Reader comments
County OK's zoo, aviary bonds — with conditions

Triple AAA | 5:04 p.m. July 15, 2008

There goes the county's triple-A bond rating and with it cheap bond rates.

Dave in Midvale | 5:12 p.m. July 15, 2008

$10 per year for the next 15 years is a very small price for my family to pay to have the expansion of Hogle Zoo and to have Tracy Aviary brought back up to the high standards it's had before.

For the past 30 years my family has enjoyed the zoo and the aviary, both on family outings and on field trips with schools. This is something the entire community needs to get behind and support; a "no brainer" so to speak.

But there will be many nay sayers that will look at the economy and other factors to try and shoot down this needed work. I say, "There's always some reason against anything, but in this case, too many for it."

Triple | 5:18 p.m. July 15, 2008

The triple-a is fine. The article says that the zoo will never get 20 mil in two years. Lighten up.

Comments continue below

Steve | 5:26 p.m. July 15, 2008

Good news! I'm glad this passed, now if only the voters stick true to their voting history on the matter then all will be good (they tend to vote "yes" and pass bills/bonds that give the zoo money).

The Republicans on the council who always vote "no" are probably grumbling now as they know what the voters tend to do... it's why they try to keep from turning things about the zoo into our hands. Oh well. :)

I however would've liked a slightly more informative article that told us Hogle's and Tracy's response to the results... whether they expect to come up with the needed money on their side to gain the county money.

Steve - Edit to my last post | 5:30 p.m. July 15, 2008

OK, in the time between me posting my first thoughts here and hitting "add/submit" they went and updated/changed the content of the article... so ignore my last paragraph.

Surely there are ways to come up with the money needed to meet the demands, raise prices on admission and such (but not too much) and hold some public fund raising events. Or isn't there some rich Utahn like the Huntsmans who could pitch in a large amount (you could give them a nice sign permanently posted at the zoo or name an exhibit after them or something).

But yes, at the same time I also do agree that they shouldn't be asked to give such a large sum in order to get the county money. Why attach this rule now when they most likely wouldn't have had it been put on the ballot last year I bet?

Triple A | 5:39 p.m. July 15, 2008

Two years ago the County found out from the bond rating agencies that they could do an $895 million bond for UTA projects and the AAA would still be ok. So $65 million for the zoo won't come close to hurting the rating.

Steve - Further thoughts... | 5:42 p.m. July 15, 2008

I take back what I said about the Republicans in my first post (at 5:26 p.m. today)... they aren't grumbling, they're grinning from ear to ear as they got what they wanted after all: to kill the project and postpone it for a day that's right (if that day ever comes in their eyes).

Makes me ashamed to be Republican almost. They're truly living up to their conservative lable.

Did the one councilman really think the zoo meant they could hand over $20 million right away? As the zoo person states, they didn't plan to have it for 10 years yet... it taking 2 to raise just $7 million.

If this really was an honest mistake on the county's part then they should change that $20 million stipulation... either remove it altogether (the preferable choice) or change it from 2 years to say 8 years.

Why isn't the Zoo getting a similar deal to the Aviary? The Aviary is getting part of what they're asking no matter what and the rest if they meet the condition's goal right?

Quit being spoil sports Republican county members, just give the zoo what they're asking for if we vote yes on it.

Brian Maxwell | 6:09 p.m. July 15, 2008

User fees, ladies and gentlemen, not taxes. I will be voting against these bonds. It's only a little, but that's the same argument we get for nearly all of these bonds. Nickle and dime us to death, will ya?

I'd no more turn more of my tax dollars to these entities than allow my tax dollars to fund corporate welfare in the mortgage sector...Wait, we're doing that too?

(Sigh)

Marv | 6:37 p.m. July 15, 2008

Marv Hendrickson is a hero for not getting gamed by the cash grubbing county democrats.

Now lets mobilize and make sure the Zoo fails to reach its funding goal.

Bombadil | 8:30 p.m. July 15, 2008

Marv, get a clue. The state spent over 300 MILLION on corrections last YEAR ALONE, including 55 million to house inmates in gunnison. It also spent 1,000,000 on "motion picture promotion" Read the budget some time for a good laugh. I don't see the zoo and aviary as being a bad expediture. What I would like to see is a return on investment with the prison population. I'm thinking something along the lines of chain gangs, road crews and some productivity of the inmates instead of perfecting their tattoo art or learning the finer points of organized crime.

yosuf | 9:57 p.m. July 15, 2008

i think we should set the animals loose and charge people to hunt for wild game. Prob could raise some serious money that way.

WOW | 10:04 p.m. July 15, 2008

Yet another sad day for Utah politics.

Marv.

For a day or two I almost thought you would come through and be the champion for an authentic vote and let the voters decide the issue of the zoo bond. I was wrong.

You are not "big brother" and you do not know what is best for us. You had a chance to make a difference and chose not too.

The Zoo and the Aviary are gems of our state to be treasured not trifled with. The Zoo and Aviary are assets to our community and should be treated as such.

Time to sing kiddies | 10:31 p.m. July 15, 2008

"Scream and shout the socialists are out!" This is a complete nightmare. I am working one full time job and two part time jobs, just to keep my family in my house! Now more of my tax dollars are going to go towards a firggen bird that I would just as soon eat for dinner.

Jeff | 10:33 p.m. July 15, 2008

It's pretty simple- If the improvements can't pay for themselves through increased fees, they shouldn't be done.

I happen to enjoy going to the zoo and if they can offer an improved product, I'd be happy to pay more to get in and see it. I don't think my neighbors should be FORCED to foot the bill no matter how insignificant $10 per year seems.

Unfortunately this measure will probably pass.

Badass | 8:25 a.m. July 16, 2008

They should put the Aquarium at the ZOO so maybe we would get it built. I can't wait for the bears exzibit. When will it open?

Steve - To Zoo officials | 12:56 p.m. July 16, 2008

Take some time to think this over before doing something rash and pulling this off the ballot now.

I agree that $20 million loophole came out of the blue and surprised us all when it was looking like we'd just get this on the ballot without strings attached, and as a result see it pass based on past voting history.

This was clearly an effort by the Republican council members to shoot down the project, to prevent the you (the zoo) from getting the money now... even though we the public might want it and it's our money to dole out.

But don't walk away just yet. You already have 7 million raised, try to see if there are ways to get the remaining 13 million in 2 years (through us the public donating, raising prices at the zoo, and getting more/bigger private donations from the wealthy). It might take a miracle to pull it off, or maybe not, but it would sure be GREAT to actually meet the goal and stick it to the county council in the process. Lets show them their dirty tactics to derail this can't work.

Vote YES on this in Nov. everyone!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.