One person's vegetables is another person's desert

Sharon Boyd, a familiar voice among those who speak about city affairs, begins a recently posted article by admitting that she's "a big fan of the Dallas zoo." Good for her. I'm not, but that's me. I personally don't like the idea of animals that should be roaming free in the wilds of another continent confined for the enjoyment of urban residents. But that's a debate best left for another day. While I may not agree with her opinion, I will respect it, as I respect the opinion of my son who loves to take his 2 1/2-year-old daughter to the zoo.

I have never, ever been to the Dallas Aquarium. No reasons, specifically. It just doesn't interest me. I will go hundreds, even thousands, of miles to view a display of impressionist art in a museum, but I have no interest in seeing fish swimming in tanks. I have not even been to the super duper aquarium in downtown Dallas, although I hear it is really worth the effort. I also hear it is overpriced and that observation is what has kept me from saying "There's some place I really want to go to." However, my son has taken his daughter there as well and his only complaint, besides the admission price, was that it involved a lot of walking that may be hard on those with infants and the elderly.

On the other hand, I am excited about the prospects of the Trinity River Project because I'm convinced something like a Central Park or a Golden Gate Park would be a great addition for Dallas, especially if planners didn't spoil it by putting a high-speed roadway through it. I am also excited about the idea of a Lincoln Center-like outlet that is taking shape in the Arts District. Will I ever go to one of these buildings? Well, that depends on what is being offered. But I like to know it's there, just the same way as I take pride in the Nasher Sculpture Garden and the Dallas Museum of Art, places I visit on a regular basis. Ms. Boyd, on the other hand, is not a fan of the Trinity River Park or what's going on in the arts district and that's her right.

Ms. Boyd is complaining because, in a recent sneak peak at the 2008-09 fiscal year budget for the City of Dallas, City Manager Mary Suhm said the budget might call for the zoo to be closed one day a week and the aquarium to be shuttered permanently. Ms. Boyd wonders why we are spending money on places she doesn't care about (what she calls the "desert) at the expense of places she does (what she calls the "vegetables"). Of course, she fails to recognize the money is not coming from the same place (most of the arts district construction is being funded by private investors) or that those items were approved in different economic times.

The point I would like to make is that it doesn't have to be an either/or situation, especially because it really isn't. What Ms. Boyd fails to point out is that the Ms. Suhm isn't proposing reducing the hours of libraries and the zoo to pay for the Trinity River Park or the arts district. She's advocating these actions to pay for 200 more cops and more code enforcement officials. That's the real either/or. But even that either/or doesn't have to exist.

I remember six or so years ago when the City was going through another financial crunch, I was alone with former City Manager Ted Benavides and told him that I thought there were a lot of things the city did very well, but there were others the city not only didn't do well, but probably should not even attempt to do at all. One of them was running a zoo. I advocated then and I am advocating now that the city should get out of the zoo business. While I'm at it, I would recommend the city get out of the aquarium business as well. That does not mean permanently closing these facilities. At least, it doesn't have to mean that. The operative word here is "privatization." Turn it over to someone, preferably a non-profit organization, and let it operate these facilities so that the City can concentrate on what it's supposed to be doing and tax monies could go to these efforts.

Interestingly, that's what the city wants to do with the Convention Center hotel and it boggles my mind why the argument can be made that it's OK for the city to build and operate a zoo and an aquarium but not a hotel. Frankly, I believe in providing all, but operating none.

In fact, during this period, I would like to see the city manager focusing on what else the city could privatize. I could think of a number of things, but I'll save that for another day.