RALEIGH – No offense intended to anyone in particular or to the wonderful community of Randolph County in general, but when did it become the responsibility of state taxpayers to finance its economic growth and fiscal health?
I suppose an answer to my petulant question would be, “When the state decided to locate the North Carolina Zoo in Randolph County.” But that doesn’t quite do it. If the state was going to be involved in the zoological park business in the first place, some location was necessary. Asheboro is pretty close to the center of the state, within easy travel distance of a large chunk of the population. Raleigh can’t get all the state-run attractions, after all. And the zoo does cover a good portion of its operating costs by charging fees to visitors.
But based on the comments of lawmakers and others in this Mark Binker piece, zoo boosters don’t think they’re getting enough subsidy. They’d like to force state taxpayers to shoulder a larger share of the operating costs of the facility, freeing up admission fees to finance bonds for capital improvements designed to make the zoo a more attractive destination for overnight tourists. This, in turn, would generate more economic impact and local tax revenue for Asheboro and Randolph County.
Other communities in the state would no doubt relish the prospect of being able to force faraway taxpayers to finance their local governments and economic-development projects. But for all of them to get their wish, we’d have to get past a little barrier called basic mathematics. It isn’t possible for every county to transfer funding responsibilities to state taxpayers, as the taxpayers in question happen to live in the counties in question. As I’ve pointed out before, it is impossible for everyone to be subsidized.
It seems likely that the North Carolina Zoo is in need of expanded facilities and renovations. No doubt such an investment would enable the zoo to attract more visitors, which would in turn have salutary effects on local merchants. The solution, however, is not to increase the amount of state subsidy. It is to decrease it, along with funding for state museums, historic sites, and other attractions.
As the zoo’s director points out in the News & Record article, all of these state institutions are trying to act as extensions of the public education system as well as traditional cultural or tourist attractions. Lawmakers typically justify continued state subsidy on the former grounds. But direct grants to the institutions are a terrible way to accomplish the goal.
A better idea would be to end all state funding to these attractions that is intended to subsidize their use by schoolchildren. Instead, dole an equivalent amount of money out to schools as grants for non-classroom education, and then let the schools decide what to do with the money. If they wish to take a trip to a museum, zoo, aquarium, or other facility, they can do so and pay the entrance fees with their grant. Or they might wish to invest in more library or computer resources at the school, making fewer trips as a consequence.
Let the cultural and educational institutions compete for those dollars. Let them charge meaningful prices for their services, and fund capital improvements from those user fees, private philanthropy, and, if local residents will stand for it, local taxes.
That way, if the staff and boosters of the North Carolina Zoo want to expand the facility, they can have our best wishes – but no more of our tax dollars.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation