I welcome the series of messages that followed Mr. Swan's letter and hope
they represent the beginning of a long overdue dialogue on the library
referendum.
Over the past couple days, two basic questions have been raised: 1) Is this
the right time to reinvest in public libraries, and 2) Is the referendum the
right plan? All the respondents so far seem to be in general agreement that
libraries are vital, valuable community resources.
THE RIGHT TIME. It's important to recognize that this is not a choice
between doing something and doing nothing. The intent of the referendum is
to make our public library a better resource for users AND to resolve
serious structural, safety and accessibility issues within the buildings.
If we so choose, we can ignore the needs of users indefinitely, but if we
don't replace the Central Library, we are going to be forced to make
physical improvements to it. This is the right time, because there is no
point in investing in a building not fit for the 21st Centure.
For example, 85% of the collection is currently stored in stacks that are
not accessible to the public. In these areas, there are NO fire sprinkler
systems, and because the ceilings are so low, ceilings would have to be
raised in order to install sprinklers - a very costly renovation. Another
example: Right now the only exits are through the Main Arcade, which means
if there were a fire in the Main Arcade, the only way out would be to break
through some very thick windows. Understandably, bringing the building
up-to-code would include the installation of secondary exits. A third
example: The elevators are not ADA accessible at this time, and would have
to be widened to meet code - another expensive renovation. At this point,
every computer we add requires drilling through thick, concrete walls to add
new wiring.
This is not to be alarmist, but realistic. Studies have shown that it would
cost about $52 million just to bring the current building up to code. In
addition to being costly, these renovations will require space - a valuable
resource our library just doesn't have. If we raise ceilings, add exits and
widen elevators, there won't even be enough space for even the 15% of the
collection that is currently accessible to the public. Doesn't it make more
sense to invest that money in a larger, more modernized and more efficient
library?
THE RIGHT PROJECT. This is a major project, and we'll never have complete
agreement on all of its elements. Many qualified people have spent many
years developing this plan; that doesn't mean its right, but it probably
means a better one isn't just lurking around the corner. Since several
people have questioned the inclusion of the neighborhood branches and
whether the plan is sufficiently forward-looking, I'd like to address those
issues.
First the neighborhoods. Our 14 neighborhood libraries are included in the
referendum because they have serious needs and are heavily used. Five were
built before 1931; 4 remain inaccessible to people with disabilities.
Virtually every one is struggling with overcrowding - one of the major
consequences of integrating more computers. They take away a lot of book
space. Similarly, as our neighborhoods become more diverse, our libraries
are struggling to find shelf space to house collections that reflect local
interests and needs, including foreign language books.
Currently, neighborhood improvements are being funded through CLIC, which
generates $1.5 million a year for improvements. At this rate, the needed
improvements will be completed in about 30 years. Essentially what the
referendum does is speed up the process, allowing all the improvements to be
made over a 10 year period. Given that 58% of Minneapolis households used
one of the neighborhood libraries last year, I consider their improvement a
city-wide priority.
Is the referendum sufficiently forward-looking? That's always a difficult
question to answer with confidence. Whatat everyone recognizes is that the
current Central Library was not well planned; it should have more than a 40
year life span, and we need to be very careful not to repeat past mistakes.
But the fact that a building was poorly designed 40 years ago does not mean
its successor will suffer the same fate. Extensive analysis has been done
to predict library needs well into the future, and very consideration will
be taken to ensure that the next library is a more flexible building,
capable of being updated at minimal cost.
I can say with absolutely confidence this: The referendum is forward-looking
in its recognition that good libraries are an absolutely vital part of
prosperous, educated cities. They were yesterday. They are today. They
will be tomorrow. And our currently libraries aren't making the grade.
Of course we can wait. We can spend another 10 years debating and planning.
We can delay and delay until this city has erased its debt. We can make
minor (but expensive) improvements that hold our buildings together. But
it's flat out wrong to pretend there are no consequences. How many of us,
for example, would be a part of this issues list if we didn't have Internet
access at home or at work? Whether you need an answer to an obscure
question or access to basic materials (books, computers, newspapers), public
libraries are your best resource, and they should not be treated as a
secondary concern.
Colin Hamilton
Executive Director
Friends of the Minneapolis Public Library
612/630-6172
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
