A friend who works at the downtown library sent me her opinion of the
referendum:
>I am an employee of the Minneapolis Public Library. I am firmly opposed to
the referendum on next week's ballot. I know, better than most people how
badly we need a new building. But the current plan has grave problems.
>Do you currently use the downtown library on a regular basis? If the
referendum passes, that building would be closed for at least two years.
Some services would be relocated, downtown or elsewhere. But up to 80% of
the books would be in storage, inaccessible, for 2 years, or however long
it takes. If you wanted the latest John Grisham, you could get it. But if
you are trying to find older or more obscure material, you'd be out of
luck. The reasoning is, well, Seattle did it, and St. Paul is doing it, so
it must be okay. I use to try that kind of logic on my mom as a teenager -
everybody's doin' it - and she didn't buy it. The people of Minneapolis
shouldn't buy it either.
>By the way, members of the Library Board have attended 2 meetings of
AFSCME #99, trying to get the union to support the referendum. We won't.
The staff, the people who actually do the work, don't support the referendum.
>Finally, the reason they gave for rebuilding on the current site, rather
than using the old Nicollet Hotel site directly north of the current
building is: but if we build there, we'll be at the end of the skyway
system. There are vague plans for the site to the north, that supposedly
would take foot traffic throught the new building. Personally, I don't
think that's a very good reason. It would be nice for the new library to be
on the skyway system, but I don't think that should be the prime
consideration.
>The prime consideration should be serving the public - and I don't think
the current referendum would do that.
<end of forwarded letter>
Rosalind Nelson
Bancroft
