"But opponents of the plan question the savings and warn that privatization could mean steeper ticket prices for the zoo’s 1.5 million annual visitor"
- Possibly yes, but that just means that the people who go to the zoo pay their own way.
One is the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Assn., or GLAZA, a nonprofit headquartered on the zoo’s campus that raises money for the institution, manages its memberships and operates its concessions. In 2010-11, it raised about $13 million for the zoo, according to GLAZA President Connie Morgan. The other party is Parques Reunidos, a Madrid-based theme park operator that runs 70 amusement parks, water parks and zoos worldwide.
- So its not between to mega corporations.
Animal activists fear that could result in a lack of transparency. Catherine Doyle, of In Defense of Animals, said that if the zoo is privatized, “it will become even more secretive and insular.”
She and others have long accused the zoo’s management of not being forthcoming about animal care, and have asked that the operator be required to answer to a city-appointed animal welfare commission.
-So the city isnt doing a good job about being transparency. So you want to stick with the city instead of trying a new owner.
Adriana Hawkins, a zoo gardener for six years, says everyone will suffer if longtime employees are reassigned. The zoo will lose expertise, she said, and the employees will lose jobs they love.
“I don’t want to go down to the harbor; I don’t want to spend my life on the freeway,” Hawkins said. “I have a passion for the zoo.”
-So you have valuable skills and know your way around the zoo sounds like a pretty good postion to be hired on or kept.