I Will Vote No On Utah Proposition 2 – Hogle Zoo
October 21st, 2008
Lately there have been a lot of crafty animal signs popping up in my neighbor’s yards. These animal shaped signs shaped have phrases that suggest that I should vote “yes” on Proposition 2. I have also seen several very cute commercials, and billboards. I have to give them credit, they have run an adorable campaign.
I will not however be voting “yes”. I will instead vote “no”, and I encourage everyone else to do likewise.
This is a bad proposition, that sends the wrong message. That message being that the zoo, or anyone else, can come to the public, whenever they feel that they want to build an addition on to their facilities.
If you cannot fund your endeavors off of admissions, then raise the cost of entrance, or go without.
Do the polar bears really need a new building? Is the one they currently have not good enough? This proposition is nothing more than the executives of Hogle Zoo wanting to leave a legacy. They want to be able to say “it was because of me that the zoo got that new facility… Yup, I did that”.
It is wasteful, unnecessary, and foolish.
Entry Filed under: Political
7 Comments Add your own
1. Susan | October 23rd, 2008 at 7:23 am
Oh boy..it is so clear from your comments that you have either never been to the Zoo, or that it has been a very, very long time…they don’t even currently have polar bears! Also, did you know that the Hogle’s don’t “own” the Zoo – the city does…it is managed (very well it seems) by the 501c-3 nonprofit Utah Zoological Society…at least it seems you should get your facts straight before you start bashing something, or is it just your own “voice” you need to hear? Go on up to the Zoo, have a look around, ask some questions, THEN write from your heart..
2. Say No to Renew the Zoo &&hellip | October 23rd, 2008 at 7:56 am
[...] others, I will be voting no on Proposition 2. And I still love the zoo. Hmm… It’s probalby time to signup for another annual [...]
3. vayapues | October 23rd, 2008 at 8:03 am
Hi Susan,
Actually we go to the zoo quite often. Many years we purchase a family membership. In addition, I actually used to work for the zoo, and have many friends who have worked there as keepers.
I know the zoo is a non-profit owned by the city. This is all completely irrelevant. The zoo, like any organization still has executive leadership.
It is a natural tendency for leaders to want to leave a legacy, and that is precisely what is happening here. It is interesting to me, that you would attack me personally, rather than the arguments I made.
se la vi.
If an organization cannot obtain the things they desire on their own, then at times it is necessary and appropriate for others to step in and assist them.
This is not one of those cases. The projects being proposed will do nothing too increase our enjoyment of the zoo, nothing to increase tourism, and serve no real purpose.
It is what it is. Unfortunately the zoo has used deceptive marketing slogans like “save the zoo” which make many think that what they are voting for is to literally “save the zoo”, and not in reality build an unnecessary structure.
Regarding the zoo not having polar bears, I did not realize that. However the bear pavilion does still stand. If they want polar bears the point is still valid. They can put them right back in the same habitat that they used to keep them in.
This proposal is wasteful, and unnecessary.
4. vayapues | October 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 am
oh, and a… I should note that I adore hearing myself talk.
5. nate | October 26th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
i also disagree with proposition 2, based on the simple principle that tax money should be used only for necessary government spending. i dont care if its only 39¢ a month, it’s still a forced payment by the citizens.
6. Ghostdog | November 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I feel like if proposition 2 was a good thing, it would NOT be so darn hard to find out what is in it. I agree with the above comments. If the zoo can’t raise necessary funds by the people the visit the zoo, then I don’t feel they need the “upgrades” anyway. Also, if were going to vote for UPGRADING the zoo, I think it would be put Tracy Aviary IN the zoo, because quite frankly, it is LAME right now and TOO expensive, and would be seen an appreciated more if it was moved.
I think public funds should not be used on the zoo.
7. vayapues | November 4th, 2008 at 7:53 am
sadly, it looks pretty likely that it will pass. If people understood what they were voting for, I am confident that most Utahns would vote no.
Most who I have talked to think it is to “renew the zoo” or in ortherwords to literally renew their usual funding, and not for monument building.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed