At the Oregon Zoo in Portland, they hold "Elephantastic" birthday parties every spring for Packy, the crowd-pleasing star of the show, the first Asian elephant born in the Western Hemisphere.
Beloved by children of all ages, Packy is celebrated like a movie star. There's all kinds of Packy memorabilia for sale on eBay, murals go up on walls around town. He's the pride of Portland and the sire of seven of the more than two dozen elephants born at the Oregon Zoo in the last 46 years.
Packy and the five other Asian elephants at the zoo thrive in the space of little more than an acre.
So what's the controversy all about when it comes to Billy the lone elephant at the L.A. Zoo?
A lot of people who have followed the City Council's marathon debate over on-again, off-again construction of a $42 million elephant exhibit on 3.6 acres have developed the habit of shaking their heads a lot, which may help explain the nodding-head tic that Billy has developed during his years in L.A.
No doubt those who believe elephants and presumably lions, tigers, giraffes and most other species don't belong in cages have nothing the purest motives of compassion at heart.
But something about the Billy debate makes no sense. After all, the L.A. Zoo exhibit is three times the size of Portland's where the elephants are happy and healthy, from all accounts.
Council members who show so little compassion for their constituents suddenly have become pachy-philiacs?
Gimme a break.
These are people who don't care about anyone but themselves, who don't care about anything except what's in it for themselves.
So why do they want the elephant exhibit abandoned with $24 million or so still unspent and Billy shipped off to a far away elephant sanctuary where it costs $200 a person to see him? Why would they prefer to buy 100 acres of land in the Valley for our own sanctuary unless there was some way for them or a friend to profit financially?
It makes you wonder.
Today, it made Hector Tobar at the Times recall his childhood visits to the zoo and the wonder of seeing the giant mammals up close and in person and lament what appears the likelihood that today's children won't experience the same fascination.
That's the other side of the debate among sincere people who care both about animals and people.
But it doesn't answer the question of what's up with the people who don't care about anything except themselves, your local elected officials.
The mayor, as he so often does on contentious issues, has chosen to hold his tongue in. Silence, his strategists say, is his "an elegant way of showing power, with retraint."
The council is less elegant in its displays of power than the mayor just as it is in its displays of style in dress and epicurean delights.
For them, the issue is all about money.
That's why they sent the issue to their Budget and Finance Committee for analysis and asked the city's financial experts to tell they what they did when they approved the elephant exhibit two years ago without any real debate.
Their question now is how much of the money still left on the table for an elephant exhibit that will thrill generations of children to come can they put back into the city treasury to cover up the scandal of their having squandered billions of dollars without benefiting the public.
That's all this elephant debate is about, that's all anything the council does is about.
They have raised taxes, rates and fees so fast and so high, there's little or nothing more they can squeeze out of people who can't pay their mortgages or rents, who live in dread of losing their jobs, who have nothing left to give that doesn't take the food off their tables.
But the city's bills must be paid.
City workers must keep on getting 6 percent raises on top of salaries 20 or 30 percent higher than those paid in the private sector for the same work. The cops and firefighters expect no less come June when their contracts expire. There's all those lobbyists and PR operatives and consultants and contractors who have lavish lifestyles that must be maintained.
The burdens borne by city officials are great. No wonder they're America's highest paid municipal officials. They face the burden of dealing with massive deficits that are soaring as the economy collapses and all those mouths to feed.
Under the weight of such burdens, is it any wonder they don't have the time or energy to deal with the problems of the four million little people who struggle to make ends meet in a city with the nation's worst traffic and air and schools and gangs?
Too bad we can't all move to Portland where tens of thousands of Californians already have migrated -- much to the chagrin of the natives -- and enjoy a visit to the zoo where Packy and his mates still light the imaginations of children with wonder of a more innocent kind.
Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Los Angeles Daily News where he spent 23 years helping to make the newspaper the voice of the San Fernando Valley and fighting for a city government that serves the people and not special interests.
Twice in recent years, Los Angeles Magazine listed Kaye among the city’s most influential people, specifically in the area of politics. Kaye has been variously described in the media as the “accidental anarchist,” “the Patrick Henry of the San Fernando Valley” and a “passionate populist.” He is now committed to
carrying on his crusade for a greater Los Angeles as an ordinary citizen. Previously, Ron worked at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner,
Associated Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer and The Australian as well as papers
in Fairbanks, Alaska and Yakima, Wash. He also wrote for Newsweek magazine, The Guardian in London and the National Enquirer.
With all the money that the city council and those directing our L.A. zoo have spent on the "elephant issue" in combination with the city council's claim they don't know what to do, you would think that they could call in the real experts. Did they call in professionals who have no financial stake, from zoos that have successfully bred elephants in zoo settings, such as Willie Theison, the Pittsburgh, PA Zoo Elephant Manager? This July two female baby elephants were born to two different mothers. On July 9, 2008 African female Savanna gave birth to a baby girl, and on July 25, 2008 Moja, also an African female, gave birth to her baby girl. Moja was the first African elephant to give birth in a zoo in the U.S. back in 1999 with the birth of Victoria. The African elephant family is thriving in a zoo setting, in a city with much less money than celebrity driven L.A. The Pittsburgh Zoo is beautiful and user friendly and a joy to visit. Whenever I go to the L.A. Zoo, it is always "in progress", under construction, despite the fact that it probably gets more money than most zoos. I guess we know that just like every other L.A. city run facility, it is not run well or efficiently, since its contracts are used to pay off city friendly contractors and landowners--the mayor's favorites. Granted Billy is an Asian elephant? But if Pittsburgh can get it right, why can't L.A.?
So what's the controversy all about when it comes to Billy the lone elephant at the L.A. Zoo?
So, what is it that you don't understand? Nancy Norris' response is correct. The L.A. Zoo elephant keepers are either inept or Zoo Management has other political considerations, other that elephant well being, in mind. These people shouldn't be losing so many elephants at a young age. They're inept. And if the current elephant isn't doing well then they should send him off to another facility, instead of warehousing him in a back lot until a "better trade" comes up. That's how you treat livestock.
There's nothing too complex going on here. We don't need an elephant facility in L.A., either within the L.A. Zoo or outside of the L.A. Zoo. The L.A. Zoo doesn't need to be a "first class zoo representation" containing all animals that possibly exist on earth. It's not necessary. If you want entertainment then go to the movies. It is not an ongoing elephant research project that demands a $40 million dollar Elephant exhibit. Should we spend that kind of money so that a 4 year old can oogle at an elephant? Are you nuts? What really demands the elephant exhibit is only some politician's egos. Screw those politicians.
City Council voted to build this exhibit two years ago, and this pops up out of nowhere. It's clear that there is an underlying agenda that the public and media have not yet discovered, because I have a hard time believing the City Council cares about an elephant more than their constituents.
I don't believe that the zoo officials are to blame here. It was the last minute effort by a City Council member to pull out some erroneous "facts" and slander the zoo. Let’s keep in mind that this exhibit would have been finished had it not been for the protesters and the flexibility of a certain politician.
Hector Tobar at the L.A. Times can recall his childhood visits to the zoo and the wonder of seeing the giant mammals up close and in person, and lament that it appears likely that today's children won't experience the same fascination until the elephants come home.
Lily Tomlin has the best answer for such bogus arguments: Today's kids love dinosaurs and know everything there is to know about them, yet they've never seen them, nor ever will.
Dinosaurs are dead, yet they know all about them.
Our Constitution is a living, breathing document, yet those same kids who know all about dinos can't name the three branches of our federal government.
Those kids will survive just fine without seeing an elephant, a lion, a tiger or a bear.
...or...their parents can bundle them up in the car and go to the sanctuary up north or to San Diego and see some.
...or...if it's true about the Portland Zoo, bring 'em here to give L.A. a few lessons on good elephant shepherding.
Where are the City Council's credentials in animal management? If they chose to make decisions based on the welfare of the animals, they should then listen to the professionals and experts. It’s evident that they are turning a deaf ear to facts and numbers. The city would loose millions of dollars. Some of the money has already been spent. Other funds cannot go to other city departments so don't get your hopes up on new text books at schools or housing for the homeless. The rest of the funding was raised for this specific exhibit. If they scrap this exhibit, the zoo department will have give back a huge chunk of change to the city, county, and donors, then come up with alternate funding for a substitute exhibit. Or is the city council planning on killing that exhibit too?
We should scrap the elephant exhibit and use Billy to feed the homeless and hungry.
Elephant meat is a delicacy, and a poacher makes more from selling elephant steaks than he does from selling the ivory: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,279080,00.html
Picture Tom LaBonge in a "Kiss the Chef" apron, standing next to the world's largest barbecue grill in Griffith Park, slathering KC Masterpiece from a 50-gallon drum onto a couple thousand pounds of Billy steaks as they slow-cook Kansas City style in the afternnon sun.
Good Times!
Anonymous, "good times!" f'n hilarious. Tom LaBonge in a kiss the chef apron? F'n hilarious. Thanks for the laugh!
Ron I think the experts who aren't shilling for the zoo are of the mind that these zoo exhibits are not meant for elephants. So for sure I would say the Portland elephants should be sent to a sanctuary as well.
However what has to happen following sending Billy to a sanctuary is 1) put an end to the elephant exhibit all together, 2) don't even give serious consideration to Cardenas' plan to build a sanctuary in the Valley and 3) take the money from the elephant exhibit and put it towards general zoo expense so the funds budgeted for that can be sent back to the city's general fund.
ALREADY U MISSED IT FOLLOW THE MONEEEEEE
NOT THE ELEPHANT
I'm sure that back in 1905, there was a Hector Tobar waxing eloquent about the bright, smiling faces of the children as they viewed Ota Benga the pygmy, who was on display in the Bronx Zoo's monkey cage. Certainly, most families didn't have the money to take their children to Africa to see pygmies in their native habitat, so it was only right to keep Ota Benga in the zoo, wasn't it?
Thank you Hector for the man-off-the-street viewpoint of this issue. I have been going to the zoo since I wad a child growing up here in LA and I have fond memories of seeing elephants among all the other animals when we would visit. There is something special about the majesty of these animals that you can't get from watching TV or movies about them. The City Council hired these zoo professions for their expertise, so why doubt that expertise when a small group decides that they know better than the professionals? What makes them experts on elephant behavior & the daily needs of an elephant? Do they care for elephants on a daily basis that they can say, without doubt, that Billy is suffering? Let the experts at the zoo make the decisions for the animals they are slated to care for and leave the politics out of it.
The City Council hired these zoo professions for their expertise, so why doubt that expertise when a small group decides that they know better than the professionals? What makes them experts on elephant behavior & the daily needs of an elephant? Do they care for elephants on a daily basis that they can say, without doubt, that Billy is suffering? The voters of both the city & county of LA were overwhelmingly in favor of these measures. If the decision is made to stop the exhibit and send Billy away, then what is the value of voters going to the polls to make their voices heard when a small, but loud group can override their vote by council members to "realize" their mistake. Shouldn't the will of the people be what the council listens to since they are supposed to be representing "the people"? Let the experts at the zoo make the decisions for the animals they are slated to care for and leave the politics out of it. Billy would have been in a better place now with more area and things to explore and maybe a couple of companions if this issue didn't have to be rehashed over and over again but left to the zoo professionals who know him best and spend their days seeing to his every need.
In reference to Sandy Sand’s statement:
"Lily Tomlin has the best answer for such bogus arguments: Today's kids love dinosaurs and know everything there is to know about them, yet they've never seen them, nor ever will.
Dinosaurs are dead, yet they know all about them."
One of the purposes the zoo serves is to support conservations efforts for endangered animals in the wild. There are approximately 30,000 Asian Elephants left in the wild, and their numbers are dwindling due to deforestation, human encroachment, and poaching. Sustainable populations in the wild are severely handicapped due to these issues. Educating the public about this is vital for the future of this species. The LA Zoo wants to perpetuate sustainable populations of Asian Elephants in captivity by initiating a breeding program. If Billy is moved, you will take that opportunity away. Since sanctuaries do not choose to breed their elephants, what happens when those elephants eventually pass on? Perhaps you are suggesting that Elephants should go the way of the Dinosaur as well? How sad for you.
Saying “Lily Tomlin has the best answer” is irresponsible at best. Just what are Lily Tomlin’s credentials other than Actress/Comedian anyways?
I'd like to respond to Sandy Sand's comment that, "Those kids will survive just fine without seeing an elephant, a lion, a tiger or a bear." First of all, of course the KIDS will survive, but will the ANIMALS? Have you ever stopped to think about what seeing an elephant (or any other amazing animal) up close does for kids’ or adults’ attitudes toward the natural world, and how that then affects conservation of a species? I WAS one of those kids who went to the L.A. Zoo (and many other zoos all over the world) when I was younger. I grew up feeling a very strong connection to animals and nature. In graduate school, I got a doctorate in experimental psychology, specifically animal behavior, conditioning, and learning. And I went on to teach animal behavior and learning. You cannot tell me that going to zoos and learning about animals there in person when I was young did not shape the person I am today. I KNOW it did.
I've been on tours at the L.A. Zoo, and shared information I have about Zoo animals there with students. I've received letters afterward from their teachers including one professor at the University of Southern California who informed me that one of his students was now planning for a career in zoology and conservation biology as a direct result of a tour we were on at the L.A. Zoo!!! So, YOUR view that zoo animals like elephants contribute nothing to kids' lives is just your opinion. And I think it's too bad that you must not have gotten the kind of early life experiences you needed at zoos. But don't assume that YOUR experience is EVERY kid’s experience. That's very egocentric. I see kids at the L.A. Zoo every time I'm there who are BLOWN AWAY BY SEEING A SQUIRREL!!!! Some of these kids live in the inner city and have never seen any wild or semi-wild animals EVER!!! Guess how they react to seeing a real, live Asian elephant?!?! They are in AWE, and in that moment of awe, you hook them. You hook them on all the amazing facts and abilities of elephants. And when those kids leave the Zoo that day, they are changed by that experience and what they've learned. I have SEEN it.
All your comment shows me is that you really don't give a damn about conserving wild animals at all. A number of studies (some Harris poles, for instance) have shown that when people visit zoos, they gain an appreciation for wildlife, and their willingness to support other conservation projects is enhanced by zoo experiences. Again, I offer myself as an example. I support a variety of non-profits that are actually doing fieldwork to save animals in the wild. The Jane Goodall Institute, World Wildlife Fund, Wildlife Conservation Society, Wildlife Conservation Network, and African Wildlife Fund are the top organizations I support on a regular basis. Do you know how I came in contact with MOST of these non-profits? Through the L.A. Zoo! And by the way, the L.A. Zoo just gave about $53,000 in the past two years to Fauna and Flora International SPECIFICALLY to support that organization's WILD ASIAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION projects. In fact, the Zoo has been supporting many other conservation projects for a variety of other species for many years! The Zoo has Species Survival Plans in place for many of its animals, particularly those that are endangered like the Asian elephant. As a result of these breeding programs, the Zoo has even returned animals bred at the Zoo to the wild (e.g., golden lion tamarins, Peninsular pronghorns, California condors, and Sumatran rhino).
Second, sure, the kids will SURVIVE, but will they thrive? Will they develop belief systems that are conservation friendly? Let me tell you, I would not want my kids to have a teacher who tells them that they don't have to EXPERIENCE life firsthand, but just read about it in books or watch a movie -- I believe that was your recommendation for "entertainment" as well. Zoos are not just there for our entertainment, although I would bet that would be the ONLY reason someone like YOU would go to a Zoo. You obviously are not seeking knowledge, just distraction. People like you have no right to deprive the rest of us of the opportunity to gain firstand information about animals we seek to conserve. I shudder to think what the future of conservation would be under leadership that followed your ideology. VERY SCARY INDEED.
And since you brought up the dinosuars, I'd like to say that your beliefs are possitively JURASSIC. You and Lily Tomlin are iving in the dark ages! Zoo's are evolving. You need to do the same. We all need to give zoos the chance to change and improve.... How would you like it if you were being raked over the coals on a daily basis for outdated views you held years ago. If you acknowledge that YOU can change, then you should also acknowledge that ZOOS can change too... and that includes L.A. Zoo. Darwin's theory of evolution taught us that as the environments we live in change, so must we. If we don't adapt, we go extinct. Zoos know this. Their philosophies are changing with the greater community's beliefs. I am just so SICK and TIRED of zoos being blamed for trespasses of the past. Management has changed. Keepers have changed. Zoo practices have changed. WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!
All animals, especially humans, want the same thing - to SURVIVE.
In the case of elephants, many people have forgotten this critical point: Elephants ... are ... dying. No need for exaggeration because it is a simple statement of fact. They die in the wild. They die in captivity. Whether in their natural habitat, a sanctuary, or a zoo - death does not discriminate. Asian elephants especially are in dire need. They number approx. 30,000 in the wild with more dying every day due to habitat loss, poaching, and other human conflict.
Many zoos have recognized this and have made the commitment to help conserve this species. They participate in their Species Survival Plan, a captive breeding & management program coordinated by the AZA (American Zoo & Aquarium Association).
SSPs are a safety measure - a way to ensure that species endure and thrive should they die out in the wild. The previous poster listed a handful of species that SSPs have helped stave off extinction - all listed aided by efforts at the LA Zoo. These programs not only ensure survival, they even provide an opportunity to help individuals return to the wild. Such a plan is in place for the Asian Elephant.
Consider this: if ALL institutions followed the sanctuary philosophy to not breed animals in captivity - the death knoll will have been wrung for countless species, especially elephants. In 50 years time, the North American captive elephant population will have slowly vanished before our eyes. Their cousins in the wild may last that long ... if they're lucky. One can hope ... but one can also act.
Support the LA Zoo and their commitment to Billy and his species. Let us all share in this dream for elephants - to protect them, care for them, and ensure their existence lasts as long as ours.
I can't believe the screwed up justification for putting a $42 million elephant park on 3.6 acres in Griffith Park. THREE POINT SIX ACRES for an elephant exhibit. If the researchers need a new elephant sanctuary, go look down south in San Diego. I'll bet that ol' Hector, as a smiling young child, would have much appreciated that!!! This is just absurd. The zoo officials can't think of anything better to do with 3.6 acres of parkland? THERE IS NO VALID JUSTIFICATION FOR PUTTING A $42 MILLION ELEPHANT PARK AT THE LA ZOO!!!
This is wanton excess by City Councilmember Screwballs. Lies presented by "zoo professionals" are presented as "expert facts"? Give me a break. Those people are promoters (could be circus promoters). They think money grows on trees. Of course based on the money they get from campaign contributors, they probably do get money from trees.
And BTW, if those screwballs believe that putting a child up close to an elephant is safe, well they've been watching too much television. Put the elephants in a drive-through park, like San Diego's Wild Animal Park, where the people are kept safe from the wildlife.
Only a screwball would put an Asian Elephant breeding program at the L.A. Zoo, which if you don't remember is in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the U.S.
Hey, but who do you think is running L.A. Why, a bunch of screwballs.
I know that it's quite obvious, but I must mention it. Ron, you have this Villaraigosa TROLL who continually spews propaganda on your website. AND HE CANNOT SPELL!!! This time IT'S called LMC who pretends to be "a doctorate in experimental psychology". Of course, an educated person would know a "Harris POLL" from a "Harris Pole". But, not this person. He calls it "(some Harris poles, for instance)".
That person certainly can blather on and on. This is typical of a PAID Public Relations employee. Know where where our hard earned, tax money gets spent.
I'm not a Villaraigosa troll. In fact, I’ve never supported him. He tried to remove the Elephant Program from the Zoo two years ago. But you would know that if you bothered to follow the news.
My apologies for the TYPO in my lengthy entry. Yes, POLL is the correct spelling. And it’s “positively” and “dinosaurs”. Oh, and I did leave the “l” off of the word “living”. OK? Or did you miss those? I didn’t take the time to use spell check.
My Ph.D. (1998) is from the Univ. of Wisconsin - Milwaukee. You can look it up under my last name, Colton (Laurel M.). It is in experimental psychology (by the way, we don't have many dinosaurs in that field). And I see you ASSUMED I am a man, but I'm not. Women can get Ph.D.s too; did you know that?
Finally, I am NOT employed by the City of L.A. nor by the Zoo. You can verify that with the City as well if you like now that you have my full name. But thanks for saying my comment sounded like I am a paid PR writer. Having never studied or worked in PR, I'll take that as a compliment. : >
Nice try attacking my argument with a pseudo-"strawman" technique. Right, if a person spells a word wrong, they must be an idiot, and therefore their whole argument collapses. Is that how you think it works? (The strawman is a fallacy, by the way.) Well, all your comment shows is that my points hit the mark and you could not argue with any of THEM, so you chose to pick out a typo in my comment, use that typo to knock my degree, and therefore my whole position in this debate. Wow. That's quite a bionic jump. You're not only a genius but apparently a super-hero.
And by the way, if you want to pick out some TYPOS, re-read YOUR ENTRY: "Know where WHERE our hard earned, tax money gets spent." Gosh, I guess typos are possible when we're in a rush and don’t proofread properly, aren't they...?
Thanks for so bravely and ANONYMOUSLY side-tracking the discussion of the Zoo's new elephant exhibit most skillfully. I don't think that this site is intended for personal attacks on people who take the time to post serious comments here. Would you agree, Ron?
To respond to the Anonymous comment above (posted Dec. 11, 7:51 AM)... the actual size of the new Pachyderm Forest will be just over SIX acres. Part of that space will be indoor barn area for husbandry. The 3.6 acre outdoor space will be for roaming. So, the $42 million dollar price tag is actually for a 6+ acre total exhibit and includes the cost of constructing visitor viewing areas.
Now, if you compare the size of the new space to that at the Wild Animal Park (WAP), it will actually be larger than WAP's, so keep that in mind. WAP currently has 3 acres for its African elephants, and 2.5 acres for its Asian elephants (the two species are in separate exhibits). If you don't have a problem with WAP's space for its elephants, then you should not have a problem with the new larger Pachyderm Forest at the L.A. Zoo. (I never hear anyone say a bad word about WAP's elephant exhibits.) The 6-acre habitat at L.A. Zoo will be the largest zoo elephant exhibit in the state of California. I don't know exactly how it will compare to other zoos throughout the rest of the U.S., but it will be one of the largest on that scale too.
From what I understand, when it comes to zoo exhibit costs, it's not just a matter of how much space is being developed, but also a matter of the type of animal the space is being designed to accommodate. In other words, you don't just use basic fencing in an elephant exhibit. You need materials that are much more sturdy and therefore more costly. Hope this info. helps in understanding the cost of the new habitat.
LMC, your arguments are quite weak. For a PHD, you should do better. Your primary justification for the $40 million expenditure is that kids and animals will benefit from the "exposure". There are much better applications for that $40 Mill. This boondogle is the worse case of political grandstanding.
Put a elephant facility at a wild animal park or sanctuary. It's very poor city planning to put it in the L.A. Zoo, at Griffith Park. Elephants are too large and require too much space for this entertainment venue. You can't justify that absurd idea. The L.A. zoo is primarily an entertainment venue. Trying to make it into a research facility is ridiculous. And why should we encourage the dumping or stockpiling of ill animals at the LA Zoo, as is currently happening?
Yes, you must be a girl. Your argument is emotional and not logical. your comment: "I'd like to say that your beliefs are possitively JURASSIC. You and Lily Tomlin are iving in the dark ages!"
Let me reiterate. The LA Zoo should not be wasting that amount of acreage for elephants when it can be much better utilized by the residents of L.A. I'm sorry, but the little 4 year olds should just ooh and aah at the many, other animals.
The 6-acre habitat at L.A. Zoo will be the largest zoo elephant exhibit in the state of California.
Oh now, is this what you are after. The LARGEST ZOO ELEPHANT EXHIBIT is the ultimate goal. WE DON'T NEED THE LARGEST ELEPHANT EXHIBIT. Go south to the WIld Animal Park and observe a complete habitat... hopefully it'll suit any ethology pursuits you have.
I'm sorry but it just TICKS ME OFF that we can't get funding for a Children's Museum in Lake View Terrace but some SMARMY POLITICIAN wants an elephant park at Griffith Park.
Anonymous @ 1:32 p.m., for a PhD, she made a thorough and logical argument, but I suspect she could have done that without the degree.
There are many ethical arguments to justify the expenditure of this money for this project. But since you seem to be concerned about the money, let's focus on JUST the money.
There is NO other way to spend the money allotted for this project because of the sources of funding. It comes from BOND money marked specifically for CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS at the zoo - NOT to offset general zoo expenses. It also comes from PRIVATE DONATIONS with the expressed intent from the donors to support this project. This is not money from the general fund. It has a very specific purpose that if not used for, CANNOT just be absorbed back into the city's general fund to pay for library books, more cops, or fixing potholes.
As for your final thought about her argument. Her argument possesses passion, logic, and wit. Your "making a point" comes off as misogynistic, probably because it is.
12-11-2008, 2:03:
The Los Angeles Children's Museum is owned by a private corporation. A 501(c)3 non-profit, yes, but it is a PRIVATE business. It is NOT a City project.
I work for a large 501(c)3 in fundraising and have almost a decade of experience in non-profits with budgets more than $10 mil annually. Believe me, the LA Children's Museum is failing because of poor Board of Directors cultivation and management by the non-profit, poor fundraising practices, and poor financial management period. I haven't read their exact business model, but one can hazard a guess that it was pure BS, too.
WAY THE HELL TOO MUCH PUBLIC MONEY and land (leased to them for $1 per year) has been funneled into a project that will be charging (according to 2005 statements) $8 per child to enter.
Read Laura Chick's audit of the project for the exact amount of public funds flushed down this black hole. It's criminal.
says Time2Reflect: As for your final thought about her argument. Her argument possesses passion, logic, and wit. Your "making a point" comes off as misogynistic, probably because it is.
It is sarcasm. BTW, your comment comes off as a looney liberal, probably because you are one.
It comes from BOND money marked specifically for CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS at the zoo - NOT to offset general zoo expenses. It also comes from PRIVATE DONATIONS with the expressed intent from the donors to support this project.
You sanctimonious liberals first say that moneys must be spent as specified in law. Then, when you wishto use the money elsewhere, City Council shifts fund names and move the money without anyone blinking an eye. They're a bunch of LIARS and crooks.
Take for example the escapades of Senor Councilmember Cardenas. A fund was allocated for Trail improvements around the Tujunga Wash as offset for landfill activities. But, ceremoniously, Cardenas steals the fund and allocates it towards a jobs program, teaching truck drivers. How legal was that? Not very. Yet, no action was taken against this by the City Council.
You don't need "Time2Reflect". You need Time2JOIN THE REAL WORLD. You are living in a fantasy land. If you want City Council to make a fund transfer from a Zoo Fund to the Children's Museum Fund then you call the said usage a ZOO AUXILLIARY AREA, or something equivalent.
Wake up and see the real world. This elephant condo park is just a ego trip by that fat LABONGE. He'll probably want his name on one of the barns
Above, it was Alarcon, not Cardenas.
Why don't you read some reviews of the L.A. Zoo, by some teenagers, apparently.
yelp reviews of the L.A. Zoo
Dear Anonymous (Dec. 11, 1:32 PM posting), that was a very enlightening comment you made that I "must be a girl". How comforting it is to know that your biases extend beyond your attitudes toward zoos. Thank you, “Time2Reflect”, for your kind comments in defense of my previous statements, but I think we may be wasting our time here. That anonymous writer habitually uses personal attacks in a feeble attempt to distract readers from the central issues we’re discussing on this site.
In 1998, 79% of Los Angeles voters approved Proposition CC, a $47.6-million bond measure to improve the zoo. That is, the money was given specifically FOR L.A. Zoo improvements just at “Time2Reflect” pointed out. Look, if the money is not used for the new elephant habitat, it WILL be used for something else AT THE L.A. ZOO. This is not money that can be used to buy books for school kids, or feed the homeless, or fund the Children’s Museum. It is Zoo money. That’s the bottom line. Seems to me like a bunch of control-freaks (including some Councilmembers) want to tell the Zoo what to do with THEIR own funds. I don’t agree with that. I think the Zoo is the best informed on what improvements are needed at their own facility. That’s all. Anyone who wants to read about Prop. CC can do so at: http://www.lacity.org/clk/election/Archives/Archives1998/vip/ccbaldig.htm .
Anonymous, you commented that the L.A. Zoo is just an “entertainment venue”. That may be true FOR SOME PEOPLE… such as yourself. Fine. However, for others it is NOT merely an entertainment destination. School groups and college classes do come to the Zoo with assignments to complete. Their teachers have made choices to teach their students about subjects like primatology, zoology, and physical anthropology through Zoo visits. They obviously see some value in visiting the Zoo for those purposes. That’s their choice and I think it’s good to have a zoo with elephants and other animals available for that purpose.
Also, despite what you may think, the L.A. Zoo has had an active behavioral research program for many years... studying a great number of their animals. The data collected is shared with other zoos and at conferences. So, forgive me, but it really sounds like you have no idea what goes on at the L.A. Zoo in this respect. Now, you can correct that situation and become educated about this by visiting the Zoo, perhaps doing a docent-guided tour, talking to their research staff, asking some questions, etc. Or you can close your mind to the possibility that there is more to the L.A. Zoo than you thought. It’s up to you. My guess is that you won’t bother. It’s just easier to sit back and go with your current beliefs. But the truth is that we won’t learn anything new if we don’t challenge our current beliefs once in a while. I would think that one would want to make an INFORMED decision based on actual experiences at L.A. Zoo, rather than just basing one’s beliefs on things they’ve read or heard, or perhaps even experienced years ago. So, let’s not be lazy about this. Take a day, go to L.A. Zoo, get more information. Then, decide.
...And no, this is not a plug to increase zoo attendance/revenue. I’m sure that will be your next attack. So, allow me to offer you a FREE guest pass to the L.A. Zoo. I get two each year as a paying zoo member and you can have one, Anonymous. Fair enough? (That’s funny – just wait… all the anonymous writers will respond to this and I won’t have enough passes…. Hmm – guess I’ll have to see which anonymous writer responds with the personal attacks, and then I’ll know it’s the same anonymous person?? First names or initials really would be helpful here.
good good…this post deserves nothing :( …hahaha just joking :P …nice post :P