Russell W Peterson wrote:
> Frankly, it looks like the library didn't want to give on > any of it's program AND wants the presentation of the > building as a city statement as many others had wanted. So > they are asking for more from the people without > demonstrating flexibility within their own needs. This is > the kind of bureaucracy that scares people - hold on to your > pocket books. ;-) Mr. Peterson is correct in the fact that the library didn't want to give on its program. The north block simply wasn't large enough to do everything and something had to give. The final alternatives for the north block all required splitting Fiction from Literature. First off, Fiction and Literature is the mostly highly used collection on a per book basis in the library. Second, splitting Fiction from Literature meant that if you wanted to read Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, you would find the novel on the first floor but you would find the book explaining all those sixteenth century words on the third floor. Wendell Berry? Wrote a novel (first floor), short stories (first floor), unless the short stories are in a compelation of short stories with other authors (third floor), essays (third floor), and poetry (third floor). This simply wasn't good for library patrons. Other alternatives were worse. So, it is true that the Library Board didn't want to give on its program but for very good reasons having to do with how user-friendly the building will be. Carol Becker Longfellow _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
