Does the Woodland Park Zoo really need a second zoo store? It's planning one for the West Entry expansion project. But as with many plans on the Zoo's books, the rationale for a second store, especially given the economic downturn, may be rendered moot by a dramatic change of landscape.
Everyone supports the goal of financial self-sufficiency for the Zoo — the primary motivation behind privatizing the zoo in 2002, and the objective behind the Zoo's Long Range Plan. The question in today's economy is whether a second zoo store makes any sense toward fulfilling that mission, or actually helps undermine it by saddling the Zoo with an unneeded money pit. And whether being in the merchandising business inevitably conflicts with a zoo's inherent mission of saving wildlife and promoting conservation.
The Long Range Plan is rooted in an assumption of robust economic growth in the region. Back in 2002, when the plan was formulated, growth seemed a given. Now every large Puget Sound employer, from Boeing to WaMu (J.P. Morgan) to Microsoft, is laying people off at unprecedented rates. An expected 50,000 jobs in Puget Sound already are on the chopping block. With the economy shrinking, the Long Range Plan's assumptions regarding population, construction and other growth are sorely obsolete.
The main argument put forward by the Zoo for a second store (the first is at the south entrance) is that patrons do not want to have to carry merchandise around while they visit the grounds. With the West Entry becoming the primary zoo entrance (another decision not well explained or justified), zoo-goers entering and exiting there would, if they bought stuff at the south store, have to carry it around before returning to their cars.
Inherent in this argument are the notions that zoo-goers simply cannot tolerate the inconvenience of toting a few goods a few extra yards, that the Zoo should be in the merchandising business, and that it should be all about loading patrons down with as much stuff as possible. Presumably the more stuff sold, the more money raised for the zoo. (Proceeds go "back to supporting the zoo's many conservation and education programs and animal care right here at the zoo," the Zoo's Web site notes.)
But is this really what a Zoo should be encouraging: More schlock?
A zoo should first and foremost be a place where people go to see live animals in a hospitable setting. To the extent that the viewing experience contributes to understanding and awareness of conservation and endangered species, a zoo is accomplishing its goal.
Undoubtedly a second Zoo store would carry products aimed at raising awareness about things like animal conservation, endangered species and global warming's impacts. The sentiment may be well-intended, but:
Construction of a second store paves over open space, contributing to runoff and pollution (the Zoo's plans for the West Entry include runoff abatement, but why abate something you could avoid in the first place?). New construction by its very nature contributes to global warming by using up valuable resources and polluting the air. Ongoing maintenance and operation impacts and costs need to be figured into the equation as well. The carbon footprint of a second store is especially lamentable when you consider it isn't really needed in the first place.
Ask a polar bear which he'd prefer: A second store selling fuzzy little polar bear facsimilies, or measures to fight global warming and curb junkification of a zoo.
The same line of reasoning argues against foisting more merchandise on people. Tchotskies eat up the earth's resources and further global warming. Having seen Humboldt Penguins (a new exhibit is scheduled to open this spring), do zoo patrons really need little penguin toys to take home? Shouldn't the zoo experience be enough?
Then there's the financial issue. We're talking about a retail operation opening during a recession that promises be an echo if not reprise of the Great Depression. Retail sales are collapsing throughout the country. Even during the customary height of retail frenzy, the holiday season, sales were off by 5 to 8 percent in most sectors. Some chains experienced as much as a 20 percent drop. Toy chains suffered with the rest: The KB Toys chain declared bankruptcy on Dec. 11, and Toys R Us holiday sales dropped by 3 percent over the previous year.
Apply a realistic sales formula to the existing zoo store and you get a gloomy picture. Building a second store when sales may drop at the first makes no sense whatsoever.
The Zoo might well respond that its store sales historically are immune to economic fluctuations. But if there's a lesson to the current meltdown, it's that people don't keep buying schlock forever. Especially if there's another store only a few hundred yards away selling the same stuff (we've seen what that's done to Starbucks and WaMu, among others).
The Zoo may be pinning its hopes on the non-zoo-going public boosting the second store. As planned, the store has an entry available to unticketed public. Save Our Zoo believes this is a violation of Seattle zoning law and consequently is party to an appeal of the master use permit for the West Entry partly on that basis. Seattle park property should not be used for permanent private vendors. That's just an inviolable principle for management of a cherished public resource.
We also doubt Zoo store patrons will make the odyssey to Phinney Ridge just to buy tchotskies and not go to the zoo.
In his new book, The Limits of Power, Andrew Bacevich talks about a crisis of profligacy, where as a culture we have come to think we can have whatever we want, as much as we want, whenever we want it. This assumption of (and addiction to) limitless consumption is what's destroying our economy, the planet and people's happiness. It's time for the Zoo Society to get the memo: The consumer society peaked a couple of years ago, is on the decline, and won't be revived any time soon.
Just as the massive parking garage project sent the wrong message about reducing the car culture, a second Zoo store sends the wrong message about the cutting consumption.
Save Our Zoo has asked the Zoo Society for information about the average purchase at the existing zoo store; its revenues, its net profit, what market research was done to justify a second store, whether those figures have penciled out in the ensuing economy, how much a second store would cannibalize sales from the first, and amortization of construction and other costs associated with the second store.
In other words, is this thing really going to make money? Or is it simply another "Boardwalk" or "Park Place" in the Zoo's empire building, a way to put money in the pockets of a construction industry that already has overbuilt so much in some regions it is asking for a federal bailout? We will report back any responses.
(Preliminarily, Zoo spokesman David Schaefer says surveys (which the Zoo does not make public, so independent verification of their data is impossible) indicate "people would prefer to visit a store on their way out." By that (dubious) reasoning, half of zoo-goers don't have a store available to them, Schaefer says. (Of course, all zoo-goers can shop at the existing store.)
Regarding the economy, Schaefer adds, the second store won't open till the summer of 2010, when the Zoo hopes an economic rebound is in progress. While that's a nice sentiment, the obvious response is, what if it isn't? (No current widely publicized forecasts call for recovery that early, with 2011 and 2012 considered "optimistic.")
Here's a thought: Instead of building a second store, why not sell south end store patrons reusable canvas bags with an apology for the inconvenience of having to cart stuff around the zoo grounds but the added benefit that hey, they're helping to save the animals and save the planet! There could even be a storage service to hold the merchandise till patrons were ready to leave the zoo grounds and go back home.
Put that way, a lot of patrons would be glad to lug their stuff a few extra yards.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Zoo Responses re Second Store
Preliminary responses from the Zoo regarding the second Zoo store costs:
Construction cost is not determined till the project is put out to bid. A square-footage estimate would place cost at $1.6 million.
From an email from Zoo spokesman David Schaefer: "We know from surveying our customers that many of them want to have a store at the exit as a service, to purchase not only souvenirs of their zoo experience but also books, toys, and sustainable and environmentally responsible gifts. In addition, we sell merchandise at the store that helps support more than 20 field conservation projects in countries around the globe.
Certainly, the sales at the zoo store are an important part of our earned revenue, but that is not the only reason to have a store."
Also:
"Current revenues from the ZooStore are about $1.3 million annually. Net earnings on that revenue are $250,000 to $300,000. When the second ZooStore is open, we expect our revenue from both stores to increase to about $2.3 million and net earnings to be $450,000 or more."
(Save Our Zoo has asked for clarification of "net earnings," i.e. does it reflect loan amortization, maintenance and operation and other ongoing costs.)
We will report back further responses as they become available.
Construction cost is not determined till the project is put out to bid. A square-footage estimate would place cost at $1.6 million.
From an email from Zoo spokesman David Schaefer: "We know from surveying our customers that many of them want to have a store at the exit as a service, to purchase not only souvenirs of their zoo experience but also books, toys, and sustainable and environmentally responsible gifts. In addition, we sell merchandise at the store that helps support more than 20 field conservation projects in countries around the globe.
Certainly, the sales at the zoo store are an important part of our earned revenue, but that is not the only reason to have a store."
Also:
"Current revenues from the ZooStore are about $1.3 million annually. Net earnings on that revenue are $250,000 to $300,000. When the second ZooStore is open, we expect our revenue from both stores to increase to about $2.3 million and net earnings to be $450,000 or more."
(Save Our Zoo has asked for clarification of "net earnings," i.e. does it reflect loan amortization, maintenance and operation and other ongoing costs.)
We will report back further responses as they become available.
Circus Elephants Mistreated? Suit Seeks Answers
The New York Times has an illuminating story on a lawsuit seeking to ensure proper treatment of circus elephants.
Elephant mistreatment at the Woodland Park Zoo continues to be a contentious issue with local animal activists. Friends of Woodland Park Zoo elephants promises "a very busy year" on the issue, focusing on "inhumane captivity" of the Zoo's three adult elephants (the celebrated youngster Hansa passed away in mid-2007; repeated efforts to artificially inseminate Chai have failed). A recent TIME magazine article, "Free Dumbo! Zoos Are Bad for Elephants," discussed a study showing that elephants die "very prematurely" in zoos:
In a survey of 4,500 captive elephants worldwide, a team of researchers from the U.K., Canada and Kenya found that once you lock up the giant, space-loving beasts, their health suffers, their median life span plummets, and they quit breeding — the last things you would want for a creature you're ostensibly trying to help survive. "Whether or not it's valid to say zoos keep species alive depends on which species you're talking about," says animal-welfare scientist Georgia Mason of the University of Guelph in Ontario. "Many species do well. Elephants don't."
Elephant mistreatment at the Woodland Park Zoo continues to be a contentious issue with local animal activists. Friends of Woodland Park Zoo elephants promises "a very busy year" on the issue, focusing on "inhumane captivity" of the Zoo's three adult elephants (the celebrated youngster Hansa passed away in mid-2007; repeated efforts to artificially inseminate Chai have failed). A recent TIME magazine article, "Free Dumbo! Zoos Are Bad for Elephants," discussed a study showing that elephants die "very prematurely" in zoos:
In a survey of 4,500 captive elephants worldwide, a team of researchers from the U.K., Canada and Kenya found that once you lock up the giant, space-loving beasts, their health suffers, their median life span plummets, and they quit breeding — the last things you would want for a creature you're ostensibly trying to help survive. "Whether or not it's valid to say zoos keep species alive depends on which species you're talking about," says animal-welfare scientist Georgia Mason of the University of Guelph in Ontario. "Many species do well. Elephants don't."
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Does the Zoo Need a Ponzi Exhibit?
The Bernard Madoff and subprime-lending scandals have made "Ponzi" a household word. But if you didn't already know what it meant, you might just as easily think it referred to a small nocturnal marsupial — just the kind of cute critter you might find at the Woodland Park Zoo.
We're kidding about the marsupial part. But the similarities between a Ponzi and the way the Zoo Society deals with the public bear consideration. Arrogance when questioned, refusal to be forthcoming about finances and operations, inconsistency with data and explanations — all are hallmarks of a classic Ponzi scheme. And all taint the Zoo's approach to dealing with its "investors" — in this case, the taxpayers, City of Seattle, you and me.
A basic Ponzi takes money from investors (promising great returns) and diverts it to the pockets of the Ponzier. The whole setup works great as long as investors aren't paying much attention or drawing on their accounts. For that reason, the cornerstone of a successful Ponzi is opaqueness. Ponziers cannot allow independent scrutiny of their books or respond to probing questions about their operations. If they did, things would go pear-shaped real fast.
The Zoo's planned $28 million parking garage was a Ponzi of sorts. The bulk of the financing — 75 percent — was to come from city coffers. And what would we taxpayers get in return? Debt was assumed to be paid off in 20 years, but even after that it was doubtful the garage would ever pay for itself, let alone give the public a return, considering maintenance and operational costs.
In classic Ponzi fashion, the Zoo first tried to hide what it was doing, not even informing the public that the garage location and configuration were being changed. When the public raised an outcry over the Zoo spending taxpayer dollars for something we didn't even want, the Zoo said, sorry it's a done deal. Fortunately, the Zoo's fuzzy and unresponsive explanations led to a court case that got the garage overturned.
Unfortunately, a number of garage-like boondoggles are still on the books, from the Zoo's standpoint. And just as unluckily, Zoo leaders continue behave in Ponzi-like fashion.
On the front burner is the $7 million West Entry expansion slated to begin this year (the project is under appeal by Save Our Zoo and others). The Zoo wants to install a concrete ticketing plaza and a second Zoo store, removing 14 mature trees (to be replaced with 70 to 80 stick trees) and putting a lot of pavement where open ground exists now.
The Zoo's Long Range Plan, drawn up in 2002, calls for consolidation of the north and west entrances without offering too much in the way of specifics. An argument can be made that the extravagant West Entry is like putting a whole second story on a house where a bathroom remodeling was contemplated.
The Zoo justifies the big plans by saying it needs more ticket windows to handle peak crowds, where lines can extend 30 to 45-minutes long. Save Our Zoo can confirm long lines on, say, a summer Saturday morning. But they are hardly a day-long occurrence, and no documentation is offered on exactly how long they last. The Zoo claims they can occur on 100 days a year, a statistic again offered without documentation and one we consider wildly exaggerated.
As for the second store, the Zoo says parents want to be able to buy stuff on their way out rather than having to carry it around on the grounds. We'll be discussing the store in a subsequent post, but again, the Zoo offers no documentation on this rationale.
Mr. Ponzi can be found lurking in the West Entry's shadows. A much-cited rationale for the expansion is anticipated attendance growth. According to the Zoo, attendance is expected to jump next year to its highest count since 2001. In the Zoo's favor, a new penguin exhibit should spike attendance, as the birth of Hansa the baby elephant did for 2001 crowds. But attendance quickly drops the year following a new exhibit. Attendance through this decade has consistently run below projections assumed in the Long Range Plan, and the recession's growing impact may dampen turnout beyond 2009. Attendance has hovered around 1 million for years, and there is evidence that substantial increase beyond that would make the Zoo a less pleasant place to visit (due to crowdedness and other load factors).
The public is asked to take attendance figures on faith. The Zoo says it will not release daily attendance counts because compiling reports from raw data would take up too much staff time. "We do not do a report of daily attendance figures," said David Schaefer, the Zoo's public affairs director, adding the Zoo is "not willing to prepare a report that doesn't already exist." But Save Our Zoo did not request reports, merely the data.
Save Our Zoo also has sought a copy of the Zoo's 2009 budget for nearly two months, only to be given various excuses. Eventually the budget will be public record through the Parks Department. But it seems disturbingly Ponzi-like for a taxpayer supported organization operating on public property to withhold budget information from public review.
The Zoo is curiously guarded on another data point — membership. It does not track how much members use the Zoo (repeat visits). It does not break down membership by zip code or other specific categories (strangely, since its marketing department presumably could use such data).
In response to repeated queries by Save Our Zoo, the Zoo supplied these year-by-year membership totals:
2004 - 35,000
2005 - 34,000
2006 - 35,500
2007 - 36,000
2008 - 37,000
The figures suggest incremental growth. But they conflict with previously cited totals. The 2006 annual plan, for example, lists 40,000 members. The 2008 plan (dated November 2007) lists 38,000 members.
Asked about discrepancies, Schaefer said the membership totals supplied are rounded off and represent the highest total for each cited year. He also said totals can vary by "a couple of thousand." But 5,000 to 6,000 for the 2005-6 era is more than a couple. And the previously cited figures, compared with the Zoo's supplied totals, suggest falling membership. Sources have told Save Our Zoo on a not-for-attribution basis that membership is "flat" and "static." Schaefer said the Zoo projects a 3 percent annual growth next year.
Save Our Zoo asked for exact year-over-year membership counts as of a specific, statistically consistent date. The Zoo said it does not compile precise information, and Ponzi would nod approvingly.
Save Our Zoo is hardly the only victim of Zoo opaqueness and evasiveness. The city's board of parks commissioners last fall submitted a series of questions to the Zoo on a wide range of topics. Several answers were dismissive, and in some cases did not even address the question, as in the case of questions about whether an off-site location for a second Zoo store was considered and whether means were considered to reduce wait times at the current entry points (north, west, south). The full text of the commission-Zoo Q&A is linked below.
The Zoo has reason to foot-drag on the West Entry. Once it receives a master use permit (currently in the appeals process), data that should or could have figured into the West Entry decision will no longer matter (and cannot be used for an appeal). "It's a done deal" will again become the refrain of the hour. That and "we didn't know." We didn't know attendance would flatten or drop. We didn't know costs would increase so dramatically. We didn't know people wouldn't use the second store. We didn't know removing mature trees and paving over open ground would create such problems (runoff abatement is included in the project but remains a concern).
If there has been one overriding lesson from the economic meltdown of 2008, it's that bad decisions are always preceded by lack of transparency. By withholding and obfuscating financial and operational information, the Zoo sends decidedly the wrong signal to the public about the health and viability of its plans.
Perhaps the Zoo should simply dedicate a small glass cage in one of its exhibits, the kind used for reptiles and critters, to a black box. The box could be labeled simply, "Ponzi."
For full text of the Zoo's responses to the parks commissioners, please scroll down.
Full text of the Zoo's 2009 plan.
Was the whole economy a Ponzi?
Good article on the Madoff scandal and unheeded warnings that preceded it.
Questions for Zoo Society
Q. What are the interim and long-term plans for Camp David? Where is the new trailer going?
A. Camp David is to remain where it is for now. The new trailer is directly south of the reception trailer. The trailers were to have been located closer to the ARC as part of the west garage development, but that is not planned currently.
The zoo’s long-range development plan, approved unanimously by the City Council in 2004 after years of public process, envisions offices for zoo staff near the current north entrance. However, there is no current planning for an office building and it is not identified in the zoo’s current capital development planning.
Q. What planning has begun for a Conservation Exhibit Gallery? How will this building be used?
A. A Conservation Gallery also was part of the long-range development plan with the idea of using it for traveling exhibits that need to be enclosed from the weather, as well as to showcase the zoo’s message of environmental stewardship. While some preliminary concepts have been considered for this Gallery, it is not in the zoo’s five- year capital program.
Q. What new winter time activities are being planned for the zoo grounds?
A. The zoo has considered some winter events to bring people to the facility in the months of November through February, which is normally the slowest time of the year at the zoo. No such events are planned in 2009, but there is the potential to get fuller use of this city-owned facility other times of the year.
Q. How is the off-site property near Enumclaw being used? What is the cost to operate and maintain that facility? What are the future plans for its use?
A. The off-site property near Enumclaw is being used to grow hay to feed zoo animals in a shared arrangement with a local farmer. The zoo has a caretaker living on the property who manages the property in return for housing. Due to these contractual arrangements, no money is directly budgeted to support the operation of this facility.
Future plans are to house endangered zoo animals for the purposes of reproduction and support of conservation work.
Q. How much money does the zoo earn at Mom and Me Day? Since admission that day is based on buying a Tee shirt from Macy's, how much revenue does the zoo earn compared to charging normal admission fees?
A. Mom and Me is not a major generator of cash for the zoo – it was about $17,600 in 2007 and $16,200 in 2008. The real value is in very significant in-kind advertising by Macy’s, which helps kick off the new summer season at the zoo. Also, it is very popular with the public because they can get in – and get a t-shirt – for about $8. So even though the zoo doesn’t make a lot of money, it is a very nice, affordable event for people who might not otherwise get to the zoo.
Q. What is the total number of staff and how has that changed in the past few years? What is the distribution by job category?
A. Currently, there are 271 regularly-benefited employees. That number is down somewhat from earlier in the year but higher than in 2007, in which there were 253 full- and part-time permanent employees.
There also currently are 138 temporary or seasonal staff, and that number is also higher than last year.
A breakdown by job category: animal care, 114; facilities, 56; education, 31; guest services, 28; other categories such as administration, planning and development, marketing, public relations, etc., 42.
Q. Last year, work was begun on an asset management plan. Is this plan complete, and has a draft of final copy been submitted to DPR?
A. Work began on a facilities-condition assessment in 2006, which the zoo staff uses to plan expenditures on long-term maintenance and repair. It is a dynamic assessment which is updated periodically as repairs are made and new projects come on-line. It has not been submitted to the Parks Department.
Wildlife Conservation Activities
Q. How much cash does the zoo contribute toward field projects?
A. The zoo’s Field Conservation Department budget is $850,000 in 2008.
Q. How much is the Annual Conservation Dues?
A. Grants to the field are approximately $350,000. Of this, Conservation Dues are $18,000.
Q. What is the amount of "base support" provided to the Partners in Wildlife programs?
A. $195,000, plus the zoo supports the Conservation Director who leads the Tree Kangaroo conservation effort.
Q. What is the value assigned to in-kind or other zoo staff support for conservation programs outside the Woodland Park Zoo?
A. We have not assigned a value to the staff support. For example, animal care staff raise the Oregon Silverspot butterflies and Western Pond Turtles for release into native habitat in Oregon and Washington. We have not included the staff costs of raising these animals in the figures noted above.
Admissions
Q. What effect has the increase in admission fees had on visitation? Are there as many return guests?
A. Paid attendance this year increased 4 percent over 2007. We do not have data on how much of the paid attendance is repeat visitors. This summer’s attendance is the second-highest in the 10 years the records have been kept here at the zoo.
Q. What information on guest statistics does the new Point of Sale software allow the zoo to capture and how is this information used?
A. We can sort by ticket price, discount, group size.
Q. The total admissions numbers for the zoo for 2006 and 2007 were 1,088,922 in 2006 and 1,034,216 in 2007. 2008 Admission projection was 1,090,000 which included 50,000 toddlers (under 2) and 9,000 students under the free admission program. Do you think that the 2008 Admission projection will be met, or if not, what is your best estimate? Have you updated the projections for 2009 and 2010, and if so, what are they?
A. We do expect to meet the 2008 projections. The 2009 projection is 1,120,000. We have not made a projection for 2010.
Q. How many other students in organized tours visited the zoo in 2008? How many low income guest passes were redeemed at the zoo of the 40,000 available tickets (per the 2008 Annual Plan).
A. There were 36,287 paid school attendees in 2008, (a figure which includes children and adults on organized field trips.) Of the 40,000 low-income guest passes issued, 37,621 tickets were issued. They are not all used for admission, however. In 2007, the return rate was 42 percent. It is about 39 percent so far this year.
Q. Do your Admissions figures include people who come for an event, like a wedding, concert, or other after hours activity, and pay a fee, in addition to the people who come just to see the Zoo? If so, generally how many of these event-oriented admissions are in the total Admissions numbers?
A. The admissions numbers include all events organized by the zoo, such as concerts and the pumpkin prowl. There are a few private events, after hours, that are not reported to admissions, but the number is very small compared to our overall attendance – less than 2 percent.
West Entry
Q. The Long Range Plan tied a consolidated west entry to a new parking lot or garage. Since the plan no longer includes a new larger parking supply, why is such an elaborate entry needed?
A. The new west entry was part of all seven transportation solutions studied in the 2002 environmental-impact statement. It is a stand-alone project that does not rely on a parking garage. Currently, about half the zoo patrons come though the north and west entries. That is expected to continue when those two entries are consolidated into the new west entry.
Q. Did you consider any improvements to the current entries to reduce wait times?
A. The west entry project includes a number of changes to reduce wait times. In this plan, ticketing and membership services will be handled separately, so those with membership cards will not have to wait in line with those waiting to buy tickets. Other ticketing changes are part of the program.
Q. You have said wait times exceed 30 minutes and this is a problem. How often does that occur?
A. 30-minute to 45-minute waits can occur on as many as 100 days a year.
Q. What is the estimate for cost of West Entry?
A. Approximately $7 million, although the project has not gone out to bid.
Q. What is the budget for trees and other landscaping -- what size of trees will be planted as replacement for the 14 removed?
A. The landscaping budget is approximately $780,000. Of the 70-80 trees planned to replace the 14 that will be removed, about 40 will be about 12-feet high and will be placed either between the west parking area and the west entry plaza, or strategically placed around the perimeter of the plaza to control views. Another 30 to 40 trees, of specific ornamental species, will be used to accent specific areas. These will be 8- to 9-feet tall. The trees will gain about 2- to 3-feet in height within a few years.
Q. Will the Zoo prepare a Vegetation Management Plan?
A. The zoo’s practices already far exceed the requirements of the city’s Vegetation Management plans. For example, we have a very specific plan for the Northern Trail biome and are methodically developing similar plans for the other biomes. Each project has a vegetation asset assessment and reclamation/restoration plan. For large mature trees, each is addressed as a distinct individual. Shrubs and groundcovers are evaluated for potential salvage and replanting. We follow the protocols laid out in the City of Seattle Parks Tree Management, Maintenance, Pruning and/or Removal for assessment and mitigation and meet or exceed those procedures or protocols. Overall, we are guided by the principles laid out in the original Long Range Plan of 1976 and reinforced in subsequent updates of that plan including the LRPDP.
Q. What staff resources are available to inventory and care for the trees at the Zoo?
A. We have a staff horticulturist that manages our plant collection and inventory. The zoo horticulture staff that maintains and improves our plant resource consists of the maintenance operations manager, a horticulturist, three senior gardeners, six gardeners, and two assistant gardeners. In addition, the zoo contracts with Seattle Tree Preservation on for assistance on the stewardship and management of mature trees.
Q. Have you prepared an inventory of the all the mature trees that could be impacted by the full development of your Long Range Plan?
A. We have an inventory of all the mature trees on the grounds managed and maintained by the zoo. This inventory has not been compared/analyzed in the context of full buildout of the long range plan. Impacts to the plant resource are assessed and mitigated within the scope of each project development.
We do a tree assessment whenever we build a new project. Construction documents contain the detail of which trees would be removed, for what reason, and how and when they will be replaced. In general, we replace three trees for any tree taken down – which exceeds city requirements. The zoo has planted about 4,700 trees since 1985.
Long Range Plan
Q. There is community criticism about the Zoo's Long Range Plan in particular the addition of several buildings not related to animal exhibits or care. What is the conservation purpose in building these structures in the park? If the purpose is mostly economic, what alternatives have you considered such as opening a 2nd zoo store in a commercial area? How is scheduling the development of these facilities prioritized relative to non-animal facilities like the West Entry, that is, why are animal facilities not scheduled for development before the West Entry is?
A. The premise of this question is not accurate. The long-range development plan was adopted by the City Council in 2004 after five years of extensive public process.
The long-range development plan included the following principles:
• Improve the animal health, conservation and maintenance facilities and provide new exhibits;
• Provide the community with facilities for social gathering, recreation and interactive learning for visitors of all ages, with a focus on programs that inspire conservation;
• Enhance the zoo’s financial stability and stewardship by creating facilities and programs that yield new, year-round revenue streams;
• Improve visitors’ experience, particularly for families with young children and during off-peak times in late fall, winter and spring;
• Reduce the neighborhood traffic impact by providing sufficient on-site parking to accommodate current and projected zoo attendance on all but a few days each year, and;
• Provide on-site staff work space that enhances efficiency, productivity and collaboration.
Since the management agreement between the City and Zoo Society took effect, the zoo has opened many animal exhibits – Wild Dog, Jaguar, Master of the Web (spiders) and the Willawong Station (Australian Birds). The zoo re-opened the African Savannah with many new animals such as ostrich and giraffe. The Zoomazium, which opened in 2006, includes animals and animal experiences as part of its programming.
This year, the zoo opened its very successful flamingo exhibit, and next year the new Humbolt Penguin exhibit will open. Projects such as the west entry, which will improve access and services for zoo guests, are an inherent part of the zoo’s mission of connecting people with animals to inspire them to take action to save species and habitat.
Interviews of zoo guests indicate that they would like the opportunity to visit a store on their way out, rather than carry items with them during the day. A store at the exit is customary in zoos.
Q. The Seattle P-I editorial board, Council member Tom Rasmussen and the Phinney Ridge Community Council have asked that the Zoo secure a DPD land use interpretation for the Zoo Store and Conservation Gallery. Will you do that especially in light of the error made on the garage which turned out not to be allowed by the code?
A. The zoo asked for a code interpretation on the zoo store at the request of Councilmember Rasmussen and Parks Supt. Gallagher. There is no conservation gallery proposed in this project.
We're kidding about the marsupial part. But the similarities between a Ponzi and the way the Zoo Society deals with the public bear consideration. Arrogance when questioned, refusal to be forthcoming about finances and operations, inconsistency with data and explanations — all are hallmarks of a classic Ponzi scheme. And all taint the Zoo's approach to dealing with its "investors" — in this case, the taxpayers, City of Seattle, you and me.
A basic Ponzi takes money from investors (promising great returns) and diverts it to the pockets of the Ponzier. The whole setup works great as long as investors aren't paying much attention or drawing on their accounts. For that reason, the cornerstone of a successful Ponzi is opaqueness. Ponziers cannot allow independent scrutiny of their books or respond to probing questions about their operations. If they did, things would go pear-shaped real fast.
The Zoo's planned $28 million parking garage was a Ponzi of sorts. The bulk of the financing — 75 percent — was to come from city coffers. And what would we taxpayers get in return? Debt was assumed to be paid off in 20 years, but even after that it was doubtful the garage would ever pay for itself, let alone give the public a return, considering maintenance and operational costs.
In classic Ponzi fashion, the Zoo first tried to hide what it was doing, not even informing the public that the garage location and configuration were being changed. When the public raised an outcry over the Zoo spending taxpayer dollars for something we didn't even want, the Zoo said, sorry it's a done deal. Fortunately, the Zoo's fuzzy and unresponsive explanations led to a court case that got the garage overturned.
Unfortunately, a number of garage-like boondoggles are still on the books, from the Zoo's standpoint. And just as unluckily, Zoo leaders continue behave in Ponzi-like fashion.
On the front burner is the $7 million West Entry expansion slated to begin this year (the project is under appeal by Save Our Zoo and others). The Zoo wants to install a concrete ticketing plaza and a second Zoo store, removing 14 mature trees (to be replaced with 70 to 80 stick trees) and putting a lot of pavement where open ground exists now.
The Zoo's Long Range Plan, drawn up in 2002, calls for consolidation of the north and west entrances without offering too much in the way of specifics. An argument can be made that the extravagant West Entry is like putting a whole second story on a house where a bathroom remodeling was contemplated.
The Zoo justifies the big plans by saying it needs more ticket windows to handle peak crowds, where lines can extend 30 to 45-minutes long. Save Our Zoo can confirm long lines on, say, a summer Saturday morning. But they are hardly a day-long occurrence, and no documentation is offered on exactly how long they last. The Zoo claims they can occur on 100 days a year, a statistic again offered without documentation and one we consider wildly exaggerated.
As for the second store, the Zoo says parents want to be able to buy stuff on their way out rather than having to carry it around on the grounds. We'll be discussing the store in a subsequent post, but again, the Zoo offers no documentation on this rationale.
Mr. Ponzi can be found lurking in the West Entry's shadows. A much-cited rationale for the expansion is anticipated attendance growth. According to the Zoo, attendance is expected to jump next year to its highest count since 2001. In the Zoo's favor, a new penguin exhibit should spike attendance, as the birth of Hansa the baby elephant did for 2001 crowds. But attendance quickly drops the year following a new exhibit. Attendance through this decade has consistently run below projections assumed in the Long Range Plan, and the recession's growing impact may dampen turnout beyond 2009. Attendance has hovered around 1 million for years, and there is evidence that substantial increase beyond that would make the Zoo a less pleasant place to visit (due to crowdedness and other load factors).
The public is asked to take attendance figures on faith. The Zoo says it will not release daily attendance counts because compiling reports from raw data would take up too much staff time. "We do not do a report of daily attendance figures," said David Schaefer, the Zoo's public affairs director, adding the Zoo is "not willing to prepare a report that doesn't already exist." But Save Our Zoo did not request reports, merely the data.
Save Our Zoo also has sought a copy of the Zoo's 2009 budget for nearly two months, only to be given various excuses. Eventually the budget will be public record through the Parks Department. But it seems disturbingly Ponzi-like for a taxpayer supported organization operating on public property to withhold budget information from public review.
The Zoo is curiously guarded on another data point — membership. It does not track how much members use the Zoo (repeat visits). It does not break down membership by zip code or other specific categories (strangely, since its marketing department presumably could use such data).
In response to repeated queries by Save Our Zoo, the Zoo supplied these year-by-year membership totals:
2004 - 35,000
2005 - 34,000
2006 - 35,500
2007 - 36,000
2008 - 37,000
The figures suggest incremental growth. But they conflict with previously cited totals. The 2006 annual plan, for example, lists 40,000 members. The 2008 plan (dated November 2007) lists 38,000 members.
Asked about discrepancies, Schaefer said the membership totals supplied are rounded off and represent the highest total for each cited year. He also said totals can vary by "a couple of thousand." But 5,000 to 6,000 for the 2005-6 era is more than a couple. And the previously cited figures, compared with the Zoo's supplied totals, suggest falling membership. Sources have told Save Our Zoo on a not-for-attribution basis that membership is "flat" and "static." Schaefer said the Zoo projects a 3 percent annual growth next year.
Save Our Zoo asked for exact year-over-year membership counts as of a specific, statistically consistent date. The Zoo said it does not compile precise information, and Ponzi would nod approvingly.
Save Our Zoo is hardly the only victim of Zoo opaqueness and evasiveness. The city's board of parks commissioners last fall submitted a series of questions to the Zoo on a wide range of topics. Several answers were dismissive, and in some cases did not even address the question, as in the case of questions about whether an off-site location for a second Zoo store was considered and whether means were considered to reduce wait times at the current entry points (north, west, south). The full text of the commission-Zoo Q&A is linked below.
The Zoo has reason to foot-drag on the West Entry. Once it receives a master use permit (currently in the appeals process), data that should or could have figured into the West Entry decision will no longer matter (and cannot be used for an appeal). "It's a done deal" will again become the refrain of the hour. That and "we didn't know." We didn't know attendance would flatten or drop. We didn't know costs would increase so dramatically. We didn't know people wouldn't use the second store. We didn't know removing mature trees and paving over open ground would create such problems (runoff abatement is included in the project but remains a concern).
If there has been one overriding lesson from the economic meltdown of 2008, it's that bad decisions are always preceded by lack of transparency. By withholding and obfuscating financial and operational information, the Zoo sends decidedly the wrong signal to the public about the health and viability of its plans.
Perhaps the Zoo should simply dedicate a small glass cage in one of its exhibits, the kind used for reptiles and critters, to a black box. The box could be labeled simply, "Ponzi."
For full text of the Zoo's responses to the parks commissioners, please scroll down.
Full text of the Zoo's 2009 plan.
Was the whole economy a Ponzi?
Good article on the Madoff scandal and unheeded warnings that preceded it.
Questions for Zoo Society
Q. What are the interim and long-term plans for Camp David? Where is the new trailer going?
A. Camp David is to remain where it is for now. The new trailer is directly south of the reception trailer. The trailers were to have been located closer to the ARC as part of the west garage development, but that is not planned currently.
The zoo’s long-range development plan, approved unanimously by the City Council in 2004 after years of public process, envisions offices for zoo staff near the current north entrance. However, there is no current planning for an office building and it is not identified in the zoo’s current capital development planning.
Q. What planning has begun for a Conservation Exhibit Gallery? How will this building be used?
A. A Conservation Gallery also was part of the long-range development plan with the idea of using it for traveling exhibits that need to be enclosed from the weather, as well as to showcase the zoo’s message of environmental stewardship. While some preliminary concepts have been considered for this Gallery, it is not in the zoo’s five- year capital program.
Q. What new winter time activities are being planned for the zoo grounds?
A. The zoo has considered some winter events to bring people to the facility in the months of November through February, which is normally the slowest time of the year at the zoo. No such events are planned in 2009, but there is the potential to get fuller use of this city-owned facility other times of the year.
Q. How is the off-site property near Enumclaw being used? What is the cost to operate and maintain that facility? What are the future plans for its use?
A. The off-site property near Enumclaw is being used to grow hay to feed zoo animals in a shared arrangement with a local farmer. The zoo has a caretaker living on the property who manages the property in return for housing. Due to these contractual arrangements, no money is directly budgeted to support the operation of this facility.
Future plans are to house endangered zoo animals for the purposes of reproduction and support of conservation work.
Q. How much money does the zoo earn at Mom and Me Day? Since admission that day is based on buying a Tee shirt from Macy's, how much revenue does the zoo earn compared to charging normal admission fees?
A. Mom and Me is not a major generator of cash for the zoo – it was about $17,600 in 2007 and $16,200 in 2008. The real value is in very significant in-kind advertising by Macy’s, which helps kick off the new summer season at the zoo. Also, it is very popular with the public because they can get in – and get a t-shirt – for about $8. So even though the zoo doesn’t make a lot of money, it is a very nice, affordable event for people who might not otherwise get to the zoo.
Q. What is the total number of staff and how has that changed in the past few years? What is the distribution by job category?
A. Currently, there are 271 regularly-benefited employees. That number is down somewhat from earlier in the year but higher than in 2007, in which there were 253 full- and part-time permanent employees.
There also currently are 138 temporary or seasonal staff, and that number is also higher than last year.
A breakdown by job category: animal care, 114; facilities, 56; education, 31; guest services, 28; other categories such as administration, planning and development, marketing, public relations, etc., 42.
Q. Last year, work was begun on an asset management plan. Is this plan complete, and has a draft of final copy been submitted to DPR?
A. Work began on a facilities-condition assessment in 2006, which the zoo staff uses to plan expenditures on long-term maintenance and repair. It is a dynamic assessment which is updated periodically as repairs are made and new projects come on-line. It has not been submitted to the Parks Department.
Wildlife Conservation Activities
Q. How much cash does the zoo contribute toward field projects?
A. The zoo’s Field Conservation Department budget is $850,000 in 2008.
Q. How much is the Annual Conservation Dues?
A. Grants to the field are approximately $350,000. Of this, Conservation Dues are $18,000.
Q. What is the amount of "base support" provided to the Partners in Wildlife programs?
A. $195,000, plus the zoo supports the Conservation Director who leads the Tree Kangaroo conservation effort.
Q. What is the value assigned to in-kind or other zoo staff support for conservation programs outside the Woodland Park Zoo?
A. We have not assigned a value to the staff support. For example, animal care staff raise the Oregon Silverspot butterflies and Western Pond Turtles for release into native habitat in Oregon and Washington. We have not included the staff costs of raising these animals in the figures noted above.
Admissions
Q. What effect has the increase in admission fees had on visitation? Are there as many return guests?
A. Paid attendance this year increased 4 percent over 2007. We do not have data on how much of the paid attendance is repeat visitors. This summer’s attendance is the second-highest in the 10 years the records have been kept here at the zoo.
Q. What information on guest statistics does the new Point of Sale software allow the zoo to capture and how is this information used?
A. We can sort by ticket price, discount, group size.
Q. The total admissions numbers for the zoo for 2006 and 2007 were 1,088,922 in 2006 and 1,034,216 in 2007. 2008 Admission projection was 1,090,000 which included 50,000 toddlers (under 2) and 9,000 students under the free admission program. Do you think that the 2008 Admission projection will be met, or if not, what is your best estimate? Have you updated the projections for 2009 and 2010, and if so, what are they?
A. We do expect to meet the 2008 projections. The 2009 projection is 1,120,000. We have not made a projection for 2010.
Q. How many other students in organized tours visited the zoo in 2008? How many low income guest passes were redeemed at the zoo of the 40,000 available tickets (per the 2008 Annual Plan).
A. There were 36,287 paid school attendees in 2008, (a figure which includes children and adults on organized field trips.) Of the 40,000 low-income guest passes issued, 37,621 tickets were issued. They are not all used for admission, however. In 2007, the return rate was 42 percent. It is about 39 percent so far this year.
Q. Do your Admissions figures include people who come for an event, like a wedding, concert, or other after hours activity, and pay a fee, in addition to the people who come just to see the Zoo? If so, generally how many of these event-oriented admissions are in the total Admissions numbers?
A. The admissions numbers include all events organized by the zoo, such as concerts and the pumpkin prowl. There are a few private events, after hours, that are not reported to admissions, but the number is very small compared to our overall attendance – less than 2 percent.
West Entry
Q. The Long Range Plan tied a consolidated west entry to a new parking lot or garage. Since the plan no longer includes a new larger parking supply, why is such an elaborate entry needed?
A. The new west entry was part of all seven transportation solutions studied in the 2002 environmental-impact statement. It is a stand-alone project that does not rely on a parking garage. Currently, about half the zoo patrons come though the north and west entries. That is expected to continue when those two entries are consolidated into the new west entry.
Q. Did you consider any improvements to the current entries to reduce wait times?
A. The west entry project includes a number of changes to reduce wait times. In this plan, ticketing and membership services will be handled separately, so those with membership cards will not have to wait in line with those waiting to buy tickets. Other ticketing changes are part of the program.
Q. You have said wait times exceed 30 minutes and this is a problem. How often does that occur?
A. 30-minute to 45-minute waits can occur on as many as 100 days a year.
Q. What is the estimate for cost of West Entry?
A. Approximately $7 million, although the project has not gone out to bid.
Q. What is the budget for trees and other landscaping -- what size of trees will be planted as replacement for the 14 removed?
A. The landscaping budget is approximately $780,000. Of the 70-80 trees planned to replace the 14 that will be removed, about 40 will be about 12-feet high and will be placed either between the west parking area and the west entry plaza, or strategically placed around the perimeter of the plaza to control views. Another 30 to 40 trees, of specific ornamental species, will be used to accent specific areas. These will be 8- to 9-feet tall. The trees will gain about 2- to 3-feet in height within a few years.
Q. Will the Zoo prepare a Vegetation Management Plan?
A. The zoo’s practices already far exceed the requirements of the city’s Vegetation Management plans. For example, we have a very specific plan for the Northern Trail biome and are methodically developing similar plans for the other biomes. Each project has a vegetation asset assessment and reclamation/restoration plan. For large mature trees, each is addressed as a distinct individual. Shrubs and groundcovers are evaluated for potential salvage and replanting. We follow the protocols laid out in the City of Seattle Parks Tree Management, Maintenance, Pruning and/or Removal for assessment and mitigation and meet or exceed those procedures or protocols. Overall, we are guided by the principles laid out in the original Long Range Plan of 1976 and reinforced in subsequent updates of that plan including the LRPDP.
Q. What staff resources are available to inventory and care for the trees at the Zoo?
A. We have a staff horticulturist that manages our plant collection and inventory. The zoo horticulture staff that maintains and improves our plant resource consists of the maintenance operations manager, a horticulturist, three senior gardeners, six gardeners, and two assistant gardeners. In addition, the zoo contracts with Seattle Tree Preservation on for assistance on the stewardship and management of mature trees.
Q. Have you prepared an inventory of the all the mature trees that could be impacted by the full development of your Long Range Plan?
A. We have an inventory of all the mature trees on the grounds managed and maintained by the zoo. This inventory has not been compared/analyzed in the context of full buildout of the long range plan. Impacts to the plant resource are assessed and mitigated within the scope of each project development.
We do a tree assessment whenever we build a new project. Construction documents contain the detail of which trees would be removed, for what reason, and how and when they will be replaced. In general, we replace three trees for any tree taken down – which exceeds city requirements. The zoo has planted about 4,700 trees since 1985.
Long Range Plan
Q. There is community criticism about the Zoo's Long Range Plan in particular the addition of several buildings not related to animal exhibits or care. What is the conservation purpose in building these structures in the park? If the purpose is mostly economic, what alternatives have you considered such as opening a 2nd zoo store in a commercial area? How is scheduling the development of these facilities prioritized relative to non-animal facilities like the West Entry, that is, why are animal facilities not scheduled for development before the West Entry is?
A. The premise of this question is not accurate. The long-range development plan was adopted by the City Council in 2004 after five years of extensive public process.
The long-range development plan included the following principles:
• Improve the animal health, conservation and maintenance facilities and provide new exhibits;
• Provide the community with facilities for social gathering, recreation and interactive learning for visitors of all ages, with a focus on programs that inspire conservation;
• Enhance the zoo’s financial stability and stewardship by creating facilities and programs that yield new, year-round revenue streams;
• Improve visitors’ experience, particularly for families with young children and during off-peak times in late fall, winter and spring;
• Reduce the neighborhood traffic impact by providing sufficient on-site parking to accommodate current and projected zoo attendance on all but a few days each year, and;
• Provide on-site staff work space that enhances efficiency, productivity and collaboration.
Since the management agreement between the City and Zoo Society took effect, the zoo has opened many animal exhibits – Wild Dog, Jaguar, Master of the Web (spiders) and the Willawong Station (Australian Birds). The zoo re-opened the African Savannah with many new animals such as ostrich and giraffe. The Zoomazium, which opened in 2006, includes animals and animal experiences as part of its programming.
This year, the zoo opened its very successful flamingo exhibit, and next year the new Humbolt Penguin exhibit will open. Projects such as the west entry, which will improve access and services for zoo guests, are an inherent part of the zoo’s mission of connecting people with animals to inspire them to take action to save species and habitat.
Interviews of zoo guests indicate that they would like the opportunity to visit a store on their way out, rather than carry items with them during the day. A store at the exit is customary in zoos.
Q. The Seattle P-I editorial board, Council member Tom Rasmussen and the Phinney Ridge Community Council have asked that the Zoo secure a DPD land use interpretation for the Zoo Store and Conservation Gallery. Will you do that especially in light of the error made on the garage which turned out not to be allowed by the code?
A. The zoo asked for a code interpretation on the zoo store at the request of Councilmember Rasmussen and Parks Supt. Gallagher. There is no conservation gallery proposed in this project.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Zoo Upbeat in Downturn
Despite gloomy economic expectations all over the world for 2009, two entities remain upbeat in the downturn.
One is the New York Yankees, who spent $423.5 million to land three (count 'em) marquee stars they hope will draw hordes to the team's new $1.6 billion Yankee stadium starting in the spring.
The other is the Woodland Park Zoo.
On the strength of a new Humbolt Penguin exhibit and a phenomenon it terms "staycations," the Zoo expects 2009 attendance of 1.12 million, up around 30,000 from 2008 (as estimated) and the largest overall annual total since 1.2 million in 2001, the year Hansa the baby elephant went on exhibit. The headcount will rise, the Zoo says, despite increases in admission and parking fees at the zoo.
Starting May 1, the zoo’s seasonal admission price will increase to $16.50 for adults and $11 for children, up from last year's $15 for adults and $10 for children. The new rates apply to the summer only under a seasonal structure; on Oct. 1 they revert to $11 and $8. Seniors receive a $2 discount year-around.
Parking fees jump to $5, up half a dollar, in part to cover the city’s parking tax. In perhaps a more noticeable impact than the fee boost, the zoo wants to hire a private vendor and implement a metering system for parking. Ever sanguine, the Zoo hopes the system will be embraced as a convenience, since paid parkers can show stubs and be admitted without having to wait in line.
The Zoo's justification for raising ticket prices is that they are comparable to similar attractions such as the Aquarium, museums and special events. Zoo executives also feel admission fees are not price-sensitive. Patrons will pay what it takes because the zoo is a unique and popular family experience.
Still, admission fees have not endured the test of a downturn like the one faced today, typically characterized as the worst in three generations. And the widely theorized "lag time" for the recession to hit the Seattle area may not help matters. With WaMu shuttering its headquarters and laying off people, and with everything from hiring freezes to layoffs at Microsoft, the Seattle Times and other leading employers, combined with the airline industry's woes, who knows how deep the regional budget knife will cut into people's eagerness to pay for the "zoo experience"?
One upside the Zoo sees to current conditions comes with a phenomenon it calls "staycations," or stay-near-home vacations. With high gas prices and emerging economic pressures the past summer, the Zoo experienced its second-highest summer attendance since it began keeping track 10 years ago. Gas prices have since receded, but the overall economy has worsened to the extent that area residents may repeat the staycation phenom next summer as well.
Another factor in last year's attendance was the flamingo exhibit. New exhibits always draw folks out, and the Zoo expects nothing less of the penguin rollout this year.
Ironically, the Zoo's motivations for raising expectations somewhat parallel the Yankees, whose ownership substantially raised ticket prices for 2009. The price increases met with immediate grumblings which the head office feels a winning season will quickly subdue. If the penguin exhibit is the blockbuster the Zoo promises, higher fees may not even be an issue.
But the new-exhibit appetite could have a downside as well, if patrons come to expect something big every year. Hoping to duplicate the Hansa spike, the Zoo has engaged in repeated artificial inseminations of its Asian female, Chai. But to no avail. And a rhino exhibit initially promised for 2007 is not expected before 2011, if then.
Asked about the Zoo's high hopes in the face of a lagging economy, public-affairs director David Schaefer said via e-mail that the Zoo "is pretty well-managed and that the management is very conservative financially." The Zoo is "working pretty hard to manage through the difficult economic times."
One is the New York Yankees, who spent $423.5 million to land three (count 'em) marquee stars they hope will draw hordes to the team's new $1.6 billion Yankee stadium starting in the spring.
The other is the Woodland Park Zoo.
On the strength of a new Humbolt Penguin exhibit and a phenomenon it terms "staycations," the Zoo expects 2009 attendance of 1.12 million, up around 30,000 from 2008 (as estimated) and the largest overall annual total since 1.2 million in 2001, the year Hansa the baby elephant went on exhibit. The headcount will rise, the Zoo says, despite increases in admission and parking fees at the zoo.
Starting May 1, the zoo’s seasonal admission price will increase to $16.50 for adults and $11 for children, up from last year's $15 for adults and $10 for children. The new rates apply to the summer only under a seasonal structure; on Oct. 1 they revert to $11 and $8. Seniors receive a $2 discount year-around.
Parking fees jump to $5, up half a dollar, in part to cover the city’s parking tax. In perhaps a more noticeable impact than the fee boost, the zoo wants to hire a private vendor and implement a metering system for parking. Ever sanguine, the Zoo hopes the system will be embraced as a convenience, since paid parkers can show stubs and be admitted without having to wait in line.
The Zoo's justification for raising ticket prices is that they are comparable to similar attractions such as the Aquarium, museums and special events. Zoo executives also feel admission fees are not price-sensitive. Patrons will pay what it takes because the zoo is a unique and popular family experience.
Still, admission fees have not endured the test of a downturn like the one faced today, typically characterized as the worst in three generations. And the widely theorized "lag time" for the recession to hit the Seattle area may not help matters. With WaMu shuttering its headquarters and laying off people, and with everything from hiring freezes to layoffs at Microsoft, the Seattle Times and other leading employers, combined with the airline industry's woes, who knows how deep the regional budget knife will cut into people's eagerness to pay for the "zoo experience"?
One upside the Zoo sees to current conditions comes with a phenomenon it calls "staycations," or stay-near-home vacations. With high gas prices and emerging economic pressures the past summer, the Zoo experienced its second-highest summer attendance since it began keeping track 10 years ago. Gas prices have since receded, but the overall economy has worsened to the extent that area residents may repeat the staycation phenom next summer as well.
Another factor in last year's attendance was the flamingo exhibit. New exhibits always draw folks out, and the Zoo expects nothing less of the penguin rollout this year.
Ironically, the Zoo's motivations for raising expectations somewhat parallel the Yankees, whose ownership substantially raised ticket prices for 2009. The price increases met with immediate grumblings which the head office feels a winning season will quickly subdue. If the penguin exhibit is the blockbuster the Zoo promises, higher fees may not even be an issue.
But the new-exhibit appetite could have a downside as well, if patrons come to expect something big every year. Hoping to duplicate the Hansa spike, the Zoo has engaged in repeated artificial inseminations of its Asian female, Chai. But to no avail. And a rhino exhibit initially promised for 2007 is not expected before 2011, if then.
Asked about the Zoo's high hopes in the face of a lagging economy, public-affairs director David Schaefer said via e-mail that the Zoo "is pretty well-managed and that the management is very conservative financially." The Zoo is "working pretty hard to manage through the difficult economic times."
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Seattle's Crosscut: Zoos Need to Put Animals First
Former Woodland Park Zoo director (today the zoo has a President and CEO, a telling commentary in itself) David Hancocks gives probing insights into the current folly of commercialized, Disneyland-like zoos. Given the recent death of the Woodland zoo's young elephant, Hansa, Hancocks' message is especially pertinent: "As greater knowledge emerges about wild elephants and their extraordinary social, psychological, behavioral, and emotional complexity, more wildlife scientists are declaring that urban zoos cannot provide satisfactory conditions for these extraordinary beings..."
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Zoo Garage Permit Appealed!
On Monday, the Phinney Ridge Community Council, Save Our Zoo, Seattle Community Council Federation, and eleven individual appellants filed an appeal challenging the decision by the Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD) to allow the Zoo garage. We've posted the appeal documents at www.phinneyecovillage.net/saveourzoo. We've also posted a press release and a drawing of the zoo garage from the Zoo's final Design Commission meeting in January.
Because the zoo garage permit decision involved the Seattle Land Use Code, there was a two-part appeal process. The permit decision gets appealed to the Hearing Examiner. That appeal is called a Master Use Permit (MUP) appeal. There is also a preliminary requirement that appellants pay DPD $2000 to explain its one sentence conclusion that this garage is allowed in a park in a single family zone. This is called an "Interpretation Request." We think it is an outrageous requirement of the city code but we had to follow it to preserve the ability to appeal the land use issues. For now, we await a decision from DPD on the Interpretation Request, and then a hearing will be scheduled before the Hearing Examiner.
We hoped that the Zoo Society would realize that this garage is the wrong solution. But evidently nothing will convince them to stop the garage, and so litigation, unfortunately, is a last resort.
It's not too late for the Zoo Society to withdraw its permit application. And it's not too late for the City Council to follow its earlier letter with stronger action and take steps to stop the garage. Unfortunately, neither acted before the appeal deadline, but we hope they will stop the garage before the litigation proceeds much further.
Public opposition to the Zoo garage has continued to grow as more details about the project are revealed. In addition to appellants Phinney Ridge Community Council, Save Our Zoo, and Seattle Community Council Federation, numerous city-wide organizations have spoken out against the Zoo garage, including Sierra Club, Transportation Choices, Wallingford Community Council, 36th District Democrats, Friends of Olmsted Parks, and Seattle Urban Forest Stakeholders. Hundreds of individuals throughout the city, including Zoo members, have testified and written in opposition to the garage. The Seattle P-I has published three editorials against the garage.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Parking Garage, or Happy, Healthy Elephants?
The death of baby elephant Hansa has left zoo lovers wondering if more space, including the one-plus acre to be occupied by the Woodland Park Zoo's proposed parking garage, might have saved the popular animal.
How will noise, dust, pollution and other disruptions from round-the-clock, year-long construction of a parking garage traumatize the zoo's beloved residents? Nothing is ever said by zoo executives about the impacts of construction. Nothing is ever said by zoo leadership about the ongoing traumas caused by noisy, polluting traffic jams caused by concentrating cars in a massive 700-car steel structure. And let's be clear, the parking garage will be built on zoo grounds, not adjacent to the zoo as many are under the misimpression.
The garage's football-field-square footprint will take up more room in the zoo than the entire elephant exhibit. In memorials to Hansa, let's suggest tabling the parking garage until alternatives can be fully considered. Let's do it in Hansa's memory.
Seattle Times story.
Seattle P-I story on death, additional story on captivity controversies.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
P-I Letter to Editor Questions Zoo Garage
A letter to the editor in today's Post-Intelligencer from Seattle resident John Bito wonders why the Zoo Society resists creative alternatives to a massive parking garage:
"The current plan is too expensive in terms of the devastation to the legacy of our park and the abandonment of the principle of conservation that motivates us to support the society...."
"The current plan is too expensive in terms of the devastation to the legacy of our park and the abandonment of the principle of conservation that motivates us to support the society...."
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Seattle P-I Editorial Supports Garage Alternatives
Today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer contains the strongest newspaper editorial to date on the Woodland Park Zoo parking garage controversy. An excerpt:
The zoo has applied limited creativity to its current parking problems. A sunny day such as Saturday already brings many more cars than zoo parking can handle. But people seem to find a spot, often immediately or with a bit of circling, or they head to the abundant street spots nearby.
One point the editorial makes that is often overlooked in the heat of the garage battle: "The zoo has an interest in getting along with the city, which owns the property, and neighbors, who have a rather better record of support for the institution than zoo leaders seem to think."
All along, we at Save Our Zoo have emphasized that we love the zoo but feel a massive parking garage, besides taking space and funding away from animals, steers the Zoo Society down a path of financial disaster.
And don't forget to check out the comments! Be sure to enter your own comments, and to send email thanking the P-I editorial board for its clarion stand.
The zoo has applied limited creativity to its current parking problems. A sunny day such as Saturday already brings many more cars than zoo parking can handle. But people seem to find a spot, often immediately or with a bit of circling, or they head to the abundant street spots nearby.
One point the editorial makes that is often overlooked in the heat of the garage battle: "The zoo has an interest in getting along with the city, which owns the property, and neighbors, who have a rather better record of support for the institution than zoo leaders seem to think."
All along, we at Save Our Zoo have emphasized that we love the zoo but feel a massive parking garage, besides taking space and funding away from animals, steers the Zoo Society down a path of financial disaster.
And don't forget to check out the comments! Be sure to enter your own comments, and to send email thanking the P-I editorial board for its clarion stand.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Welcome to Save Our Zoo! The Woodland Park Zoo blog
Welcome to the Save Our Zoo blog, dedicated to saving Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo from a massive, mall-like parking garage and other commercialization ventures. We love the zoo but feel the addition of a four-story, 700-car steel structure covering more than an acre, or more space than the zoo's beloved elephants, is a huge step in the wrong direction. It deprives animals of much-needed space, it encourages the car culture at a time when Seattle's Green Ribbon Commission and Comprehensive Plan direct the city in just the opposite direction, it will lose money at taxpayer response and will create untold traffic congestion and transportation bottlenecks in the neighborhood.
The Save Our Zoo blog will supplement the Phinney Ecovillage's Save Our Zoo Web site, which has tracked the garage mess over the past two years. We'll have frequent news updates and will invite comments from all parties involved in the ongoing controversy. Thanks for visiting, and don't be shy about weighing in with comments!
The Save Our Zoo blog will supplement the Phinney Ecovillage's Save Our Zoo Web site, which has tracked the garage mess over the past two years. We'll have frequent news updates and will invite comments from all parties involved in the ongoing controversy. Thanks for visiting, and don't be shy about weighing in with comments!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)