--------------C00C75A9DEBF801DB752D615
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ann,
What you're hearing is people reacting because we have not had a razmatazz public
information campaign about a new library. People have not been rallied around
this issue and brought on board at all. In fact, the public campaign just began
about two weeks ago. The healthiest discussion about a new central library has
taken place on this list. That's sad.
Also, people don't go to Southdale and Ridgedale because of the building, they go
because of the collection. This bonding issue/referendum is $140 million for
bricks and mortar. Not one book comes with this referendum.
The new library will only be 5 stories tall and will house our present collection
of 2.5 million books--and assorted other stuff. The central library will be
closed for 3 years, since, for some reason, we cannot build on the land directly
across from the library, but must tear this one down and build on the same spot.
There is a sense of poor planning and lack of vision which surrounds the whole
library issue. Since poor planning was part of the reason that the current
library is coming down after only 40 years, people are hesitant to sign on,
having had a totally inadequate public campaign to inform them. Besides the tax
bite--actually the tax bite is not the isue for residents, it's an issue for
businesses--shortsighted though it be.
People aren't ready to vote yes because they have not been pulled into the
discussion till a fortnight ago.
Wizard Marks, Central
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I cannot believe what I am reading here. People who claim they love the city
> and yet would vote no on building a new downtown library? Where am I, the
> deep south? (But, of course, even Dallas has a fabulous relatively new
> downtown library.) Admittedly, I am a major library fan. I check out books,
> books on tape, cd's etc. a lot. I mostly use Walker and the downtown
> library. When my son out grew the collection at Walker, we went to
> Southdale because the downtown library felt so cold and sterile (the fact
> that you have to walk by the smelly public men's room to get to the
> children's area also added to my discomfort).
> A few years ago, however, I stopped checking things out at Southdale, when I
> learned from a librarian who works in Minneapolis that the state reimburses
> the suburban libraries every time a Minneapolis resident checks something out
> from one of the suburban libraries. Our Minneapolis libraries don't get the
> state money (or maybe just get less) because more Minneapolis residents use
> the suburban libraries than the suburbanites use the Minneapolis libraries.
> There is no mystery why more Mpls. people would rather use libraries like
> Southdale library than visa versa. Sothdale Library was built in the early
> 1970's, and was totally redone in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Ridgedale
> library in Minnetonka was built in the 1980s and totally gutted and rebuilt
> in the past couple of years. Those people in the suburbs (and/or the county
> commissioners) know what is needed to maintain a decent quality of life. And
> here we are, in the largest city in Minnesota (the state known for high
> education standards) saying our libraries are not worth improving. To
> defeat the library referendum because of the Target deal, Block E etc. is
> crazy. Kids don't care and people moving here don't care and many us who
> live here now don't care about that as much as we care about having decent
> libraries. Even Duluth, Rochester, Mankato, Willmar, and Moorhead (I travel
> a lot and always visit the public library) have newer, nicer libraries. The
> people of Minneapolis should have it at least as good.
> I apologize for the rant.
> Ann Wurdeman
> ECCO
--------------C00C75A9DEBF801DB752D615
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
Ann,
<BR>What you're hearing is people reacting because we have not had a razmatazz
public information campaign about a new library. People have not
been rallied around this issue and brought on board at all. In fact,
the public campaign just began about two weeks ago. The healthiest
discussion about a new central library has taken place on this list.
That's sad.
<BR>Also, people don't go to Southdale and Ridgedale because of the building,
they go because of the collection. This bonding issue/referendum
is $140 million for bricks and mortar. Not one book comes with this
referendum.
<BR>The new library will only be 5 stories tall and will house our present
collection of 2.5 million books--and assorted other stuff. The central
library will be closed for 3 years, since, for some reason, we cannot build
on the land directly across from the library, but must tear this one down
and build on the same spot.
<BR>There is a sense of poor planning and lack of vision which surrounds
the whole library issue. Since poor planning was part of the reason
that the current library is coming down after only 40 years, people are
hesitant to sign on, having had a totally inadequate public campaign to
inform them. Besides the tax bite--actually the tax bite is not the
isue for <I>residents,</I> it's an issue for businesses--shortsighted though
it be.
<BR>People aren't ready to vote yes because they have not been pulled into
the discussion till a fortnight ago.
<BR>Wizard Marks, Central
<P>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>I cannot believe what I am reading here. People
who claim they love the city
<BR>and yet would vote no on building a new downtown library? Where
am I, the
<BR>deep south? (But, of course, even Dallas has a fabulous relatively
new
<BR>downtown library.) Admittedly, I am a major library fan.
I check out books,
<BR>books on tape, cd's etc. a lot. I mostly use Walker and the downtown
<BR>library. When my son out grew the collection at Walker,
we went to
<BR>Southdale because the downtown library felt so cold and sterile (the
fact
<BR>that you have to walk by the smelly public men's room to get to the
<BR>children's area also added to my discomfort).
<BR>A few years ago, however, I stopped checking things out at Southdale,
when I
<BR>learned from a librarian who works in Minneapolis that the state reimburses
<BR>the suburban libraries every time a Minneapolis resident checks something
out
<BR>from one of the suburban libraries. Our Minneapolis libraries
don't get the
<BR>state money (or maybe just get less) because more Minneapolis residents
use
<BR>the suburban libraries than the suburbanites use the Minneapolis libraries.
<BR>There is no mystery why more Mpls. people would rather use libraries
like
<BR>Southdale library than visa versa. Sothdale Library was
built in the early
<BR>1970's, and was totally redone in the late 1980s or early 1990s.
Ridgedale
<BR>library in Minnetonka was built in the 1980s and totally gutted
and rebuilt
<BR>in the past couple of years. Those people in the suburbs (and/or
the county
<BR>commissioners) know what is needed to maintain a decent quality of
life. And
<BR>here we are, in the largest city in Minnesota (the state known for
high
<BR>education standards) saying our libraries are not worth improving.
To
<BR>defeat the library referendum because of the Target deal, Block E etc.
is
<BR>crazy. Kids don't care and people moving here don't care and
many us who
<BR>live here now don't care about that as much as we care about having
decent
<BR>libraries. Even Duluth, Rochester, Mankato, Willmar, and Moorhead
(I travel
<BR>a lot and always visit the public library) have newer, nicer libraries.
The
<BR>people of Minneapolis should have it at least as good.
<BR>I apologize for the rant.
<BR>Ann Wurdeman
<BR>ECCO</BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>
--------------C00C75A9DEBF801DB752D615--
