I wonder if those making the case for the referendum realize how confusing
their rationale can be. I've heard that the library is equipped to handle 1.6
million books and now has 2.5 million, yet 85 percent of the material is not
accessible to the public. Can someone explain to the list how this doesn't
constitute bad management of existing resources?
Further, Mr. Marks' proposal of decentralizing some of the materials to
branch libraries is argued against on the grounds that downtown makes for an
easier transit ride. Well, what about concentrating some of the resources in
areas of the city where demographics show a preponderance of people who can
best take advantage of targeted resources? There are new or upgraded branch
libraries near the inner cities on both the north and south sides (it's
Hosmer in the south, don't know what the upgraded branch on the north is
called). Can't a lot of these cultural-specific materials be shifted to these
and other areas?
The library has adopted the policy that the best, if not the only, solution
is to spend tens of millions of dollars getting a Cadillac system. I'd feel
more comfortable approving that if I didn't suspect that those who have 85
percent of their resources tucked away from public consumption were simply
banking on the panacea of a whopping public project.
Britt Robson
Lyndale
