--------------BF5BE9016443FDCA3B140B39
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Getting mad at Wally Swan is pointless, but also is ad hominem. He didn't
complain about Target or moving the Schubert (I sure did). Maybe we weren't
reaching the end of our line of credit those times. Had the library been at the
top of its game and had the library not so badly mismanaged the information
campaign around the new library, it might have made the argument then that
funding those projects would make funding the library difficult.
There is no question in my mind that we need a new downtown library and have
needed it for a very long time. I hate closed stacks. Plus, the combination of
closed stacks and computer catalog really makes utilizing the library much more
difficult. And, it's been true for a long time that we cannot house the
collection in the space we have. Plus, the joint is ugh-g-l-y, ugly! Frank
Lloyd Wrong all the way.
Special collections is being used two different ways, and that makes
understanding it difficult. Special collections like the Minneapolis Collection
and rare books, first editions, autographed, etc. do belong downtown. But a
collection of books in Somali, Spanish, or Hmong, should go in the branches
where those populations are concentrated.
The $30 million for the branches is to remodel and enlarge Franklin, Sumner and
Linden Hills without losing the integrity of the present buildings. There are
other bricks and mortar uses included in that as well, though for the moment I
can't remember what they are. The caveat is that Hosmer, for example, was just
remodelled and enlarged three years ago and it's already too small for the
collections and the number of patrons. (Hosmer went from 30,000 patrons/year to
100,000.)
Branch libraries are already short staffed and their book budgets do not meet
the needs of their patrons. It's one thing to build a beautiful building, it's
quite another to muster the dollars to staff and supply them adequately. I'll
repeat, libraries in general have not been very effective in lobbying for a
stronger fund base from the feds, the state, the city, the county or anyone
else. Libraries are treated as an afterthought, not a core requirement like
police and fire. BIG MISTAKE!
I don't buy the transit argument. It's not necessarily easier to get downtown,
particularly if your bringing a daycare center, a high school class, or even
your own children. One goal of libraries is "lifelong learning." To make that
happen, libraries need to be close to the populations using them, so they're an
every day event. Further, libraries have a huge role to play in assisting the
education of children. Branch libraries do that work for the most part, with
homework helpers, peer helpers, volunteers, and collections which meet the needs
of school age kids. And kids can walk there from their homes. Parents are not
going to allow those same kids to hop a bus to the loop until they're 13 or 14.
Branch libraries are helping kids learn good study habits and get the grades
that make high school more doable (though it's questionable whether high school
is doable for teens from any angle).
An aside: being close to the U of M will not bring college students into the
public library. College libraries have entirely different collections than do
public libraries, much more specialized and focused in depth on particular
subjects.
Walker is on 5 major, established bus lines. Walker is also another major
architectural disaster. It has a sweet little garden, but using it will subject
patrons to being beaned with beer bottles, coke cans and who knows what else.
Walker is not big enough for its potential patronage. Nor is Roosevelt and
several others.
wizard marks, Central
Carol Becker wrote:
> Let's see if I can respond to some of the issues that folks have brought up
> regarding the library referendum.
>
> 1) Wally Swan's letter: My basic beef with Mr. Swan's letter is that he
> wasn't writing letters when it came to so many other projects which used
> money from our tax base. He didn't write a letter over the Block E TIF
> deal. He didn't write a letter over the Target Store and Target Tower deal.
> He didn't write a letter over the Schubert deal. He didn't write a letter
> about the Target Center deal. All these deals and silence. The deal that
> was cut for the Parks will cost twice as much as the library referendum and
> he didn't write a letter on that. But when it comes down to the Libraries,
> something that is for the people directly, he writes a letter to the editor.
> If Mr. Swan feels that this project is too much, where was he when all these
> other deals were being
> done? Why hasn't he been raising a ruckus all along? If he felt so
> strongly about the budget, why wasn't he writing letters to the editor on
> the past several budgets? 75% of households used the libraries last year.
> Why should library users (i.e. most of us) be hurt because of all these past
> deals?
>
> 2) Taxes shifting to residential properties: Taxes *are* shifting to
> residential properties. This isn't the fault of the libraries. In fact, it
> isn't the fault of any local official. It is the fault of the Legislature.
> Tricky, eh? The Legislature sets up the property tax system and the local
> governments have to play with the rules that the Legislature sets up. And
> over the last five years or so, the Legislature has dramatically shifted the
> costs of property taxes off commercial/industrial, high-end residential, and
> rental property in the name of property tax reform. Squarely onto you and
> I, the middle class taxpayer. Right at a time when our valuations are also
> increasing. The people to be angry with are not the local officials. If
> the referendum would have been paid for like all other taxes, the costs to
> residents would probably been half or less (I haven't been able to get the
> City Finance folks to run the numbers). Again, because the Legislature has
> been messing with the tax system, increasing middle class taxes, why should
> the libraries suffer? I appreciate that citizens are angry about this, (as
> am I) but the appropriate tool is to vote out your legislator who has been
> doing this, not voting out the needed library improvements.
>
> 3) Why do we need a downtown library at all and how is it good for the
> neighborhoods? The downtown library is much much more than just an
> overgrown business library. There is a synergy between the branches and the
> downtown library, one needing the other.
>
> The downtown library houses all the books that can't fit in the branch
> libraries. This includes both general books and the special collections
> that Ms. Marks refers to. Ms. Marks makes a strong argument for the need
> for special collections but it isn't practical to house those in branches.
> You need a central library to house those books. Unfortunately, the
> downtown library is full. It was designed to hold 1.6 million books and
> now holds 2.5 million. Librarians throw out books when they buy new ones
> because there is no place to store them. That weakens the branches as well
> because the branches don't have access to those books once they are gone
> either.
>
> As to why it is downtown? Simple. Transit. Libraries are for the people
> and no place is more accessible to everyone than the downtown. The business
> community that uses the central library could get to the library wherever it
> is. It is other folks who need access that a downtown location requires.
> And yes, one of the critical elements of the new design is parking so folks
> don't just have to ride the bus to get to the library.
>
> It is hard to imagine with the dump that we have today what the downtown
> library could be. A destination to take our kids on a Saturday. A place to
> spend an evening, browsing and finding wonderful things. A place to help
> our kids learn. A place for people who cannot afford a computer to access
> the information highway. A place that doesn't exist now. But a place that
> could exist.
>
> 4) Why do we need better branch libraries? Several people mentioned the
> need for computer access. Currently most libraries are not wired nor have
> the space to meet demand for computer access. I was at East Lake on
> Saturday and every computer was full. With a waiting list. In fact, one
> parent had fallen asleep waiting for her kid's turn on the computers. 75%
> of our kids are on free or reduced lunches. These parents are not going to
> be able to afford computers for their kids. Where do they turn? The
> libraries. Everyone should have access to electronic information.
>
> Ms. Marks also talks about the need for more diversity of books in the
> branch libraries. Most of the branch libraries are at capacity. Without
> expansion, where do you put these books? It is a simple question of space.
>
> Libraries are for the people. By supporting them, we are supporting us.
>
> Carol Becker
> Longfellow
> Treasurer, Citizens for Minneapolis Public Libraries
--------------BF5BE9016443FDCA3B140B39
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
Getting mad at Wally Swan is pointless, but also is <I>ad hominem</I>.
He didn't complain about Target or moving the Schubert (I sure did).
Maybe we weren't reaching the end of our line of credit those times.
Had the library been at the top of its game and had the library not so
badly mismanaged the information campaign around the new library,
it might have made the argument then that funding those projects would
make funding the library difficult.
<BR>There is no question in my mind that we need a new downtown library
and have needed it for a very long time. I hate closed stacks.
Plus, the combination of closed stacks and computer catalog really makes
utilizing the library much more difficult. And, it's been true for
a long time that we cannot house the collection in the space we have.
Plus, the joint is ugh-g-l-y, ugly! Frank Lloyd Wrong all the way.
<BR>Special collections is being used two different ways, and that makes
understanding it difficult. Special collections like the Minneapolis
Collection and rare books, first editions, autographed, etc. do belong
downtown. But a collection of books in Somali, Spanish, or Hmong,
should go in the branches where those populations are concentrated.
<BR>The $30 million for the branches is to remodel and enlarge Franklin,
Sumner and Linden Hills without losing the integrity of the present buildings.
There are other bricks and mortar uses included in that as well, though
for the moment I can't remember what they are. The caveat is that
Hosmer, for example, was just remodelled and enlarged three years ago and
it's already too small for the collections and the number of patrons.
(Hosmer went from 30,000 patrons/year to 100,000.)
<P>Branch libraries are already short staffed and their book budgets do
not meet the needs of their patrons. It's one thing to build a beautiful
building, it's quite another to muster the dollars to staff and supply
them adequately. I'll repeat, libraries in general have not been
very effective in lobbying for a stronger fund base from the feds, the
state, the city, the county or anyone else. Libraries are treated
as an afterthought, not a core requirement like police and fire.
BIG MISTAKE!
<P>I don't buy the transit argument. It's not necessarily easier
to get downtown, particularly if your bringing a daycare center, a high
school class, or even your own children. One goal of libraries is "lifelong
learning." To make that happen, libraries need to be close to the
populations using them, so they're an every day event. Further, libraries
have a huge role to play in assisting the education of children.
Branch libraries do that work for the most part, with homework helpers,
peer helpers, volunteers, and collections which meet the needs of school
age kids. And kids can walk there from their homes. Parents
are not going to allow those same kids to hop a bus to the loop until they're
13 or 14. Branch libraries are helping kids learn good study habits and
get the grades that make high school more doable (though it's questionable
whether high school is doable for teens from any angle).
<BR>An aside: being close to the U of M will not bring college students
into the public library. College libraries have entirely different
collections than do public libraries, much more specialized and focused
in depth on particular subjects.
<P>Walker is on 5 major, established bus lines. Walker is also another
major architectural disaster. It has a sweet little garden, but using
it will subject patrons to being beaned with beer bottles, coke cans and
who knows what else. Walker is not big enough for its potential patronage.
Nor is Roosevelt and several others.
<BR>wizard marks, Central
<P>Carol Becker wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Let's see if I can respond to some of the issues
that folks have brought up
<BR>regarding the library referendum.
<P>1) Wally Swan's letter: My basic beef with Mr. Swan's letter is that
he
<BR>wasn't writing letters when it came to so many other projects which
used
<BR>money from our tax base. He didn't write a letter over the Block
E TIF
<BR>deal. He didn't write a letter over the Target Store and Target
Tower deal.
<BR>He didn't write a letter over the Schubert deal. He didn't write
a letter
<BR>about the Target Center deal. All these deals and silence.
The deal that
<BR>was cut for the Parks will cost twice as much as the library referendum
and
<BR>he didn't write a letter on that. But when it comes down
to the Libraries,
<BR>something that is for the people directly, he writes a letter to the
editor.
<BR>If Mr. Swan feels that this project is too much, where was he when
all these
<BR>other deals were being
<BR>done? Why hasn't he been raising a ruckus all along? If
he felt so
<BR>strongly about the budget, why wasn't he writing letters to the editor
on
<BR>the past several budgets? 75% of households used the libraries
last year.
<BR>Why should library users (i.e. most of us) be hurt because of all these
past
<BR>deals?
<P>2) Taxes shifting to residential properties: Taxes *are* shifting
to
<BR>residential properties. This isn't the fault of the libraries.
In fact, it
<BR>isn't the fault of any local official. It is the fault of the
Legislature.
<BR>Tricky, eh? The Legislature sets up the property tax system and
the local
<BR>governments have to play with the rules that the Legislature sets up.
And
<BR>over the last five years or so, the Legislature has dramatically shifted
the
<BR>costs of property taxes off commercial/industrial, high-end residential,
and
<BR>rental property in the name of property tax reform. Squarely
onto you and
<BR>I, the middle class taxpayer. Right at a time when our valuations
are also
<BR>increasing. The people to be angry with are not the local officials.
If
<BR>the referendum would have been paid for like all other taxes, the costs
to
<BR>residents would probably been half or less (I haven't been able to
get the
<BR>City Finance folks to run the numbers). Again, because the Legislature
has
<BR>been messing with the tax system, increasing middle class taxes, why
should
<BR>the libraries suffer? I appreciate that citizens are angry about
this, (as
<BR>am I) but the appropriate tool is to vote out your legislator who has
been
<BR>doing this, not voting out the needed library improvements.
<P>3) Why do we need a downtown library at all and how is it good for the
<BR>neighborhoods? The downtown library is much much more than just
an
<BR>overgrown business library. There is a synergy between the branches
and the
<BR>downtown library, one needing the other.
<P>The downtown library houses all the books that can't fit in the branch
<BR>libraries. This includes both general books and the special collections
<BR>that Ms. Marks refers to. Ms. Marks makes a strong argument for
the need
<BR>for special collections but it isn't practical to house those in branches.
<BR>You need a central library to house those books. Unfortunately,
the
<BR>downtown library is full. It was designed to hold 1.6 million
books and
<BR>now holds 2.5 million. Librarians throw out books when they buy
new ones
<BR>because there is no place to store them. That weakens the branches
as well
<BR>because the branches don't have access to those books once they are
gone
<BR>either.
<P>As to why it is downtown? Simple. Transit. Libraries
are for the people
<BR>and no place is more accessible to everyone than the downtown.
The business
<BR>community that uses the central library could get to the library wherever
it
<BR>is. It is other folks who need access that a downtown location
requires.
<BR>And yes, one of the critical elements of the new design is parking
so folks
<BR>don't just have to ride the bus to get to the library.
<P>It is hard to imagine with the dump that we have today what the downtown
<BR>library could be. A destination to take our kids on a Saturday.
A place to
<BR>spend an evening, browsing and finding wonderful things. A place
to help
<BR>our kids learn. A place for people who cannot afford a computer
to access
<BR>the information highway. A place that doesn't exist now.
But a place that
<BR>could exist.
<P>4) Why do we need better branch libraries? Several people mentioned
the
<BR>need for computer access. Currently most libraries are not wired
nor have
<BR>the space to meet demand for computer access. I was at East Lake
on
<BR>Saturday and every computer was full. With a waiting list.
In fact, one
<BR>parent had fallen asleep waiting for her kid's turn on the computers.
75%
<BR>of our kids are on free or reduced lunches. These parents are
not going to
<BR>be able to afford computers for their kids. Where do they turn?
The
<BR>libraries. Everyone should have access to electronic information.
<P>Ms. Marks also talks about the need for more diversity of books in the
<BR>branch libraries. Most of the branch libraries are at capacity.
Without
<BR>expansion, where do you put these books? It is a simple
question of space.
<P>Libraries are for the people. By supporting them, we are supporting
us.
<P>Carol Becker
<BR>Longfellow
<BR>Treasurer, Citizens for Minneapolis Public Libraries</BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>
--------------BF5BE9016443FDCA3B140B39--
