There are more than the issues Wally Swan brings up which
make me, as a taxpayer, hesitate to approve the library
referendum both this year and as it now stands. The $140
million goes entirely to bricks and mortar, probably
standard operating procedure for bonded issues. In the
campaign to promote the library referendum, I don't see any
discussion of how MPL is planning to change to meet the
challenges of this "information" age. The planned new
library feels more monumental than geared toward our
projected needs. (We wouldn't be building this new library
if more care had been exercised in building the one we
have). For example, do we need a Central Library for
business, government documents, etc. and a smaller community
library downtown for those who live downtown?
Other considerations: we are now experiencing a huge influx
of immigrants and, when immigrant populations are high,
libraries see a much greater demand for resources and
services. More books in other languages, more and
bi-lingual homework helpers, more and bi-lingual staff.
Those are not bricks and mortar, but libraries have a huge
role to play in the naturalizing of citizens. That takes
much bigger book and resource budgets--not part of the
referendum and not part of the future plans for resources
and staff as have been described by the library.
Wally's right in that we have been spending freely and we
knew that spending would have to come to an end. The city's
finance director quit and some of his disatisfaction, from
his quoted words in the Strib, was around the issue of
over-spending via bonding.
Too, libraries nation-wide have not been all that effective
at lobbying legislatures and Congress for better monies for
libraries, even though their value to the communty is
tremendous. A magnificent building is less than half the
mission of the public library.
Under the present plan, the library would be part of a
residential block, as Tim Connelly queried. And, the
central library will be closed for approximately 3 years to
rebuild. That particular item does not make any sense to
me. During that time, some 85% of the collection will be in
boxes in a warehouse. That also will drive library workers
to the home for the bewildered as they try harder and fail
to meet the requests of patrons.
This referendum comes before the voters in less than a month
and, to date, there has not been anything like an adequate
information campaign. "Honk if you love libraries" does not
strike me as adequate for the size of this undertaking.
I truly hate having to say these things, because I'm at the
library almost every day as a volunteer and it has been my
home away from home since first grade. But I don't want a
second class library. I want one that's fine and beautiful,
warm and welcoming, and one that will meet our needs for a
lllllooooooonnnnnnnnggggggggg time.
Wizard Marks, Central
timothy connolly wrote:
> I had not seen Wally Swan's letter in the Strib so I
> am thankful to David Brauer for reprinting it on this
> site.
>
> I don't think Mr. Swan, whom I've never met, deserves
> the response he has so far received in this forum. I
> found his analysis cogent and I saw no evidence of a
> suggestion that favored recent developments in the
> city. to the contrary, in a very tactful manner he
> seemed to disfavor the recent behavior of the
> council's running up a large tab on credit.
>
> I concur wholeheartedly with his analysis and the in-
> evitable and prudent conclusion that this is not the
> proper time to be passing a $140 million referendum
> for a new central library and branch improvements.
>
> It pains me to say this. I use the library daily. For
> some time I have wanted a new central library. I think
> a grand central library would speak volumes about our
> values as a society, that above all we appreciate
> learning and free access to information; that we truly
> appreciate good architecture and it's ameliorative
> effects; etc.
>
> to the purely economic reasons Mr. Swan offers I would
> add concerns I have expressed privately to people on
> the library board.
>
> I do not want the city to build another public bldg.
> that outstrips its usefulness in 40 years. I wonder
> where the city might be 50, 100 years from now. Which
> direction will it grow? Presumably, all the new
> buildings along Nicollet today will become Class B
> office buildings and new development will have arisen
> somewhere else. Will Nicollet Mall still exist as it
> does now?
>
> Remember that the preceding library was erected at
> 11th and Hennepin, well away from the center of
> activity and in the intervening years a commercial
> area built up around it.
>
> Steve Brandt's article spoke of the library in its
> present location being a factor in residential living
> along Hennepin and that was part of the justification
> for it staying on that site. Where will this housing
> be? Am I missing something here? I may well be as I am
> not privy to much that goes on around here.
>
> He also spoke of the added cost of building on the
> present site that would necessitate moving everything
> twice and leave us without a central library for a
> time. Why would we want to do that? Is every block,
> every parcel of land in the downtown area spoken for
> already? Who keeps track of that inventory? Can we
> mere mortals see the register, the secret plan?
>
> I have my own ideas for possible sites. Along the
> river near Mill Ruins Park might make sense. Good
> synergy what with an archaeological dig, the nearby
> Center for the Book Arts, proximity to the U of M,
> etc. Another site might be toward Loring Park to fit
> between Minneapolis Comm. and Tech College and the
> University of St. Thomas. Presumably their students
> might take advantage of the library. Maybe we could
> tap other budgets; it is not as though only citizens
> of Mpls. use the central library.
>
> I don't know these things. They may have been
> discussed in Library Board meetings. I apologize for
> my lack of knowledge. I do think though that we are
> presented with this enormous request for bonding
> authority with scant details at best.
>
> And then there is the link between the neighborhood
> libraries and the central libraries. Am I cynical or
> is this a vaguely transparent ploy to tug at the heart
> strings of parents and neighborhood activists. And do
> I understand the emphasis on a children's section at
> the central library at the very same time as the city
> is building beaucoup developments to attract empty
> nesters. Like most parents don't take the kidilumpers
> to the neighborhood libraries and wouldn't be caught
> dead taking the kids downtown.
>
> I'm degenerating here and I did so want to be all
> business like Wally Swan.
>
> In early Spring the former finance director of the
> city was wondering aloud if we might not see 10%
> increases in property taxes for each of the next two
> or three years. Given that opinion, is this any time
> to approve this referendum?
>
> I suspect that even without passing this referendum it
> may be likely we'll see the city's bond rating
> decline. It most certainly will with it's approval. We
> need to sit back for a brief while and digest a bit of
> the intake from our recent binge. Minneapolis will
> have a new Central Library though now may not be the
> time.
>
> Tim Connolly
> Ward 7
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
> http://im.yahoo.com/
