RE: Library referendum
Yet another list manager screw-up -- I'm getting them ALL out of my system this week. We don't allow anonymous posts. However, Rosalind was thoughtful enough to ask my permission before sending, and I said yes, thinking she could take responsibility. But these are pretty serious allegations and I think the author should be known to stand behind them. (I realize retaliation is a possibility, but I though unions were about job protection!) Anyway, no more anonymous posts, not even second-hand. Sorry for my brainlock. On to the substance... >By the way, members of the Library Board have attended 2 meetings of >AFSCME #99, trying to get the union to support the referendum. We won't. >The staff, the people who actually do the work, don't support the referendum. This is interesting...can anyone on the list (and willing to be identified) confirm this? And if it's true, does anyone from the union have enough guts to publicly say exactly why? Assuming this union's rejection is true, I have two questions for them: 1. Is one reason you're against it that you're still mad about the library management's handling of the Internet filtering controversy? 2. Are you against it because efficiencies in a new library may mean fewer union jobs, or at least not the kind of job growth the union wants? Or perhaps because of job loss/dislocation during the time the library is closed? >Finally, the reason they gave for rebuilding on the current site, rather >than using the old Nicollet Hotel site directly north of the current >building is: but if we build there, we'll be at the end of the skyway >system. I actually hadn't heard this. What the library folks told me is that the Nicollet Hotel site is smaller, so a new building would have to be taller there. That means it would be more costly to operate (more going up and down) over the long-term, wiping out the upfront cost savings, even factoring in the two-year relocation cost. David Brauer King Field - Ward 10
Re: Library Referendum
I am interested in the idea of a mixed use development on one block as proposed by Lisa McDonalds. Could Lisa or someone post more detailed information as to the configuration of such a development. I am picturing something like: - retail shops on the ground and skyway levels, - library on levels 3 thru 10, - office and or residential on levels 11 thru 30. All done in very interesting and tasteful architecture of course, and probably called something like "The Library Building". I can understand the desire to want a stand-alone landmark monument, but as long it provides all the services, I, for one, am ok with a mixed use building. Anyone have any rough guesstimate of the financial difference between the two different concepts? --- Dave Stack, Harrison > From: McDonald, Lisa >> you need to have TIF for a downtown libary. The issue is whether it is one, two or four blocks. Given the state of our general fund it sould be on the same block as the library. So it's self-contained. The unfortunate thing is that everyone wants a stand alone civic Carnagie Mellon kind of library. Unfortunately we can't afford that in terms of the cost to our general fund. Every dollar that's in a TIF ditrict doesn't see the light of day in the general fund for at least 15-20 years. It behooves us to make this district as tight as possible in order to protect our general fund and I for one will fight to keep it on the same block as the library, whether it is additional office or housing. I believe you can make mixed use work with good architecture and we just don't have the luxury right now of tying up more than one block in a district.
Re: Library referendum question
The city charter provides that for a city referendum issue, the referendum is counted based on the number of people who vote on the issue. Blanks do not count. By contrast, statewide constitutional amendments are different: they require a 50% + 1 of all ballots cast. Catherine Shreves ferma001 wrote: > > I don't think this is correct. To pass, a minimum number of all ballots > cast (yese, noes, & blanks) are required. I think the minimum is 50% + 1 > . If Keith Ford is reading here, please correct. > > >The Library referendum is counted on the number of people who check yes or > >no. Blanks don't count. > > > >Carol Becker > >Longfellow > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: Rosalind Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 7:19 AM > >Subject: Library referendum question > > > > > >> A friend asked, if someone leaves the library referendum item blank, is > >> this counted as a No vote or just not counted? Does anyone know the > >answer > >> to this? > >> > >> Rosalind Nelson > >> Bancroft > >> > > > > > > Jack Ferman > Minneapolis, MN > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Library referendum question
Who do I talk to about getting a library referendum sign for my yard? Rich Chandler - Ward 9 > -Original Message- > From: ferma001 [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 3:48 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Library referendum question > > I don't think this is correct. To pass, a minimum number of all ballots > cast (yese, noes, & blanks) are required. I think the minimum is 50% + 1 > . If Keith Ford is reading here, please correct. > > >The Library referendum is counted on the number of people who check yes > or > >no. Blanks don't count. > > > >Carol Becker > >Longfellow > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: Rosalind Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 7:19 AM > >Subject: Library referendum question > > > > > >> A friend asked, if someone leaves the library referendum item blank, is > >> this counted as a No vote or just not counted? Does anyone know the > >answer > >> to this? > >> > >> Rosalind Nelson > >> Bancroft > >> > > > > > > > Jack Ferman > Minneapolis, MN > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Library referendum question
I don't think this is correct. To pass, a minimum number of all ballots cast (yese, noes, & blanks) are required. I think the minimum is 50% + 1 . If Keith Ford is reading here, please correct. >The Library referendum is counted on the number of people who check yes or >no. Blanks don't count. > >Carol Becker >Longfellow > > >- Original Message - >From: Rosalind Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 7:19 AM >Subject: Library referendum question > > >> A friend asked, if someone leaves the library referendum item blank, is >> this counted as a No vote or just not counted? Does anyone know the >answer >> to this? >> >> Rosalind Nelson >> Bancroft >> > > Jack Ferman Minneapolis, MN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Library referendum question
The Library referendum is counted on the number of people who check yes or no. Blanks don't count. Carol Becker Longfellow - Original Message - From: Rosalind Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 7:19 AM Subject: Library referendum question > A friend asked, if someone leaves the library referendum item blank, is > this counted as a No vote or just not counted? Does anyone know the answer > to this? > > Rosalind Nelson > Bancroft >
Re: Library Referendum
Yes, well, this makes much more sense. Andy Driscoll St. Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.driscollgroup.com > From: "Hamilton, Colin J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:39:33 -0500 > To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Library Referendum > > In an exchange over the weekend, it was said that only residents would pay > for the library referendum. This is not the case. The referendum will > affect ALL property owners, whether the property is residential, commercial > or industrial, and it will affect them equally. The cost for every $100,000 > of property will be $5.07 in the first year, increasing to $56.71 in the > fifth year, at which point it remains constant for the duration of the > referendum. Additional revenue will be raised through TIF, a private > capital campaign, and state funding (for the planetarium, which is not > included in the referendum). > > Colin Hamilton > Executive Director > Friends of the Minneapolis Public Library > 612/630-6172 > 612/630-6180 (fax) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
Re: Library referendum
I'm not certain about this, but it would behoove all parties to look carefully at the proposal: is the financing mechanism based on general obligation bonds? Or on revenue bonds? Big difference. The former pledges the full faith and credit of the city (say, property taxpayers), the latter places the risk only on the bondholders themselves. I presume this is a general obligation bond proposition because it's gone to referendum. I would be very concerned that businesses have become exempt from any obligation under such proposals, since they stand to benefit at least as much as residents from the stability such projects bring to economic community. 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: "Tim Bonham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:19:53 -0500 > To: "Multiple recipients of list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Library referendum > > At 08:53 AM 10/20/2000, you wrote: >> Besides the tax >> bite--actually the tax bite is not the isue for residents, it's an issue for >> businesses--shortsighted though it be. >> ... >> Wizard Marks, Central > Actually, Wizard, the tax bite from referendums like this is entirely on > the residents; business property is completely exempt from these additional > taxes. This is a little 'loophole' that the legislature gave to business > interests a few years ago. > Then business interests put pressure on elected officials to keep > property tax rates down, often successfully. So then these elected boards > use referendums (paid only by residents) to generate funds for needed > things (like smaller class size) which should have been funded by an > increase in the basic property tax rates (paid by both residents and > businesses). So the net effect of this legislature change is a shift in > the property tax burden from business property to residential > property. [Plus a significant increase in the number of referendums being > proposed!] > >
Re: Library referendum
At 08:53 AM 10/20/2000, you wrote: >Besides the tax >bite--actually the tax bite is not the isue for residents, it's an issue for >businesses--shortsighted though it be. >... >Wizard Marks, Central Actually, Wizard, the tax bite from referendums like this is entirely on the residents; business property is completely exempt from these additional taxes. This is a little 'loophole' that the legislature gave to business interests a few years ago. Then business interests put pressure on elected officials to keep property tax rates down, often successfully. So then these elected boards use referendums (paid only by residents) to generate funds for needed things (like smaller class size) which should have been funded by an increase in the basic property tax rates (paid by both residents and businesses). So the net effect of this legislature change is a shift in the property tax burden from business property to residential property. [Plus a significant increase in the number of referendums being proposed!]
re: library referendum
David Brauer, our esteemed moderator, rightly drew attention to the "interesting contention" on the part of City Coordinator Kathy O'Brien that adding debt load with the new library plans would not affect the city's bond rating. Indeed! This would seem to be a refutation of Wally Swan. I emphasize the subjunctive "would". Another person, I forget who, wondered aloud why there was so little response to Councilman Lane's cautionary reference to the bond rating of Indianapolis, a city it appears is only slightly ahead of Minneapolis in the budget deficit sweepstakes. This person points out that Mpls. is poised to nose ahead of Indianapolis. Whoopee! All this leads me to wonder what our new finance director, Dr. Christiensen is it?, thinks about all this or is he still trying to get up to speed? >From a layman's point of view, I think it looks bad for the bond rating. How that shakes out in the actual numbers and cost of selling bonds I wish I knew. To make an informed decision it would be helpful to know the risks we run. Someone must know and if they don't we're in even worse shape than i thought. Imagine that! Tim Connolly Ward 7 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/
Re: library referendum
Ann Wurdeman thinks that nice libraries are the reason that people use the suburban libraries more. I see heavy use in some Saint Paul branches that are far from nice and spacious. There was a posting about the difference in emphasis between the Minneapolis and Hennepin systems a while back. It said that Hennepin has more fiction among other differences. That might explain some of it, they certainly tend to have more copies of "popular" books. Try doing a search on a popular new mystery on the various systems and then look at the number of people in line with holds. I've seen 400-500 on some titles in Hennepin. I use Saint Paul, Ramsey, Hennepin, and Minneapolis libraries heavily. I do online searches to find books and get them from the most convenient place. Sometimes I pick them up on my lunch hour, sometimes on the weekend. How many Minneapolis libraries are open on Sunday? Even the Southdale branch is closed on Sundays in the summer. I think that some Hennepin branches are even closed on Saturdays in the summer. Most Ramsey and Saint Paul libraries are open weekends. Many non-fiction books are only in one system or even one library. Of course, a lot are in the colleges and universities, but I haven't yet tried to borrow from the U via inter-library loan and I don't know how well that works. Having more books on the shelf is good, but there are issues with putting books out that nobody will check out, even if they are available. Are there any frequency distributions of the number of times that books have been checked out? It would seem that you could set some minimum number of checkouts per year before a book would be out in the public area. I also wonder how well compact shelving will work, since at present, there are usually? people in each aisle, which you can't have with compact shelving. Would I support the referendum? Don't know, don't have to figure it out. I did post about the cost for the upcoming refurbishment of the Saint Paul central library, which is a lot less than the Minneapolis replacement. It seems that you have to try to assess whether your are going to get full value for the dollar or whether it is "gold-plated" specs. Bruce Gaarder Highland Park Saint Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Library referendum
--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 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
Re: Library Referendum/Fewer boards
>I'm with Jan that we should take a very serious look at eliminating the Park >and Library Boards; concentrating the decisions under the city council. > OK, I'll admit that I like democracy, a lot of democracy, a noisy democracy. But why do we want to eliminate these boards. Do you REALLY believe that the city council will be a vigorous defender of the Libraries or Parks? Two things to think about: If we had not had a Park Board in the 1960s, we would have had a ground level freeway going right through Minnehaha park, I-94 would have taken out most of North Mississippi park. The city council really wanted these freeways. In fact, it was the Park Board legal action that stopped Hiawatha long enough for the public to get involved and change it from a 6 lane limited access freeway to a 4 lane road with at grade crossings ant traffic lights. And if you think the highway going through Minnehaha park now, you should have seen what was originally agreed to by the City Council and state. Have you compared the activities and maintenance of Minneapolis and St. Paul parks--hey, we've got it really good. So, should there be more collaboration between the four systems (Park, Library, School and City), YES--they have not done enough. Does this require giving up separate boards--NO. ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< Sheldon Mains, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Seward Neighborhood, Minneapolis "Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories." --Laurie Anderson as reported in wired
Re: library referendum
Although we send our kids to catholic school (Annunciation, which by the way my King Field and East Harriet neighbors, is in many respects a community school -- but that's a different post), my wife and I will be supporting the school referendum. However, I'm having a harder time swallowing the library referendum and basically it comes down to cost. Now the library is important to our family as we go to Washburn all the time and I'm a frequent central library user for nearly 20 years so we appreciate the library system and are well aware of its needs. The bottom line is that the library is asking for a lot of money for a long time and all of the analysis given does not take into consideration the increase in assessed home valuation that is expected in the future. Case in point: In the last 6 years my home has risen in assessed value from $86,000 to $144,000! And given what houses are selling for in this area there is no doubt that it will rise again next year What will it be in 5 more years when the library costs really kick in? Now I wish the City hadn't tied in so much of its property tax value in TIF districts to help out Target, Block E etc. But it did and the fact is that residential development has to swallow more and more of the burden of providing services in this City. The bottom line is that property taxes are taking a bigger bite out of everyone's wallets and purses. I have a feeling that the library referendum is a bellwether for more resistance to higher property taxes in Minneapolis and that passing of higher property taxes is going to be even tougher in the future. This rant coming from a Wellstone lovin', Clinton defendin' DFL votin' liberal. Dean E. Carlson East Harriet Ward 10 David Brauer wrote: > > Wizard & Russ - I've seen the info piece that the Minneapolis Public Library > will soon send out. According to it, the tax bite from years 5-30 (when the > tax is on fully) is the following: > > Ward 8 Median Home Value: $87,000 Tax: $49.34 per year (Wizard's ward, I > think) > Ward 9 Median Home Value: $89,000 Tax: $50.47 per year (Russ's ward) > Ward 10 Median Home Value: $139,000 Tax: $78.82 per year (my ward) > > ..and of course, as assessments rise, you may reach the levels of these > wards: > > Ward 13 Median Home Value: $171,000 Tax: $96.97 per year > Ward 7 Median Home Value: $273,000 Tax: $154.81 per year > > By the way, the Rich Ward rankings: > > Ward 7: $273,000 > Ward 13: $171,000 > Ward 11: $143,500 > Ward 10: $139,000 > Ward 2: $118,500 > Ward 1: $104,000 > Ward 12: $103,000 > Ward 9: $89,000 > Ward 8: $87,000 > Ward 4: $75,500 > Ward 3: $67,000 > Ward 5: $66,000 > Ward 6: $56,500 (where the median home will pay $32 per year for the library > initiative) > > David Brauer > King Field - Ward 10 - We're #4! > > -Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of wizardmarks > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 8:54 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: library referendum > > I hope someone can answer Russell Peterson's first question, I'd like to > know the tax > bite from building the new library. > As to his second question, the notion of merging Hennepin County and > Minneapolis > Public libraries has been discussed for years. The conclusion seems to be > that > Minneapolis libraries would lose big in a merger and the resources would be > concentrated out in the county. I tend to agree with that judgment. > Wizard Marks, Central > > Russell Wayne Peterson wrote: > > > 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 w
Re: Library Referendum/FewerBoards
Ah, RT, you silver-tongued wonder, you. Even though I am running for the Library Board next year, I too think we should have a serious debate about separate boards for library and park (I cannot say the same for Board of Estimates since I cannot figure out what they do). However, if a separate library board were cancelled, I would like the city council to have a board of advisors made up equally of citizens and retired librarians. The intricacies of running a library system take a long learning curve and I don't want to lose ground during the interim. As to open air baseball parks, a memory: Wayte Hoyt announcing the game for the Cincinnati Red Legs (circa 1950-60), "And it's up and up and. . .over the laundry!" That was a home run over the laundry across from Crosley Field. Those who could not afford a ticket to the ballgame (kids mostly) would stand on the laundry roof and watch the game. My brother and I sat in the bleachers along the first base line with our dad watching Johnny Temple and Ted Kluzuski. Pete Rose was somewhere else in the stands with his dad who was a "business" acquaintance of our dad--a bookie. Wizard Marks, Central. R.T.Rybak wrote: > I'm with Jan that we should take a very serious look at eliminating the Park > and Library Boards; concentrating the decisions under the city council. > > Along with the obvious cost savings, it would force the city council to help > make the tough decisions about how to balance these various needs. > > Here are two quick examples of how this could change two hot topics: > > 1. The library: One reason this project has floundered for so long is that > it is in the hands of a board that has very little authority and > visibility...so it sits like a wallflower in the corner while all the fancy > megaprojects get asked to dance. If the city council was responsible for > libraries, we could finally have the very-needed debate about whether this > is a higher priority than the many other developments the council has funded > ahead of it. In private Library Board members complain that the council > hasn't done enough, the council complains that the Libary Board hasn't done > enoughPut the decision in one place so voters know who to credit and/or > blame. > > 2. Stadium. Ask yourself how much energy has been spent talking about a new > stadium over the past decade. Now ask yourself how much you hear about the > critical state of playing fields in the city. While we spend days and days > focused on the Twins, thousands of kids are playing on substandard soccer > fields with dangerous draingrates at midfield and rock hard baseball > diamonds that are laughed at by the teams that come from the suburbs and St. > Paul. Large sections of the city have almost no organized team > sportswhich is a disgrace. Again, coordinating these functions under > the city council would force the same debate about priorities. > > I don't think anyone has taken a hard enough look at what would actually be > saved if you fully merged the complete organizations, which may or may not > make sense, but at the very least the decision-making should be in a single > place. > > R.T. Rybak > East Harriet
Re: Library Referendum - Gratia, New Library Location, Ballpark Stadium ?????
Are you just a little curious about the Subject Line. . .Read on. (To read the original post drop to the end and then return to mine) Jan: I'm a resident in South Minneapolis, who read an unrelated article in the Strobe today regarding the stadium. Although I realize there are 1000s of out door ball fans, I am not one of them, so sorry. I am not loyal fan of any sports (boo hoo) and perhaps fall in the category of fair weather fan. If they are winning, i.e.. World Series I may buy a T-shirts. So some of you may wonder the connection with Gratia Countryman, ballparks, and libraries. I will find and connection if it kills me. Here's the article on the ballpark followed by the stadium webpage for your comments good or bad. http://webserv3.startribune.com/stOnLine/cgi-bin/article?thisSlug=STAD18&date= 18-Oct-2000&word=stadium Anyway I too wish to rename my local East Lake Regional Library. And this is part of the connection to Jan recommendation."Gratia Alta Countryman" does have a great ring to me. So now that I heard about "stadium" discussion today, oh, boy did I grow a few gray hairs, Jan. So I am going to have to mix things up again and see if others are might be receptive to thinking about what a stadium might do to the scale and urban feel of our neighborhoods in south Minneapolis? I thought I would take an another direction with your idea. I pitched the name idea to several residents this past year. Including some of the local East Lake Library patrons, and to the library board this winter at one of the Library Board meetings held at the East Lake Library. I agree with you that Gratia was a great women, a single women, educated, and leader and visionary and I believe the first single women in Minnesota to adopt a child. Way ahead of her time. She had great ideas we still enjoy today, like the book mobile, and providing books in many languages to the communities she served. Nearly like the needs of today's library users and immigrant communities today. She deserves the recognition. Further, here's my selfish idea. Push the public and officials to again open the discussion to moving the NEW Library into the Hiawatha Corridor instead of the proposed location. South Minneapolis neighborhoods needs a destination that could serve EVERYONE, not just one audience, as I feel a stadium in my neighborhood might if that becomes a more solid plan. http://www.mpls.lib.mn.us/2010.htm I'm one of those perfectly fine with Bloomington as a location. Where it used to be. A just-outside-the-urban ring outdoor stadium. Okay fine with me. Package the whole kit and caboodle with that other wonderful amenity, the Mall of American. And place it at the end of the line for LRT. So Jan, there my connection. 1) Yes, Gratia should finally receive the recognition due her 2) I think this referendum is a for a plan downtown plus renovation to communities eventually. http://www.mpls.lib.mn.us/2010.htm 3) I recommend to all readers to rethinking the location of the main library one more time. I am not particularly bothered with those who might say it is too late.Because if enough people like this idea even just a little they will tell two neighbors and so on and so on. And just because we need to go to the voting polls to vote on the referendum. A good or bad idea may be born right this moment. 4) The Hiawatha corridor is presently bombarded with ideas. We are planning development in the corridor and together with LRT this could be the jump start of other development. Would not a new library be wonderful? 5) Let's all try to avoid placing more auto related development and pouring traffic into our urban neighborhoods. Enough is enough. In closing, I really haven't changed my mind on the library money, but we all know that one of pushes behind the referendum and funding for the main library was to also provide money for the community and regional libraries renovations and upgrades. Nothing has changed but perhaps moving things around a bit. Like chess. Okay I have run out of breath, I need to inhale. Gratia Alta Countryman, was a great women. If the reading audience hasn't read the book on Gratia Countryman, Her Life, Her Loves, and Her Library please do. You can pick up a copy at the local library, the author is Jane Pejsa a local author from Minneapolis. Good reading. Nodin Press, Minneapolis. Katie Simon-Dastych Cooper/ Longfellow Activist 9th Ward 612-724-1570 __ Jan's post on Minneapolis issues. Library Referendum Date: 10/18/2000 11:20:55 PM Central Daylight Time From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Multiple recipients of list) Okay, so say the library referendum passes and there will be a wonderful new facility. I am going to start lobbying right now that it should be called the Gratia Countryman Lib
Re: Library Referendum
Jan Del Calzo wrote: >It was also enlightening to read about the shift of money to the Park Board by the City so that the Park Board would not do a referendum too. That one might have run into problems with the voters as well. Is there a pattern here - the City Council members are an easier sell than the general populace and are bigger spenders than the rest of the people? > >This whole discussion also points out to me that the special purpose boards really may have outlived their usefulness. > [KB] Am I missing something? It looks like the City Council is the group that's outlived its usefulness. -- Please explain further. Jan continued: >I would really like to see figures on what savings might accrue if there were no Park or Library Boards. > [KB] It may be unintentional, but this disconnection of costs from services is just like the "Overtaxed ... overtaxed" mantra we see and hear way too much. Cutting the Boards merely to save money without balancing against what's lost is not good governance. _Would_ we lose little or nothing? --Ken Bearman, King Field 11-1, County 3,
RE: Library Referendum
Russell went over his past connection to the library pretty quickly but I think that's an important part of this project's history to remember. Those of us on the list know Russell as dad, anti-graffiti vigilante, etcbut in a past life he was a very good architect working on the Landmark development that would have incorporated an office tower and other new developments into a multi block project that could have included the library. This was a golden opportunity handed the city and should have been grabbedbut he is totally correct in his point that it was never embraced and instead was one more opportunity lost. Big vision laid on the city and 57 meetings later it was met with a collective: "Well, maybe we should study this a little more." So then it was gone. So was the other idea of incorporating a library into Block E. And so was the idea of incorporating the library into the development of the educational facilities around St. Thomas. A little bit of study. A small article or two. Some topic public comments. The visions come and go. On and on. For years we have been treating the library as a modest curiosity, some kind of nice frill but certainly not something that was all that central to the vision of the city. For my money, I can't think of too many other projects that have more of a civic purpose...not retail centers, or stadiums or anything else. No matter how this referendum comes out, the one very important thing that has happened is that finally the library is at the center of the discussion where it belongs. R.T. Rybak East Harriet
RE: Library Referendum
I have been ruminating over RT and Sara's recent arguments regarding the library referendum. I too believe it is necessary for a new library. I knew it over 10 years ago and persuaded my design team to include it in a 4 block development project that used TIF for the library and some other public space. However, I believe the City of Minneapolis did not understand the complete benefits and impact of that design and chose to act foolishly in handling it. Ultimately the tenants lost faith in the developer because of the cities actions. Since then we have used our future taxes to fund wealthy corporations private projects when they should have been helping us support great civic projects. In this great time of wealth accumulation, there should be numerous companies on board to give generously or raise needed money for the library. I think this is the first step in creating a great civic project. Inspiring the citizenry, especially those with significant means. At the same time, I believe the library and the current administration have been remiss in making their case. There is little visibility in trying raise public awareness and no visibility in any efforts to find alternative means of funding. This makes me nervous in the way the library would be operated or used. Seems to me there is a real lack of vision about a truly integrated library. With that said, no it isn't fair to penalize the library for the city's foolish spending policies. But when it is coupled with a lack of vision about how funding will happen and any real community inspired movement, I just don't see it happening in the way it should. As for the comment about those who are most vocal against could buy books at Borders, you may be right. However, just because I may have the means to spend money on a book at Borders doesn't mean I should spend the money of other people who are just starting to get ahead. I see new neighbors on my block who moved into a house for the first time. They are just getting by and then whammo they get hit with the sidewalk tax. Zam, they get hit with increasing property tax valuation. Boom, then they get hit with the library tax, and what's next. The best way for our housing stock to improve is for those people to use their own money to fix up their houses. If we keep dipping into their pot of money, the housing stock will continue to deteriorate and we'll be in an even bigger mess. There is a bigger picture here. This is hard. I'd like to support a new library, but because of a lack of library vision, foolish spending habits on the part of our administration, and a desire to not increase taxes I still must vote no. 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
RE: Library Referendum
At 04:34 PM 10/17/00 -0500, McDonald, Lisa M wrote: >Two questions I would like answered on the referendum. If indeed having all >these books accessible means less librarian time inolved in finding them, >will we be able to make some staff adjustments, ie. less staff or will we be >able to extend hours? What exactly is the trade-off? Having more books accessible to the public has more benefit than simply the reduced amount of staffing it might take to page materials in the stacks. Researchers and browsers alike will tell you that there is really no substitute for serendipity when it comes to finding materials -- online catalog searching, or using the old fashioned card catalogs is incredibly useful, of course, but they simply don't compare to browsing the shelves in a particular author or subject area and being able to see the range of materials available. While I don't want to discount the importance of bringing the library into the modern computer age, I'm really happy that the plans for the new library include an increased focus on making the physical collection more accessible to the public. In our rush to embrace all things digital, especially when it comes to making information accessible to all, we tend to forget that not EVERYTHING is digitized yet, and it's going to take a lot of time and money to make that happen. Working at the University Libraries, it's interesting to note the number of students who assume that if the information isn't online, it doesn't exist . . . . which really limits the broadness and validity of their research. As far as the value of spending money on the libraries, I'm biased, of course, because I've chosen to work in a library. The issues of preserving knowledge and history and heritage, and the free and democratic access to information are terribly important to me. But for me, it's also a matter of value for money. In my ward (11), I'm guessing that the yearly tax hit would be under $100.00. Some of the folks who are screaming loudest about yet another tax increase would think nothing of dropping $100 at Barnes and Noble, or Amazon.com, because they can afford to do so. I can't. But I can go to my local public library, request a book from another branch or the central library, have it arrive there for pickup within a week, and get a phone call telling me it's arrived. Or check out a book that's on the shelves. Or get expert reference assistance in person or over the phone. Or free homework helper tutoring for kids. Or help in learning how to navigate the internet. I'm a geek, and probably use these services more than the average person, but when I think of what that kind of service would cost on an individual basis in the private sector, I think my taxes are well spent. That's why I'm on the side of those who have pointed out that the library referendum shouldn't be penalized simply because there is a lot of dubious city spending out there right now. Wouldn't it be nice if Block E and Target had come up for the same kind of public debate, scrutiny and value analysis? Sara Strzok, Ward 11
RE: library referendum
Wizard & Russ - I've seen the info piece that the Minneapolis Public Library will soon send out. According to it, the tax bite from years 5-30 (when the tax is on fully) is the following: Ward 8 Median Home Value: $87,000 Tax: $49.34 per year (Wizard's ward, I think) Ward 9 Median Home Value: $89,000 Tax: $50.47 per year (Russ's ward) Ward 10 Median Home Value: $139,000 Tax: $78.82 per year (my ward) ..and of course, as assessments rise, you may reach the levels of these wards: Ward 13 Median Home Value: $171,000 Tax: $96.97 per year Ward 7 Median Home Value: $273,000 Tax: $154.81 per year By the way, the Rich Ward rankings: Ward 7: $273,000 Ward 13: $171,000 Ward 11: $143,500 Ward 10: $139,000 Ward 2: $118,500 Ward 1: $104,000 Ward 12: $103,000 Ward 9: $89,000 Ward 8: $87,000 Ward 4: $75,500 Ward 3: $67,000 Ward 5: $66,000 Ward 6: $56,500 (where the median home will pay $32 per year for the library initiative) David Brauer King Field - Ward 10 - We're #4! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of wizardmarks Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 8:54 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: library referendum I hope someone can answer Russell Peterson's first question, I'd like to know the tax bite from building the new library. As to his second question, the notion of merging Hennepin County and Minneapolis Public libraries has been discussed for years. The conclusion seems to be that Minneapolis libraries would lose big in a merger and the resources would be concentrated out in the county. I tend to agree with that judgment. Wizard Marks, Central Russell Wayne Peterson wrote: > 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
Re: library referendum
I hope someone can answer Russell Peterson's first question, I'd like to know the tax bite from building the new library. As to his second question, the notion of merging Hennepin County and Minneapolis Public libraries has been discussed for years. The conclusion seems to be that Minneapolis libraries would lose big in a merger and the resources would be concentrated out in the county. I tend to agree with that judgment. Wizard Marks, Central Russell Wayne Peterson wrote: > 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 >
RE: Library Referendum
Yes David you need to have TIF for a downtown libary. The issue is whether is is one, two or four blocks. Given the state of our general fund it sould be on the same block as the library. So it's self-contained. The unfortunate thing is that everyone wants a stand alone civic Carnagie Mellon kind of library. Unfortunately we can't afford that in terms of the cost to our general fund. Every dollar that's in a TIF ditrict doesn't see the light of day in the general fund for at least 15-20 years. It behooves us to make this district as tight as possible in order to protect our general fund and I for one will fight to keep it on the same block as the library, whether it is additional office or housing. I believe you can make mixed use work with good architecture and we just don't have the luxury right now of tying up more than one block in a district. Lisa McDonald Tenth Ward Council member > -Original Message- > From: David Brauer [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 1:07 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: RE: Library Referendum > > Glad this thread finally took. > > Although I recently had a chance to sit down with library backers, I > didn't > have the insight to ask all the right questions. A few more have come to > mind: > > 1. What is the cost of warehousing/moving the current library for three > years, versus buying land elsewhere downtown? > > 2. Given that the former Nicollet Hotel block is empty, why not build the > new library there, then demolish the current library across the street and > put the parking/housing there? > > 3. How vital is tax-increment financing to this project? I've heard some > folks refer to a four-block TIF district, or a two block TIF which I > assume > includes the library and the parking ramp. While I generally support the > library plan, I generally opposed to expanding TIF (call me a middling > Wally > Swan). Do I have to take TIF to get a new downtown library? > > Thanks to everyone for mixing it up on this. I'm learning a lot... > > David Brauer > King Field - Ward 10 > >
RE: Library Referendum
Two questions I would like answered on the referendum. If indeed having all these books accessible means less librarian time inolved in finding them, will we be able to make some staff adjustments, ie. less staff or will we be able to extend hours? What exactly is the trade-off? I'm still also concerned that the computer thing shouldn't just about be about adding more computers but about how computers interact to bring more folks into the information age or into reading. For example some type of interactive labratory sponsored by one or more local companies? Lisa McDonald Tenth Ward Council member > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 3:32 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Library Referendum > > Good concise response from Mr. Hamilton (who really is male, I assume, as > opposed to Ms. Marks--apologies for my ignorance there). Glad to hear that > > resource-shifting is already occurring and that the computer terminals are > a > primary reason for the discrepancy between volume and capacity. The speed > and > specificity of the reply certainly puts me further to one side of the > fence > that I'm straddling. > > Britt Robson > Lyndale
Re: Library Referendum
Good concise response from Mr. Hamilton (who really is male, I assume, as opposed to Ms. Marks--apologies for my ignorance there). Glad to hear that resource-shifting is already occurring and that the computer terminals are a primary reason for the discrepancy between volume and capacity. The speed and specificity of the reply certainly puts me further to one side of the fence that I'm straddling. Britt Robson Lyndale
Re: library referendum - Swan/Taxes/etc
--BF5BE9016443FDCA3B140B39 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Getting mad at Wally Swan is pointless, but also is ad hominem. He didn't complain about Target or moving the Schubert (I sure did). Maybe we weren't reaching the end of our line of credit those times. Had the library been at the top of its game and had the library not so badly mismanaged the information campaign around the new library, it might have made the argument then that funding those projects would make funding the library difficult. There is no question in my mind that we need a new downtown library and have needed it for a very long time. I hate closed stacks. Plus, the combination of closed stacks and computer catalog really makes utilizing the library much more difficult. And, it's been true for a long time that we cannot house the collection in the space we have. Plus, the joint is ugh-g-l-y, ugly! Frank Lloyd Wrong all the way. Special collections is being used two different ways, and that makes understanding it difficult. Special collections like the Minneapolis Collection and rare books, first editions, autographed, etc. do belong downtown. But a collection of books in Somali, Spanish, or Hmong, should go in the branches where those populations are concentrated. The $30 million for the branches is to remodel and enlarge Franklin, Sumner and Linden Hills without losing the integrity of the present buildings. There are other bricks and mortar uses included in that as well, though for the moment I can't remember what they are. The caveat is that Hosmer, for example, was just remodelled and enlarged three years ago and it's already too small for the collections and the number of patrons. (Hosmer went from 30,000 patrons/year to 100,000.) Branch libraries are already short staffed and their book budgets do not meet the needs of their patrons. It's one thing to build a beautiful building, it's quite another to muster the dollars to staff and supply them adequately. I'll repeat, libraries in general have not been very effective in lobbying for a stronger fund base from the feds, the state, the city, the county or anyone else. Libraries are treated as an afterthought, not a core requirement like police and fire. BIG MISTAKE! I don't buy the transit argument. It's not necessarily easier to get downtown, particularly if your bringing a daycare center, a high school class, or even your own children. One goal of libraries is "lifelong learning." To make that happen, libraries need to be close to the populations using them, so they're an every day event. Further, libraries have a huge role to play in assisting the education of children. Branch libraries do that work for the most part, with homework helpers, peer helpers, volunteers, and collections which meet the needs of school age kids. And kids can walk there from their homes. Parents are not going to allow those same kids to hop a bus to the loop until they're 13 or 14. Branch libraries are helping kids learn good study habits and get the grades that make high school more doable (though it's questionable whether high school is doable for teens from any angle). An aside: being close to the U of M will not bring college students into the public library. College libraries have entirely different collections than do public libraries, much more specialized and focused in depth on particular subjects. Walker is on 5 major, established bus lines. Walker is also another major architectural disaster. It has a sweet little garden, but using it will subject patrons to being beaned with beer bottles, coke cans and who knows what else. Walker is not big enough for its potential patronage. Nor is Roosevelt and several others. wizard marks, Central Carol Becker wrote: > 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
RE: Library Referendum
B. Robson asked for clarification of a couple library issues. I hope this helps. 1) The Library was built to hold 1.6 million books, and it now holds 2.5 million. Due to overcrowding, 85% of the collection is inaccessible to the public (or more accurately, 85% of the collection can only be accessed by the public going through librarians). I believe Robson's question is "Why is so little accessible if the building was meant to hold 1.6 million books?" There are two parts to the answer. First, as computers become a more and more standard part of libraries, they displace a lot of books. In other words, when the library was built in 1961, it was designed to hold 1.6 million books and zero computers. Today, it holds 2.5 million books and 70 public computer terminals. The second part is that our library, like virtually every other library in the country, was not designed to display its entire collection -- nor would a new library. In the new library, ~1.5 million books and ~150 computers would be immediately accessible, a vast improvement over the ~375,000 books currently on display. 2) Robson also asks whether we could decentralize the system by moving culturally appropriate parts of the collection out to the branches. To a large extent, this is already happening. If you go the Franklin Library, for example, you will find many books in Spanish and Somali; it also houses significant Native American and Hmong collections. These decisions were made to reflect the interests of the diverse Franklin neighborhood. This is true of every neighborhood library. There are limits, however, in our ability to move books out of the Central Library. As I said above, the Central Library houses about 2.5 million books; collectively, the 14 neighborhood libraries house about 0.6 million -- and, for the most part, they are full to the brim. To really move the collection out into the neighborhoods would require a much, much larger investment in building new branch libraries. Right now, the Central Library is able to function as a hub to the system, holding most of the books and distributing them where they are needed -- both throughout our system and via loan to neigbhoring counties and across the state; for operational purposes, this is more efficient than having multiple hubs. Finally, it is a misconception that we are asking for a "Cadillac" system. The problem with the library is not that it's a Neon. The problem is that it's a Model T -- or some other model that is out of date, expensive to maintain and undersized (that last one may not be true of the Model T; you'll have to forgive my limited car vocabulary). To go back to the Franklin Library, our space capacity is 49 people; recently, due to the popular Homework Helpers program and other library-based activities, Franklin has frequently had 100+ users at a single time. As a result, we've been told by the Fire Marshall that we are going to have to start limiting admission to this public library. This is just one example, but there are others like it. The point is that what we're asking for is not extravagant: it's an appropriate response to the real needs of our community. Colin Hamilton Executive Director Friends of the Minneapolis Public Library 612/630-6172 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: library referendum
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
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
RE: Library Referendum
Glad this thread finally took. Although I recently had a chance to sit down with library backers, I didn't have the insight to ask all the right questions. A few more have come to mind: 1. What is the cost of warehousing/moving the current library for three years, versus buying land elsewhere downtown? 2. Given that the former Nicollet Hotel block is empty, why not build the new library there, then demolish the current library across the street and put the parking/housing there? 3. How vital is tax-increment financing to this project? I've heard some folks refer to a four-block TIF district, or a two block TIF which I assume includes the library and the parking ramp. While I generally support the library plan, I generally opposed to expanding TIF (call me a middling Wally Swan). Do I have to take TIF to get a new downtown library? Thanks to everyone for mixing it up on this. I'm learning a lot... David Brauer King Field - Ward 10
Re: Library Referendum
I wonder if those making the case for the referendum realize how confusing their rationale can be. I've heard that the library is equipped to handle 1.6 million books and now has 2.5 million, yet 85 percent of the material is not accessible to the public. Can someone explain to the list how this doesn't constitute bad management of existing resources? Further, Mr. Marks' proposal of decentralizing some of the materials to branch libraries is argued against on the grounds that downtown makes for an easier transit ride. Well, what about concentrating some of the resources in areas of the city where demographics show a preponderance of people who can best take advantage of targeted resources? There are new or upgraded branch libraries near the inner cities on both the north and south sides (it's Hosmer in the south, don't know what the upgraded branch on the north is called). Can't a lot of these cultural-specific materials be shifted to these and other areas? The library has adopted the policy that the best, if not the only, solution is to spend tens of millions of dollars getting a Cadillac system. I'd feel more comfortable approving that if I didn't suspect that those who have 85 percent of their resources tucked away from public consumption were simply banking on the panacea of a whopping public project. Britt Robson Lyndale
Re: library referendum
In a message dated 10/16/2000 9:08:41 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes in part, and in support of library referendum: << Imagine a place where a five year-old can walk in with only a library card in his pocket, peruse the offerings and walk out an hour later with enough adventures to last until the middle of the week when he trots back there again a fills up again on excitement. Libraries offer this to every patron for no charge! >> Yes, libraries are great places for young and old alike, but the facilities and staff sure aren't available at no charge! The library referendum finances part of the capital cost associated with the overall project, and property tax payers will be paying for the bond issue over the next thirty years. In addition, promoters are seeking state funds; and, city parking revenues will be diverted away from the general fund, and TIF is once again being sought, with more revenue diverted from the general fund. This excludes all the operational and maintenance costs needed to keep the facilities open to the public-- another annual taxpayer expense. And keeping information-technology current and in repair, with knowledgeable staff and maintenance technicians/contractors is no low-budget effort these days. Support or oppose the library referendum, but understand the costs involved and the numerous city departments and agencies competing for the property tax dollar in Minneapolis... on top of the MPS, MPRB, Hennepin Co., the state and a few other entities with a staked claim. It's true what they say; there's no free lunch! M. Hohmann 13th Ward
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
Re: library referendum -- VOTE yes 11/7 --
> >A new downtown library has the potential to benefit all the residents of >the metro area. People outside of Minneapolis have either the Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or St Paul libraries. Those folks do not help with the costs. > >John Ferman said, among other things: >> So I say no free lunch downtown, too and will vote No on the library >referendum. Let the downtown interests pay >for their new library. The downtown library is hard to get to, there is >no parking to speak of, so it can't be said to be of much benefit to the >people in the neighborhoods. >>END QUOTE > >Not only is this not true, it is incredibly shortsighted. It is not >THEIR new library, it is our library. Right now, books from the Downtown >Library circulate to every part of Minneapolis and beyond. The Downtown >Library is a great and easy treat for our family when we drive or ride >the bus there. We have never had a probelm parking in the lot right >outside the Hennepin Avenue entrance. It provides us --people in the >neighborhoods-- with one the greatest benefits of all, books. I just recently tried to use the downtown library, because they would not send certain of their books to a branch library for examination. This is service. I took the bus (round trip fare was $3.00) and looked at their full postage-stamp sized parking lot and also noted the meter rate. My statements about property tax reductions for businesses is very true - in fact the Strib a while back noted that fact as one of the reasons dwelling property taxes are skyrocketing. Let business pay their fair share of any library improvements or do without like so many neighborhood needs have. What no one has proposed is two new libraries: one small business/commercial branch downtown and one major repository outside of downtown, like east of Chicago but west of Cedar. Jack Ferman Minneapolis, MN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: library referendum -- VOTE yes 11/7 --
I am a library patron. I have been for about 39 years. My wife and our three children are also library patrons, true patrons, not occasional users, but regular, two three times a week trip the library patrons. Users of the library know how important a strong central library is. We need a library more now when TV, interactive, digital, electronic communication re-create our culture daily in their image. A library is more than a collection of books, it is a vendor of dreams. Imagine a place where a five year-old can walk in with only a library card in his pocket, peruse the offerings and walk out an hour later with enough adventures to last until the middle of the week when he trots back there again a fills up again on excitement. Libraries offer this to every patron for no charge! A new downtown library has the potential to benefit all the residents of the metro area. Many will never benefit from a world class library in Minneapolis, but they also are not harmed by the degradation of our existing resource because they rarely use the library. We have been lulled into complacency by the investments in libraries made by our ancestors. I may not agree with all the things they did but folks like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Carnegie, James Jerome Hill and others made certain, that never again will learning be lost by being as centralized as it was in Alexandria. This does not mean we do not need a strong central library in Minneapolis. John Ferman said, among other things: > So I say no free lunch downtown, too and will vote No on the library referendum. >Let the downtown interests pay for their new library. The downtown library is hard to get to, there is no parking to speak of, so it can't be said to be of much benefit to the people in the neighborhoods. >END QUOTE Not only is this not true, it is incredibly shortsighted. It is not THEIR new library, it is our library. Right now, books from the Downtown Library circulate to every part of Minneapolis and beyond. The Downtown Library is a great and easy treat for our family when we drive or ride the bus there. We have never had a probelm parking in the lot right outside the Hennepin Avenue entrance. It provides us --people in the neighborhoods-- with one the greatest benefits of all, books. List members have discussed in detail the letter from Wally Swan of the Board of Estimate and Taxation expressing his opinion of the Library Referendum. On this issue, I agree with R.T. when he said, "the real question we have to ask is: Should the library have to pay for the questionable financing schemes for other types of projects?" R.T. went on to explain how we must stop and think about what a library represents to our community. When libraries fade, learning and exploration fade with them. Can our sense of wonder and amazement be far behind? -- In cooperation, Erik Riese Seward 9-1 ~~ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~
Re: library referendum
There are more than the issues Wally Swan brings up which make me, as a taxpayer, hesitate to approve the library referendum both this year and as it now stands. The $140 million goes entirely to bricks and mortar, probably standard operating procedure for bonded issues. In the campaign to promote the library referendum, I don't see any discussion of how MPL is planning to change to meet the challenges of this "information" age. The planned new library feels more monumental than geared toward our projected needs. (We wouldn't be building this new library if more care had been exercised in building the one we have). For example, do we need a Central Library for business, government documents, etc. and a smaller community library downtown for those who live downtown? Other considerations: we are now experiencing a huge influx of immigrants and, when immigrant populations are high, libraries see a much greater demand for resources and services. More books in other languages, more and bi-lingual homework helpers, more and bi-lingual staff. Those are not bricks and mortar, but libraries have a huge role to play in the naturalizing of citizens. That takes much bigger book and resource budgets--not part of the referendum and not part of the future plans for resources and staff as have been described by the library. Wally's right in that we have been spending freely and we knew that spending would have to come to an end. The city's finance director quit and some of his disatisfaction, from his quoted words in the Strib, was around the issue of over-spending via bonding. Too, libraries nation-wide have not been all that effective at lobbying legislatures and Congress for better monies for libraries, even though their value to the communty is tremendous. A magnificent building is less than half the mission of the public library. Under the present plan, the library would be part of a residential block, as Tim Connelly queried. And, the central library will be closed for approximately 3 years to rebuild. That particular item does not make any sense to me. During that time, some 85% of the collection will be in boxes in a warehouse. That also will drive library workers to the home for the bewildered as they try harder and fail to meet the requests of patrons. This referendum comes before the voters in less than a month and, to date, there has not been anything like an adequate information campaign. "Honk if you love libraries" does not strike me as adequate for the size of this undertaking. I truly hate having to say these things, because I'm at the library almost every day as a volunteer and it has been my home away from home since first grade. But I don't want a second class library. I want one that's fine and beautiful, warm and welcoming, and one that will meet our needs for a looog time. Wizard Marks, Central timothy connolly wrote: > I had not seen Wally Swan's letter in the Strib so I > am thankful to David Brauer for reprinting it on this > site. > > I don't think Mr. Swan, whom I've never met, deserves > the response he has so far received in this forum. I > found his analysis cogent and I saw no evidence of a > suggestion that favored recent developments in the > city. to the contrary, in a very tactful manner he > seemed to disfavor the recent behavior of the > council's running up a large tab on credit. > > I concur wholeheartedly with his analysis and the in- > evitable and prudent conclusion that this is not the > proper time to be passing a $140 million referendum > for a new central library and branch improvements. > > It pains me to say this. I use the library daily. For > some time I have wanted a new central library. I think > a grand central library would speak volumes about our > values as a society, that above all we appreciate > learning and free access to information; that we truly > appreciate good architecture and it's ameliorative > effects; etc. > > to the purely economic reasons Mr. Swan offers I would > add concerns I have expressed privately to people on > the library board. > > I do not want the city to build another public bldg. > that outstrips its usefulness in 40 years. I wonder > where the city might be 50, 100 years from now. Which > direction will it grow? Presumably, all the new > buildings along Nicollet today will become Class B > office buildings and new development will have arisen > somewhere else. Will Nicollet Mall still exist as it > does now? > > Remember that the preceding library was erected at > 11th and Hennepin, well away from the center of > activity and in the intervening years a commercial > area built up around it. > > Steve Brandt's article spoke of the library in its > present location being a factor in residential living > along Hennepin and that was part of the justification > for it staying on that site. Where will this housing > be? Am I missing something here? I may well be as I am > not privy to much that
Re: library referendum
My problem with the library referendum runs like this. For the past 10-15 years the downtown business interested have been getting tax breaks, year by year and nibble by nibble. We are now at a point where it will be the neighborhood tax payers who will bankroll the downtown library improvements, meant to benefit downtown businesses primarily. Does everyone know that a skyway to a commercial building is in the design? Whenever we in the neighborhoods cry out for something, the downtown business interests lose no time in telling the neighborhoods that there is no free lunch. So I say no free lunch downtown, too and will vote No on the library referendum. Let the downtown interests pay for their new library. The downtown library is hard to get to, there is no parking to speak of, so it can't be said to be of much benefit to the people in the neighborhoods. John Ferman Harriet Avenue Kingfield Neighborhood Minneapolis Ward 10 Pct 10 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
