St. Louis City support Forest Park, or does the state?

St. Louis City owns and manages Forest Park. A lot of the recent upgrades in the park have been funded by private donations to a Non-Profit, Forest Park Forever. Some wealthy families in town wanted to upgrade Forest Park, but understandably didn't want to hand the money over to the city directly, so Forest Park Forever was founded.

The cultural attractions, like the Art Museum, History Museum, Zoo, and the Science Center are independent organizations. They are run by a byzantine system of state appointees, non-profit groups, commissioners, and boards of trustees. They aren't run by the city or the county directly, though appointments may sometimes come from those governments.

[mtc]

Don't forget the free seats at the MUNY

[aragx6]

I'd far rather see the tax extended to St. Charles county residents (do Jeff co residents pay?) than see them become "non-free". To me that's what makes them unique and awesome. Not sure why we should charge just because other cities do. That's what makes them great!

[RickMG]

Originally Posted by STLCardsBlues1989

Does St. Louis City support Forest Park, or does the state?

The city as it's a city park.

[CarNutCass]

I'd be willing to pay a nominal tax for the use of Forest Park as long as the money was to be managed by someone other than the City of.