” it jin wht tied, t, which got u ae di 
way in earnest in 1970, was to receive approval for an election from 
the state legislature. In May, legislation that would have allowed the 
voters to decide the issue in St. Louis was perfected by the represen- 
tatives after long debate. The measure was later defeated by a narrow 
margin, however, leaving those in favor of the district downhearted.22 
The defeat of what became known as the ‘‘cultural bill’’ did not stop 
the campaign, though, and an identical piece of legislation passed in 
a special session in June.?3 — 
The bill sanctioned the creation of the district, set minimum tax 
rates, and provided for the voters to have the final say as to whether 
‘the district should take over the three institutions. If approved by voters, 
pe ae Coe Bat 
Vie(ropolltan 
Tax District,’”” would be established with each of the three institutions 
as a separate subdistrict. The district would be headed by an eight- 
member board, and the tax rate would not exceed nine cents per $100 
of valuation. The issue required only a simple majority to pass. 
Later in 1970 advocates of the district mounted a petition drive 
in order to secure the signatures needed to put the question on the April 
1971 ballot. Despite some opposition, the drive was a success and the 
proposed district became a distinct possibility. 
Opposition to the proposed district came mostly from St. Louis 
County residents, who resented paying taxes in support of what they 
considered mainly ‘‘city’’ institutions. James T. Eagan, Mayor of the 
suburb of Florissant, formed an opposition committee comprised primari- 
ly of other county suburban mayors. Eagan summarized their stance 
on the district when he suggested that ‘‘. . . the answer to the problem 
[of support for the institutions] is not another taxing district, but the 
charging of admission to the facilities. Let those who benefit pay? 
Although vociferous, the number of people actively opposed to 
the creation of the district was relatively small; an opinion poll taken 
early in 1971 indicated a general favorable interest in the institutions 
and a willingness to support them through a tax. Nevertheless, those 
who wanted to see the proposition passed increased their efforts to per- 
suade the voters as the election neared. They organized a speakers’ 
bureau and produced a film that helped explain the plight of the zoo 
and museums. In addition, they launched a gaily painted bus that 
traveled—with a live llama from the Zoo on board—to campuses, schools 
and shopping centers.2° The supporters also paid for a media campaign, 
which included numerous newspaper advertisements. 
Most of the newspapers were quite sympathetic. The area’s two 
most influential journals, the Globe-Democrat and the Post-Dispatch, 
both ran favorable editorials. They also printed articles indicating that 
62 
