Americans puzzling over the role of today’s powerful corporations—Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs, Google—may profit from considering the example of the United Fruit Company.

It seems almost quaint to think that a company specializing in bananas might have once been considered a capitalist giant on the level of today’s firms, but so it was—at its height in the first half of the last century, United Fruit owned one of the largest private navies in the world. It owned 50 percent of the private land in Honduras and 70 percent of all private land and every mile of railroad in Guatemala.

A new account of United Fruit and one of its leading figures, Samuel Zemurray, is to be published June 5 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. The book, by Rich Cohen, is called The Fish That Ate The Whale: The Life And Times Of America’s Banana King. It usefully reminds us of some of the wonderful things about capitalism, and some of the dangers, too.

There is the opportunity it offers for upward mobility. Samuel Zemurray came to America from Bessarabia, in Western Russia, in 1892 at age 14 or 15, with nothing but his brain and ambition. He eventually took over United Fruit and made a fortune estimated at $30 million back in the days when that was a genuinely vast fortune. He lived in a New Orleans house with a third-floor ballroom complete with a pipe organ and a crystal chandelier; the building now serves as the residence of the president of Tulane University.

There is the efficiency. Zemurray got started in the banana business by figuring out how to distribute “ripes,” the freckled bananas that were thrown away as useless discards before Zemurray figured out the logistics of fast-moving rail distribution.

There is the bias-free marketing creativity. Mr. Cohen reports that United Fruit “stationed an agent at South Ferry terminal in New York, where the Ellis Island Ferry landed. Handing a banana to each immigrant who came off the boats, the agent said, ‘Welcome to America!’ This was to associate the banana with the nation.”

There is the egalitarianism. The banana companies figured out they could make more money by lowering prices and making bananas a fruit for mass consumption rather than a scarce and expensive luxury.

There is the technological innovation. Anyone laboring under the misapprehension that improvements in agricultural productivity are entirely the result of the federal Agriculture Department’s cooperative extension service can learn from Mr. Cohen’s account of Samuel Zemurray’s banana-farming innovations: selective pruning, silting, the use of spillways and canals for drainage, staking, overhead irrigation.

There is the decentralization. When Zemurray took over United Fruit and turned it around, he told Fortune magazine, “I realized that the greatest mistake the United Fruit management had made was to assume it could run its activities in many tropical countries from an office on the 10^th floor of a Boston office building.” Hayek would be proud.

And there are the philanthropic fruits of capitalism—Zemurray used his money and power to fund both Tulane university and the effort to help World War II-era Jewish refugees get to what became Israel.

And the United Fruit story also reminds us of some of the hazards when capitalism becomes cronyism. The book recounts all the Washington insiders hired by Zemurray as lobbyists, including Tommy “the Cork” Corcoran. A business that lives by Washington is finally at its mercy, as United Fruit learned when the antitrust cops came after it.

It’s all something to remember the next time you peel a banana.

Ira Stoll is editor of FutureOfCapitalism.com and author of Samuel Adams: A Life.

Americans puzzling over the role of today’s powerful corporations—Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs, Google—may profit from considering the example of the United Fruit Company. A new account of United Fruit and one of its leading figures usefully reminds us of some of the wonderful things about capitalism, writes Ira Stoll, and some of the dangers, too.

View this article.

read more

On June 23, Alan Turing would have been 100 years old. The World War II code breaker and founder of computer science didn’t make it to his own centennial, despite his devotion to physical fitness. He committed suicide by poisoned apple in 1954 after being convicted for “acts of gross indecency between two adult men” and chemically castrated as part of a deal to avoid prison.

We are now in the midst of Alan Turing Year, a privately organized worldwide celebration featuring talks, parties, books, and papers. Everywhere, writes Managing Editor Katherine Mangu-Ward, praise of Turing is tempered with anger over the harsh punishment he suffered at the hands of the British state, cutting short a fruitful life.

View this article.

On June 23, Alan Turing would have been 100 years old. The World War II code breaker and founder of computer science didn’t make it to his own centennial, despite his devotion to physical fitness. He committed suicide by poisoned apple in 1954 after being convicted for “acts of gross indecency between two adult men” and chemically castrated as part of a deal to avoid prison.

We are now in the midst of Alan Turing Year, a privately organized worldwide celebration featuring talks, parties, books, and papers. Everywhere, praise of Turing is tempered with anger over the harsh punishment he suffered at the hands of the British state, cutting short a fruitful life. 

Turing’s utility as the brains of an important part of the wartime British cryptanalysis operation run out of Bletchley Park kept him on the government’s payroll and out of the hands of the law during the war. He provided the big ideas that helped build the code-cracking Bombe mechanism and keep it up to date, thus rendering German naval messages legible to Allied forces. 

Anthony Cave Brown’s 1987 book “C”: The Secret Life of Sir Stewart Menzies, Spymaster to Winston Churchill describes the attitude toward Turing’s known homosexuality in those years: “Since he caused no offence to his colleagues at Bletchley, and since he was perhaps the only man in Menzies’s service who might have been called ‘indispensable,’ his services were retained…Early in 1944 a suspicion arose that he might have been the man responsible for molesting schoolboys at the main public library in Luton, a large industrial town not far from Bletchley. While no proceedings arose, it was decided that the need for good order and discipline required his removal—but not before he had done his finest work.”

If it hadn’t been for his tangible work at Bletchley’s Hut 8, Turing might have been disposed of much sooner. His stunning accomplishments in theoretical realms—the concept of the algorithm, a vision of a computing machine that could follow rules to manipulate symbolic information fed to it on a strip of tape, and a new understanding of the biological processes that cause organisms to develop their shapes—would have been unlikely to win the same leniency. 

In March, Britain’s Socialist Worker reviewed a Manchester Museum exhibit focused on Turing’s biological research, concluding that his conviction was “barbarism,” ending “a career that would have led to further brilliant insights into the workings of the natural world.” The same month, columnist Michael Hanlon at the conservative Daily Mail newspaper fumed: “Turing, a logical man after all, probably felt that having done as much as anyone to see off the Kriegsmarine and save his country from decades of fascist servitude (a new exhibition about his life has just opened at Bletchley Park), his country might be a teeny-weeny bit grateful and let the matter of consensual sexual relations with another adult man pass unnoticed.” It’s not often those two publications can agree.

Turing is most famous for the test that bears his name. In 1950 he wrote that computers would soon be able to imitate human conversation so well that a blind observer would not be able to tell the difference between man and machine 70 percent of the time. “I believe,” he said, “that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.”

We’re not quite there yet, as anyone who has ever tried to ask a question of Siri, the iPhone “digital personal assistant,” can tell you. Nor have annual Turing tests, conducted under the auspices of the Loebner Prize, crowned a computer victor. But in the years that have passed since Turing’s death, humans have at least managed to become more human.

In 2009 Prime Minister Gordon Brown apologized for the British government’s treatment of Turing: “Without his outstanding contribution, the history of World War II could well have been very different.…On behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan’s work, I am very proud to say: We’re sorry. You deserved so much better.”

The Royal Mail has issued a commemorative stamp in honor of the Turing centenary, and there’s a movement to put him on the £10 note, despite the government’s refusal to issue an formal pardon. Perhaps fittingly, the official stamp features not the mistreated man but one of his useful machines. 

Katherine Mangu-Ward is managing editor of reason.

Like fairy tales?  If so, I’ve got some doozies for you.  See if any of these ring a bell:

• The wealthy in America don’t pay “their fair share.”
• “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.”
• A dollar of government “stimulus” spending will cascade into multiple dollars of private income.

These are not your garden-variety fairy tales, however. Instead of being told to — and believed by — children, these and countless similar fables are told by — and believed in — by politicians of the genus liberalis. Grownups holding the reins of power actually believe these and similar notions, regardless of any historical or economic proof to the contrary.

Why? Why do people believe in things like ESP, alien abduction, or the economic sustainability of Medicare?

It’s easy for people who consider themselves “rational,” those who luxuriate in things like facts and proofs, to look down on those who cling to this type of magical thinking. But in his book, The 7 Laws of Magical Thinking: How Irrational Beliefs Keep Us Happy, Healthy, and Sane, psychologist Matthew Hutson reminds us that belief in preposterous things is an ancient and species-wide condition, and therefore must have conferred some evolutionary benefit to our ancestors. In other words, believing in stupid things may make sense — at least some of the time:

Once you’ve accepted that the brain constructs reality and that the brain has evolved like any other organ to help its owner survive and reproduce, it follows that the brain constructs reality in the most useful way possible for its owner. The key word here is useful, which is not to say accurate. The brain doesn’t care so much what’s really out there, it just needs to stay alive and be replicated, which might involve telling us a white lie now and then.

In light of Hutson’s entertaining insight, liberal magical thinking on economic matters begins to make at least some sense. Liberal politicians believe and say these things because it helps them get elected; people like to be given free stuff, and they like to get it from the rich (those bastards!). Marxist and Keynesian economic prescriptions are always and everywhere disastrous wealth killers — but that is not the point. The only jobs they create are those of liberal politicians, but that is quite their purpose, after all. Magical economic thinking is a survival mechanism, and a very effective one for the likes of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Barack Obama.

The liberal brain couldn’t care less whether liberal ideas work in the real world — the real world has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with telling the masses what they want to hear in exchange for wealth and power.

Libertarians and conservatives rejoice in charts and graphs and history; liberals in wishes, fear, and fables. A peak into the balance sheets of the the West gives a sense of which side is better armed for the long, Darwinian struggle ahead.

Tibor R. Machan

It is not a waste of time to revisit the topic of business bashing, especially in light of President Obama’s current attacks on wealth creation. He says prefers job creation, as if the latter were possible without the former. (Well, in a tyrannical system it may be, for a while; the population could be coerced to work, in, say, labor camps, even if no one were to want the work being performed! Public works projects have something of this about them, actually!)
Some might consider it odd to question whether business or commerce are decent endeavors but given that business is held in low esteem by many cultural commentators, as well as by Hollywood, by pulp fiction writers like John Grisham, by famous directors such as Oliver Stone, and playwrights like the late Arthur Miller (whose Death of a Salesman depicts commerce as a pathetic, lowly profession), the question is not at all negligible. And then there are the likes of Harvard University professor of government, Michael Sandel, whose recent book What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, alleges that there is not much of moral worth to what happens in free markets! (Not that there is anything new about any of this. Earlier Charles Baudelaire, the famous and widely admired French poet, had said that “Commerce is satanic, because it is the basest and vilest form of egoism. The spirit of every business-man is completely depraved.”)

Should we accept this condemnation of a field of work—and its practitioners—that has managed to create prosperity and wealth for not only those who succeed in it but those who are indirect beneficiaries of its products such as universities, museums, and think tanks?

Most people take it for granted that medicine, education and science have merit and those doing work in those fields are doing the right thing. They can claim credit for having chosen a fine calling or vocation. But the same is not so with business. A clear indication of this is that there is a great deal of talk about the social responsibility of corporations, and how companies should give back to the community in contributions, something few other professionals hear of. Are college professors being implored to do likewise? No, because their work is deemed to be worthwhile in and of itself. And why is it necessary for people in business to “give back”? Have they committed theft so they need to atone for it by returning the goods they stole? No, there is something else behind the hostility toward business.

Throughout human history, East and West, commerce has been demeaned. Plato depicted the trader as a lowly sort in his most famous dialogue, the Republic. Of all types of sinners who gather in the temple, Jesus picked on the money lenders and the Prince of Peace violently attacked them, sending a signal that Christianity seems to have embraced throughout its history. The idea that money may be lent for interest is still attacked by some moral philosophers, as if foregoing the benefits of liquid assets does not deserve to be compensated.

Is this all OK? Should we be ashamed when we embark upon a career in business? Is it a lowly profession? Say, akin to prostitution or being a prison guard at a concentration camp?

If the answer is no, as I believe it should be, why have so many prominent figures shown utter contempt for commerce and its professional arm, business? What accounts for this?

A good place to begin is with Aristotle, the famous ancient Greek philosopher who had little respect for activities aimed at prosperity. He believed that the highest form of human life is that which is devoted to contemplation. Theorist who contemplate the eternal verities are doing the most honorable thing, and this idea is still with us. Professors and educators in general are usually held in high esteem. The Nobel Prize is usually given to theoreticians, not those who put theories into practice. The bad guys in novels, movies and TV are usually ones trying to make a profit.

One problem with Aristotle’s ethics is that he believed what is exclusively important in our lives is that we have minds. And to be good for him meant for us to be exclusively focused on what the mind uses, namely, ideas. Intellectuals, then, seem to live the most if not the only worthy lives.

This is not really true, however. We are not just mental beings – we are embodied. And we need to be good at applying our thinking to all facets of our being, not just to abstract ideas. We need to succeed as living, thinking biological entities not only as intellectuals. (Of course, there is much debate on just what Aristotle meant. But what we might call “intellectualism” has been the most influential aspect of his ethical reflections.)

Oddly enough, it is one of the main virtues Aristotle himself identified, namely, prudence which gives commerce and business their clear link with morality. To be frugal, industrious, and heedful of the bottom line is something demanded by prudence, provided we view ourselves not simply as mental but as biological (albeit thinking) entities.

Such an understanding of human life shows that professionals in business are doing important tasks, every bit as much as do professionals in medicine, science, education or engineering. Which does not mean, of course, that such professionals cannot fall prey to the temptation of corruption. But this is no less true in education, science or any other profession. There are quacks in medicine, frauds in science and so on, just as there are cheats in business. But as a profession, business isn’t like white slavery, pimping or fatal drug pushing, endeavors that are inherently morally questionable.

Why is all this of significance? Especially after September 11, 2001, where terrorism was directed at both the major substance and the greatest symbol of commerce, the World Trade Center, it should be evident that whether business is a good thing is disputed even today—again I point to President Obama’s hostility toward wealth creation—never mind the evident beneficial nature of the institution.

Not everyone follows what is evident or reasonable. Moreover, many who embark upon business, professionally or otherwise, haven’t the faintest notion of what makes this profession worthwhile or if they do they have a hell of a time articulating the case for it. They engage in it absent-mindedly and when challenged do not know what makes it honorable apart from its contribution to the wealth of a nation! There are many people in business who even look upon what they do with self-deprecation and cynicism. They see themselves as so called practical people who have abandoned naïve idealism and thus can pursue business because, well, they do not care whether it is immoral, amoral or moral.

Certainly such people aren’t going to make convincing defenders of this very large element of Western culture. And a defense the institution does require, given the bad press it has had throughout history and continues to get from many circles—philosophical, theological, ethical and cultural.

Furthermore, when professionals turn cynical about what they do, they aren’t going to be inclined to worry about doing it properly, ethically. So, in consequence of widespread business bashing the practices of business can suffer. The usual approach is to say that all that matters is whether the law is obeyed, never mind about ethics and decency.

The law, however, is not a sufficient guide to proper business conduct because it changes from country to country, even state to state. Unless those in business are guided by certain sound principles of business ethics, they will eventually lose their way. It is sometimes held that philosophy and its various branches are for people who are lost in the clouds, absent minded people, but this is a good example where that view just doesn’t cut it. Without some understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of both the criticism and the defense of business, the profession will always suffer from moral ambiguity. And that means it is going to be unstable and morally suspect.

None of this means that all people in business need to become well versed in the field of intellectual history. But they need to be aware that sometimes they might have to dip into that field, consult those who have contributed to the on-going dialogue about the merits of trade, commerce, finance, capitalism, market processes and so forth. They need to be aware that there is such a conversation going on and it has strong implications for the way business is understood and depicted throughout the world. And it may even have an impact on how people in business are treated, whether respected or held in contempt, something that as we know can have a powerful impact on the lives of those professionals.

There is a lot of discussion afoot about the origins of the Holocaust but it is not mentioned often enough that one thing that contributed to it is the hatred of business. Jews, unlike Christians, did not have any religious objections to trade and finance, quite the contrary. When they settled in Christian countries, they were usually the ones who took up commercial trades. Often this gave them considerable clout, for which they were then despised, resented, even envied. This is not a negligible portion of the story of one of human histories worst events. (And it is important, also, to realize that despite being Jewish himself, Karl Marx found the Jews open to severe criticism on the grounds that they were the quintessential capitalists, traders! This is not all that far from why the Nazis found Jews objectionable.)

People in business, like those in engineering and medicine, work in a field that unabashedly champions life here on earth. As such, their work is not always well received and is often demeaned, in fact. For capitalism, free markets and commerce in general to gain moral standing, this needs to be rejected and the reasons why the critics are misguided need to be understood—even by those in business, sometimes! A good beginning might be to explore the implications of another observation made by Charles Baudelaire, namely that “Commerce is natural, therefore shameful.” What if someone said this about medicine or science in general? Think about it!

Tibor Machan is co-author, with James E. Chesher, of The Business of Commerce; Examining an Honorable Profession (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2000).

The Soviet Union is gone, al-Qaida is decimated, and Iran may never acquire nuclear weapons. But don't get too relaxed. If you're looking for reasons to be anxious about world peace, writes Steve Chapman, China offers an abundance.

View this article.

SHANGHAI -- The Soviet Union is gone, al-Qaida is decimated, and Iran may never acquire nuclear weapons. But don't get too relaxed. If you're looking for reasons to be anxious about world peace, China offers an abundance.

It's a huge country with a growing economy, an expanding military and ongoing disputes with several neighbors. Nationalist sentiment has grown. China is a rising power, and history indicates that rising powers often assert themselves in ways that lead to bloodshed.

If you demand immediate evidence, look only to the South China Sea, where the Chinese are locked in an ominous standoff with the Philippines over fishing rights. The Obama administration recently underlined its worries by announcing it would deploy up to 2,500 Marines in Australia. As the longtime dominant nation in the Pacific, the United States has much to lose if China decides to mount a challenge.

Pessimism is a perfectly reasonable response to China's rise. It would not be surprising if it acts to become as dominant in its region as we are in ours. But in pondering the issue on a visit to China, I've found some reasons for hope as well. Tensions and disagreements may be inevitable, but military clashes and all-out war are not.

One encouraging fact is that the Chinese people are not naturally hostile to the United States. Shanghai pollster Victor Yuan told a group of journalists that included me, "Aside from politics, Chinese have a fully positive view of the United States."

American multinational corporations, he says, are regarded as good places to work. Western movies, music and consumer products are popular. Some 130,000 Chinese students are enrolled in the U.S.

It's true that, as Yuan says, the Chinese people rank the U.S. second among China's foes—with first place going to Japan. But how much of this reflects Chinese belligerence and how much stems from our habit of invading other countries is hard to gauge.

In a candid, free-flowing session with a couple of dozen students at Peking University—the country's most prestigious—I asked if there are times when they feel angry toward the United States. Not one hand went up. Nor did any expect that America will help Taiwan break away from the mainland, which would undoubtedly be cause for war.

That consensus seems to be the prevailing view here. Yuan told us that 90 percent of Chinese expect the reunification with Taiwan to be accomplished peacefully.

Taiwan, which is part of China in theory but functionally independent, is the issue that could push the U.S. and China into a shooting war. But it always has been—and the two sides have been able to keep it from mushrooming out of control. The Economist magazine reports that "relations across the strait have never been better."

Any assessment of the potential danger posed by China ought to incorporate its past behavior. MIT political scientist M. Taylor Fravel points out that since 1949, Beijing has settled 17 of its 23 territorial disputes. In most, it has offered significant compromises, "usually receiving less than 50 percent of the contested land."

"Over the past decade," he testified recently on Capitol Hill, "China has not used its armed forces to actively enforce its claims." Nor has it invented new claims to match its growing wealth and power.

Come to think of it, China hasn't fought a war since 1979. Its record is an encouraging contrast with that of the U.S., which has entered several wars of choice.

The Chinese have found that pushing their agenda can be counterproductive. When China acts assertively, its neighbors tend to seek safety in the arms of Uncle Sam. The Beijing government may have learned something from the experience of Germany—which has gained a dominant role in Europe by being careful not to revive old fears.

China has followed that model in many respects, signing some 250 multilateral agreements, joining the World Trade Organization and taking part in United Nations peacekeeping operations. It's been generally supportive of international norms that mandate peaceful resolution of differences. It hasn't pursued drastic changes or used drastic measures.

That could change. Past results, we all know, are no guarantee of future performance. But peace has held so far, and it just might keep doing so.

Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman.

Readings and Links related to this podcast

Highlights

North Carolina's proposed management agreement would turn operations of the zoo over to the North Carolina Zoological Society, Inc. for 25 years. In its current form, HB 958 includes the following appropriations:

• $10 million annual operating subsidy;
• $30 million in deferred maintenance through six $5 million payments; and
• $3.2 million in transition costs.

The Carolina Journal reports that under its current managements structure the zoo only raises $6 million, or one-third, of its $17 million annual operating budget, and faces reduced appropriations if fundraising exceeds the allotted amount.[1]

This partnership would usher in several changes for the zoo. Most notably, HB 958 would significantly reduce the operating subsidies that the state provides the zoo. In its place, the Zoological Society would generate more revenue from visitors and increase private donations. The zoo’s state employees will also be affected by the management change. HB 958 includes legislative language to provide transition funding to cover severance wages for 300 employees in accordance with federal and state law. The Zoological Society would rehire most employees with new compensation and benefits packages.

HB 958 has the support of a broad coalition of advocates that want to improve the approximately 2,000-acre property. David Knight, assistant secretary for natural resources for the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) of which the zoo is a state agency, recently described the partnership saying:

It’s a new way of doing things... Everyone is in agreement this is the way we should go. This is a big deal.[2]

Similarly, state Rep. Harold Brubaker, R-Randolph, endorsed partnering with the private sector saying:

I fully support the public-private partnership. It’s the only way the zoo’s going to move forward... We don’t have the money to do additional programs and expansion (through state funding alone).[3]

It’s no surprise that zoo advocates support this new reform effort. And Reason Foundation has reported on the sustained trend of PPPs for zoos through the 2010 and 2011 editions of the Annual Privatization Report. The vast majority of accredited zoos and aquariums across the United States now rely on private operators—this includes major cities like Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Fresno, Houston and Seattle. Eight publicly owned zoos and aquariums have been transferred to private operators in the last ten years alone. Lawmakers in several other communities are exploring agreements similar to the one in North Carolina.

Los Angeles, California: Officials in Los Angeles are exploring privatizing the Los Angeles Zoo. Last year the Los Angeles City Council ordered feasibility studies on ways to privatize the operations of the Los Angeles Zoo & Botanical Gardens, partnering with a nonprofit organization like the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association. This proposal progressed in 2011 when the city council voted to begin soliciting proposals from prospective operators. The zoo’s operating budget is projected to increase from $26 million to $33.7 million over the next five years, expenses the city can’t afford.

City analysts calculate a PPP for the zoo could save as much as $20 million over the next five years. A July report by Miguel Santana found that “Without an alternative (operating) model, the city’s fund subsidy is very likely to be reduced further or eliminated, resulting in the continual increase of admission fees and the possible eventual closure of the (zoo)."[4]

Tulsa, Oklahoma: One of Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett’s first tangible wins was successfully transitioning the Tulsa Zoo to a PPP. The Tulsa Zoo is the fifth such PPP in Tulsa; other examples include: the BOK Center, Gilcrease Museum, the Performing Arts Center and Tulsa golf courses.[5] According to an analysis conducted by Schultz & Williams, the 78-acre complex houses 2,500 animals and attracts over 525,000 visitors annually and has operated within Mohawk Park since 1927. Lawmakers partnered with the newly created nonprofit Tulsa Zoo Management, Inc. (TZMI).

TZMI assumed a significant fundraising challenge since the facility renewal and reinvestment plan included $60–100 million for deferred maintenance and infrastructure investment. The zoo also faced a pressing need to meet compliance standards for accreditation with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) after the death of two giraffes under public operation.

One year later the Tulsa World reports, “(the) Tulsa Zoo is prospering due to privatization.”[6] The zoo was able to retain its AZA accreditation meeting standards for governance, operations and quality animal care. Privatization allowed the zoo to increase its reliance on private funding for its $8.3 million operating budget—specifically raising over $1 million for capital investment and deferred maintenance projects—with only $3.6 million coming from the city in the form of a management fee. TZMI is planning on hiring 26 employees, replacing 12 vacant positions the city eliminated in January 2010 during budget cuts.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: Lawmakers announced an agreement to transition toward privatizing the John Ball Zoo after Kent County names a team composed of zoo employees and county representatives to guide the process. The John Ball Zoo Society is expected to play a significant role in the process as the nonprofit organization has been working in partnership with the zoo since 1950, and helps with fundraising, marketing, advertising, animal purchasing and other functions. The zoo received $2.5 million, or nearly two-thirds, of funding for its $4 million budget from the county in 2011.

Santa Ana, California: Policymakers in cash-strapped Santa Ana published a 116-page report detailing a variety of proposed solutions to help the city maintain fiscal stability. One of the proposals is privatizing the Santa Ana Zoo, whose $1.6 million annual budget receives almost $800,000 in support from the general fund. According to The Orange County Register, Friends of the Santa Ana Zoo—a local nonprofit organization—is the most likely operator since it has been conducting fundraising for the zoo for over 30 years. Friends of the Santa Ana Zoo already conducts fundraising, gift shop operations and operates the zoo trains and carousel.

Evansville, Indiana: Officials in Evansville continued the dialogue on privatizing the Mesker Park Zoo in 2011, after forming a Strategic Plan Committee to explore the issue in 2010.

For more on ways that policymakers are partnering with the private sector for zoos, and comparable services like animal shelters and parks, see Reason Foundation’s Annual Privatization Report 2011.

Harris Kenny is a policy analyst at Reason Foundation. A modified version of this article was published in Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2011: Local Government report.

Notes

[1] Dan Way, “N.C. Zoo Says Privatization Could Free It From Fiscal Captivity,” Carolina Journal, October 24, 2011.

[2] Kathi Keys, "Public-private N.C. Zoo partnership proceeds," The Courier-Tribune, May 2, 2012.

[3] Dan Way, “Plan to Make N.C. Zoo Public-Private Partnership On the Move,” Carolina Journal, October 24, 2011.

[4] Rick Orlov, “Report by CAO endorses private partnership for L.A. Zoo,” Daily News Los Angeles, July 16,2011.

[5] Tulsa Zoo and Living Museum: Tulsa Zoo Organizational Analysis and Governance Study. (Philadelphia: Schultz & Williams, March 15, 2011).

[6] Sara Plummer, “Tulsa Zoo is prospering due to privatization,” Tulsa World , September 9, 2011.

The East Chicago Board of Public Safety suspended police officer Arcides Santiago for six months without pay after he was caught on video fondling his genitals while making lewd comments to a woman. The woman had called police to report a burglary.

The East Chicago Board of Public Safety suspended police officer Arcides Santiago for six months without pay after he was caught on video fondling his genitals while making lewd comments to a woman. The woman had called police to report a burglary.

Brickbat Archive