I have two questions:
1 How much will the new Library cost each taxpayer in Minneapolis including
the interest on the bonds per year and for how many years?
2 Has the idea of merging libraries to create a metropolitan library system
been discussed? Any pros or cons?
Russell W. Peterson
Ward 9
Standish
R U S S E L L P E T E R S O N D E S I G N
"You can only fly if you stretch your wings."
3857 23rd Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55407
612-724-2331
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Russell W. Peterson, RA, CID
Founder
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andy Driscoll
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 1:21 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: library referendum - Swan/Taxes/etc
Carol Becker makes the case for the referendum solely by her first point -
where was my friend, Wally Swan, when his constituents were backing the
bonds for private corporations and millionaire business and sports owners?
Wally's credibility suffers severely under the strain of these comparative
tirades, but the library is the business and the pleasure of the people, and
one can surmise all one wishes over the role corporations play in the
library system. At bottom - it's a public, a people's institution, worthy of
centennial improvement and upgrading.
The issues David raises are important they make eminent sense - follow the
money, of course - but his concerns not enough to scuttle the building of a
new library. I've used the Minneapolis Library. And you can feel the squeeze
just walking in.
Downtown? It's central, pure and simple. I'm getting very tired of these
tribal arguments between advocates of a central district and outlying
neighborhoods as if these entities are not interdependent for the vitality
of an urban core. Get with it, people, this is divisive and unproductive and
just the thing king/queen-makers love to see - communities torn asunder by
their biases.
Of course the main library should be built and built downtown. It is as
important - perhaps more so - than much of this drive toward corporate
welfare, proven by experience everywhere in this nation to have backfired
almost every time when the promises are compared with the reality of the
subsidy.
On these issues alone should the referendum pass, albeit overlaid with more
wisdom, perhaps, in the site selection and ancillary (hidden?) costs
addressed.
Andy Driscoll
--
"Whatever keeps you from your work is your work."
Albert Camus
The Driscoll Group/Communications
Writing/Graphics/Strategic Development
1595 Selby Ave./Suite 206
St. Paul, MN 55104
651-649-1188/Fax:651-645-3169
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.driscollgroup.com
> From: "Carol Becker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:13:31 -0500
> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: library referendum - Swan/Taxes/etc
>
> 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
>
>
>
