OK, I'd just like to say some words in defense of MPL, because I think
WM's remarks are not entirely fair. I'm not saying malicious, but I
don't think that they take into account the way the library functions
or Niziolek's intentions in the dual-use plan. See below:
>>>>> "WM" == wizardmarks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
WM> Dorie Rae Gallagher wrote:
>> Well said MD! We want our library doors open!
>>
WM> WM: If you want library doors open, then you are going to have
WM> to persuade the board of MPL and it's staff that the way they
WM> have deployed staff has been screwy for the last 10 years or
WM> better. Look particularly at circulation statistics for ALL
WM> libraries and the staff count for those community libraries
WM> with the highest stats. Then compare that with Central
WM> stats. and Central staff count. I believe that you will
WM> discover that Central has far more staff members (just in the
WM> library itself, not in the admin. depts.) than its circulation
WM> warrants. Granted, some people who use Central come there for
WM> reference documents which cannot circulate, but then people
WM> come to community libraries for reference work as well. The
WM> over-staffing of Central predates the recent extreme budget
WM> cuts by years.
Circulation figures cannot be the only criterion. Central provides
many services that the branches don't. For one thing, Central holds a
large number of resources and distributes them out to the branches
(e.g., I hardly ever bother to go direct to a branch these days,
because each branch has spotty holdings; I just order the books I want
through the web and go pick them up). Also, the central library
provides repository services such as reference services, federal
documents, etc., that simply can't be done remotely. Central also
provides the invaluable inter-library loan service.
In general, staffing up Central can be justified as providing services
that are used by all the branches.
WM> Vis-a-vis Walker, I have no idea why the board is even
WM> discussing sharing space with private entities. Walker is
WM> extremely busy, it's on at least six bus lines, it's
WM> incredibly convenient and, as such, it's in a primo position
WM> to build patronage of the library. In a nation which is
WM> becoming more illiterate by the year, this is an important
WM> function for libraries.
I apologize for speaking for Dan Niziolek, since I might be garbling
his essential idea. Here's my understanding of his proposal. You may
not agree with it, but it was prompted by a love for our libraries and
our neighborhoods:
1. This building is a mess. It's built like a bunker, and it has
been plagued with repeated leak problems and now this roofing
issue. The building was designed in a brief fad for underground
construction for energy-efficiency. Now we can build much more
energy-efficient solutions without building bunkers.
2. The underground location has other adverse impacts. One of the
most notable is that the garden area around the library must be
closed, because of the danger of people in it being hit by garbage
and other objects thrown down by passers-by and people waiting for
the bus. Look down at the garden someday as you pass by. You
will find that it is always filled with rubbish.
3. My personal take: being underground is yucky.
If you buy ##1-3, or any substantial part thereof, you might like to
see the library get out of the present building. This is especially
true of #1, because it holds out the promise of a steady flow of
expenses to repair the building.
Unfortunately, notwithstanding ##1-3, there is no way that the library
board, by its lonesome, could afford to replace this building. They
can barely afford to fix its roof alone! Given that, it seems
entirely reasonable to try to take advantage of the fact that the
Walker is on some primo real estate to try to get developer dollars to
add to the library's money and make a nice building.
I think that we are right to be concerned about some of the details:
1. Would enough $$$ would come in to make this worthwhile? I seem
to recall some of these projects not working out that well for the
non-profit. I think the Museum of Modern Art tried to do this in
Manhattan, and it didn't work too well because the multi-million
dollar condos came on the market during a NY real estate slump.
2. Would we be paying too high a price in terms of library downtime?
I don't know whether the library would be closed much longer under
the mixed-use plan than under the plan that just fixes the roof.
If this falls through, making some deal with the YWCA seems like it
might be nice. But the cost of finding some way to bridge over the
Greenway might make that a non-starter....
At any rate, I don't know enough about the pro's and con's yet to
either endorse the dual-use plan or reject it. But I do know enough
about the plan and about Dan Niziolek, to say that it was intended to
improve our library system and improve the neighborhood. Dan isn't
trying to sell out the library, he's trying to see if we can get a
better library without an unreasonable cost. It might not work out,
but I'm grateful to him for trying (and in general for his service as
my City Council Representative). He's on the side of the angels.
--
Robert P. Goldman
ECCO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
