Vicki Heller writes "I order USED books through Amazon all the time. When I'm done with them, I simply list them for sale again."
Carol: Unfortunately not everyone is able to buy their own books. Also not everyone reads so few books that they can buy all of them. Also given that 40% of the library's collection is unique in the United States, there are many many materials that you could not buy. Chris Steller writes: "During the debate over which block to build the new main library on, what value was placed on the projected gap in service during construction on the same block?" Carol: Yes, and the cost of the interim location was less than the cost of limping the old building along for another five years. It was a trade-off but the interim location was preferable to doing costly improvements that would have to be thrown away. Tom Welling writes: "Quick - stop the demolition of the old library so millions of books won't be homeless! Carol: Too late. The building is already gutted and the roof of the planetarium gone. Which of course brings to question why if the City wanted to stop the project, would they pick this time when this project has been moving for about five years, with the City's expressed endorsement. Jim Mork writes: "Why do we fail so utterly to predict where library science is headed?" Carol: What has happened isn't a failure to predict where library science is headed. What happened in the 1960's is what is happening again. What happened in 1960, is that the Library Board had a good library plan but the City Council then cut the budget, forcing a very very bad building. We are paying now for their mistakes. We are also on the brink of making that same mistake again. And if we slow down or stop this, we will be repeating the failure of our past and it will be our children who will have to pay. Jan DelCalzo wrote: "money for the additional operating expenses, were not dealt with in a forthright manner at the time of the election". I think it is important to understand why there is a problem with operating expenses. The problem isn't that the new library will cost more to operate. As of today, no one has produced any numbers which show this. The new library will make the vast majority of books accessible to library users, freeing the staff that had been shuffling books around in non-pubic areas to serve patrons. And the new building should be more energy efficient, saving money there. The operating problem is that the state has 1) reduced property tax revenues through the state's "tax reductions" (if you are an average property owner, check your tax statement to see how much of that you are going to see - surprise! the savings went to the rich!) 2) the City trying to solve its budget problems by sloughing off the problem onto the Library. This isn't an issue of not planning when the referendum was proposed. This is a problem of: 1) an economic downturn 2) the state choosing to increase the tax burden on middle and lower income people and 3) the City prioritizing libraries lower than its own services. Carol Becker Longfellow TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
