Ann Arbor company puts more than $21K behind ads attacking library bond proposal
Different groups are battling to convince local residents to either support or reject a $65 million bond proposal for a new downtown Ann Arbor library. On the left is a mailer sent out by Our New Downtown Library, the group supporting the proposal. On the right is an ad placed on the back cover of the November issue of the Ann Arbor Observer by Protect Our Libraries, a group that opposes building a new library downtown.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
In bold capital letters, the ads carry messages like "SAVE OUR LIBRARY," "VOTE NO," "HUGE COST" and "RENOVATE FOR MUCH LESS."
But who's funding the ads?
One of the ads the Protect Our Libraries campaign has been running against the library bond proposal with the help of Ann Arbor-based advertising agency McCullagh Creative.
McCullagh Creative contributed $6,440 on Oct. 29 and then another $14,897 on Oct. 31, according to late contribution reports filed in recent days.
Ann Arbor resident Kathy Griswold, the committee's treasurer, confirmed that the company has paid for the large ads that have appeared both online and in print through local media publications, including full-page ads in AnnArbor.com and the Ann Arbor Observer. Griswold's group provided the content for the ads.
"I believe it'll be effective," she said. "I think the ads were very well done."
Ellie Serras, chair of the Our New Downtown Library committee that's supporting the bond proposal, said she found it interesting to learn a lone advertising agency is funding the ads against a new library.
"We were sort of wondering where all this advertising was coming from," she said. "That's pretty interesting that you'd have one company that could have that kind of clout and have that kind of agenda. What is it that doesn't resonate with them about having a new library downtown?"
Griswold, who has put more than $7,000 of her own money toward yard signs and postcards in hopes of defeating the proposal on Tuesday's ballot, said Jeff McCullagh, the owner of the advertising agency, approached her about doing the ads.
"I didn't realize when they approached me the full extent of the ads they would be doing," Griswold said, adding she's thankful and hopes they sway voters.
Calls to McCullagh went unreturned on Saturday.
The ads from Griswold's group argue the new library could cost as much as $130 million over the next 30 years when factoring in interest on the bond debt and that's too much to ask voters.
Serras thinks it's misleading that the ads tell voters the money could be better spent on police and fire protection or roads and schools when the AADL is its own separate entity.
"We've really tried hard to dispel some of these scare tactics," she said. "This has just taken me so by surprise, especially the messages in these ads that are such distortions of the facts."
The ads also criticize the AADL for not having architectural renderings and other plans in place before going to voters, but Serras said it doesn't make sense to waste large sums of money up front if voters don't approve the bond proposal. If the bond passes, library officials have said there would be a year-long planning process involving public input on the plans before construction begins.
The Our New Downtown Library committee has been circulating this comic arguing a new downtown library is well worth $1 a week in new taxes.
Ann Arbor resident Jeremy Peters, who is supporting the campaign for a new library, said it's sad that two lone citizens — Griswold and Doug Jewett — together have put more than $10,000 of their own money behind what he considers "far-flung misinformation." Jewett started his own committee called Save the Ann Arbor Library that's opposing the bond proposal.
The estimated millage to pay off the bond for the new library is 0.56 mills. The tax would last up to 30 years and cost the owner of a home with a $200,000 market value and a $100,000 taxable value about $56 a year.
"What is the truth is this: a new downtown library will serve Ann Arbor's needs long into the future, and rehabilitation of the existing building to meet needs costs only 10 percent less than building the building we need for the future," Peters wrote in a recent letter to AnnArbor.com.
Serras said she's confident voters will realize the value in replacing the downtown library, which dates back to 1958 and was last renovated in the early 1990s, with a new state-of-the-art facility that's bigger and provides more amenities and space for programs and new technology.
The money being put behind the anti-library bond campaign pales in comparison to the money supporters have raised. Nearly $71,000 in cash donations from individuals, businesses and a nonprofit group have been poured into the Our New Downtown Library campaign.
Friends of the Ann Arbor District Library put $25,000 into the campaign. Other major donors include Zingerman's Bakehouse Inc. ($5,000) and Detroit-based law firm Dykema Gossett ($5,000), which does legal work for the AADL, and many individual contributors.
Griswold said the Michigan Theater has been showing pro-library advertisements before feature films but she hasn't yet seen campaign finance reports for those.
Griswold said she and other members of her group have been accused of being Tea Party Republicans, but she said they're just people who are interested in more sensible solutions than demolishing the downtown library and building a new one at a high cost.
"Everyone who could easily get to the downtown library by bus or walking will probably vote yes," she said. "I'm targeting the township voters who are probably not even aware of this yet."
The library district includes all of the city of Ann Arbor and parts of Ann Arbor, Lodi, Webster, Pittsfield, Superior, Salem and Scio townships.
Serras said she doesn't buy the argument that people in Ann Arbor and surrounding townships can't afford a new library. She said it's only going to cost them about $1 a week in taxes and that's much more affordable than trying to pay for Internet, books and other resources on their own.
She called the library "the democratic equalizer for access to information" for all and said she wouldn't be working on the campaign if she didn't truly believe that.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Balthazar Tarantula
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 9:44 p.m.
Highly ironic that a so-called creative company would be against expanding the city's leading source of educating the minds of its citizens.
Dave
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 4:42 a.m.
IF my wife said "Hey I need $5000...I'll tell you what I'll do with it later" and I come to find out she bought some shoes, I'd be pretty upset. Approving this bond would be the same thing. Giving people a blank check is WRONG. I'm sorry that you feel you need more space for the homeless to come and look at porn. I will not pay to park and come to the library. Remember when you could buy tapes? Records? CDs? What happened to Borders? Seriously, we'll be paying off this library when it really will be called a museum.
davecj
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 4:28 a.m.
VOTE NO!!! and vote for Lyn Davidge for Library Board since she is the only candidate who does not support the millage!!
buildergirl
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 8:11 p.m.
I love the AADL and visit one of the branches several days a week. I still enjoy real paper books and get several dvds/blu-rays. They have a wonderful selection for new release and documentaries. All that being said, while I am in support of revamping the downtown library the lack of clear plans and intentions makes me weary to support a new building. I do understand how a completely new building can be better then revamping the old, but I what can I expect from the services gained from it? Sorry but there are too many vague ideas to vote yes at this point.
a2roots
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 4:48 p.m.
A new library would be total overkill. Make what is there work more efficiently.
Deb Clark
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 2:24 p.m.
I'm shocked by how heated this issue has become in our community and online forums. As I understand both sides, there are pros and cons but I do find that the campaign against the new library seems to be funded in ways that don't seem quite kosher.
PhillyCheeseSteak
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.
Do you consider a payment of $25,000 from the Friends of the Library to the YES campaign "kosher"? What about AADL sending emails to all library card holders asking them to vote yes? What about the money that the DDA will receive if this project goes through?
LXIX
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 11:40 a.m.
Well, in all fainess A2com has published an advertisement from each position in an article in lieu of exploring any of the argument details. The only difference was the text size used for the NO advertisement compared to the Friends' ad - its unreadable.
PersonX
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 4:08 a.m.
It is fascinating that there is so much money and investment of energy behind the debate on this issue, which is small beer compared to all the problems that need to be addressed in out area. I like the library and think it is important, but see no reason for a new one at this time. But one way or another, I think there is something wrong with our system in which social gatherings and peer pressure drive the choice of issues that the town bigwigs spend their time on.
Steve Bean
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 2:39 p.m.
What's "wrong with our system" is that we use money. It's "what's wrong" with most things in our lives, right down to whether we should build a new library building.
Patricia Lesko
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 2:58 a.m.
Jeremy Peters is quoted as writing: "What is the truth is this: a new downtown library will serve Ann Arbor's needs long into the future, and rehabilitation of the existing building to meet needs costs only 10 percent less than building the building we need for the future."Peters, a contributor to the Our Library PAC (as well as to the campaigns of politicos behind this project) kindly repeats what may be the biggest whopper of all. In the course of writing a piece for A2Politico.com about the bond proposal (http://www.a2politico.com/2012/10/fuzzy-math-library-exec-dir-claims-same-project-will-cost-6/) I found reporting that suggests the AADL Board, the Our New Library PAC and AADL Exec. Dir. Josie Parker are not being frank with the public: In September 2008, Ann Arbor District Library Director Josie Parker told the Ann Arbor News it would cost $71 million to raze and replace the downtown library. Now, four years later, she claims the exact same plan to raze and replace library will cost $65 million. In September 2008, Josie Parker told the public it would cost $65 million to RENOVATE the existing building. Today, she claims it would cost $58.8 million to renovate the existing building." To date, Parker, the Our Library PAC or the AADL Board have not explained why the same 2008 plan is being pitched to the public as costing millions LESS four years later. According to economists at U.S. Department of Labor, a $71 million dollar project (say, oh, the construction of a new library) completed in 2008 would cost $76.3 million dollars in 2012, taking into account a 7.5 percent rate of inflation. Parker's 2008 claim that it would cost $65 million to renovate the current building means that in 2012 a renovation should cost $69.8 million, rather than the $58.8 million dollar price tag Parker and her supporters (including Peters) are trying to sell to the public in order to justify a $65M bond.
Tom Whitaker
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 2:55 p.m.
They may or may not be lower than 2008 at this moment, but it is unlikely they will be by the time this project goes out to bid. According to Reed Construction Data, the leading provider of cost data to the construction industry, construction costs were anticipated to match their 2008 peak sometime this year after bottoming out in 2009. Of course, this is speaking to the national average and not the local market, where construction activity has continued to boom thanks to multiple U of M, U of M hospital, St. Joseph Hospital, EMU, and City of Ann Arbor projects. Add to this the multiple private apartment high rises and other developments and it is clear that Washtenaw County, and more specifically, Ann Arbor, is a hotbed of construction activity. According to SEMCOG, over 2 million square feet of non-residential construction was completed in Washtenaw County in 2011 alone. Several new high rises are under construction or planned to start in 2013 and U of M has announced more dorm renovations and athletic facility construction, among other projects. If this were 2009, I could buy the lower cost construction argument, but that ship has already sailed.
Peter Baker
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:42 p.m.
Patricia, 2007/8 was a very different time for construction projects. Construction costs are simply lower right now then they were then, and it was another engineering firm this year that gave them the updated costs. Are you really trying to accuse the library director of simply reducing the cost by $6m to make it easier to sell (as if the $65m project has been an easy sell)?
RUKiddingMe
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 1 a.m.
Ryan Stanton, was this your headline, or did someone make the headline without your knowledge? This story does seem very weighted in favor of the new library, or at least its supporters, and the headline makes it distressingly so. What's going on with you? How can someone at A2.com not get in trouble over this headline?
Brad
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 2:08 a.m.
So what's that - six or seven different commenters again questioning a pretty obvious pro-library-bond bias in annarbor.com's "reporting"? Any comments Ms. Gardner? Are you ready to express annarbor.com's OFFICIAL endorsement yet?
Roger Kuhlman
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:52 a.m.
Why Mr. Stanton are you and AnnArbor.com not doing a story on the fact that the Director of the Ann Arbor Public Library used the library's email notification system to send virtually all users of the library campaign information supporting a Yes vote on proposed tax millage. That is a corrupt use of library facilities to advance her own political ends. Such matters I would think should be quite relevant to how Ann Arbor voters decide this issue.
Patricia Lesko
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 3:06 a.m.
@Roger Kuhlman the use of the AADL resources may be corrupt, but the question is whether Ms. Parker violated FTC rules governing customer privacy. It is a company's legal responsibility to guard that information securely and use it in strict compliance with the company's privacy guidelines. A former member of the AADL Board who on the Board when the current privacy policy was adopted alleges that the AADL violated its own privacy policy. Anyone can file a complaint and the FTC will investigate (https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/). Josie Parker has told the current Board she cleared her use of the library's patron list to send out information about a bond proposal. She did not tell the Board with whom she cleared her use of the patron email list to lobby.
mtlaurel
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:31 a.m.
The "no" voting subset of citizens is probably in spirit more a "yes" group. Why couldn't a more realistic proposal and monetary request have been made? Add branch library settings/improve the branch settings. The downtown venue as the "anchor" for the future is disconcerting. Many people have become disillusioned with what is happening downtown-that is a significant subconscious and conscious factor.People feel then the financial aspect is making this really uncomfortable to embrace and are voting NO.
brimble
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 7:30 p.m.
@Peter -- I sure hope that is a joke. Surely you wouldn't think to ask us to throw good money (on a new West branch) after bad (on the downtown demolition/reconstruction) with yet another millage! Ask me to start by expanding the reach of the system with a freestanding West, and/or additional branch locations, and you'll have my attention. If the Downtown millage passes first, I'm 'no' on the next one, too -- you'll already have spent enough of my tax dollars.
Peter Baker
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 4:50 p.m.
Yes Brad, one branch is old, you got me. I'm all for replacing that one with a new one too, by the way, right after we rebuild the downtown building.
Brad
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 1:03 p.m.
"obviously, the branches are all brand new" Sounds like @Peter hasn't been to the West branch lately. You know, the one built in 1977. More partial truths.
Peter Baker
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:44 p.m.
John Q, I hope everyone here realizes your sarcasm, since, obviously, the branches are all brand new.
John Q
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 3:29 a.m.
Yeah, why isn't the library system building new branch buildings, leaving the poor township users with the oldest buildings in the system?
Brad
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 1:15 a.m.
Yep, not all of us buy into the "downtown-centric" model currently being pushed by mayor/council/DDA and now AADL (and annarbor.com). The vast majority of Ann Arbor citizens still don't live downtown. The last number I saw was roughly 5% of the population, so expanding the decentralized library model would seem to make a lot more sense. Don't let annarbor.com's biased coverage unfairly cast those of us opposed to the AADL's plans as the "no people". We might just be the "yes people" of a better plan at a better time.
Halter
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 11:07 p.m.
With or without the Pro and Against money being spent here, this is a proposal that is going down in flames -- it might have support from the Downtown Moat area...but it has no support outside of Downtown...I live near the Stadium -- I know a lot of people. I don't know one single person voting FOR the Library Proposal. I've gone to a lot of community meetings and activities in my area -- and I can pretty much guarantee that this proposal isn't going anywhere....
An Arborigine
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 10:03 p.m.
We have an excellent library downtown. Plenty of space for the homeless too! Why should I pay $70+ a year to finance an new building when I can order the books/dvds I want and have them delivered to my area. I never go to the downtown library and I won't even if it costs me $70 a year.
aareader
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:26 p.m.
@ Hann I love that quote "Like Senator Dirksen famously said in the 1950's "A million here, a million there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money . . . " But I believe the number was a lot bigger "a billion here and a billion there can add up to real money..."
arborani
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:27 a.m.
I believe the Senator said, "A billion here, a billion there, and fhe first thing you know, you're talking about real money." Further corrections humbly accepted.
Terry Morris
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:15 p.m.
AADL has been a thought leader in the library community for years! With each new innovation more members of the conmunity are discovering services and programs that enrich their lives. AADL should be a source of immense civic pride and with a new building I'm sure that pride will swell even more! See through the sound and fury of the library opponants, it signifies nothing
northside
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 7:56 p.m.
@ Terry: Thoughtful leaders would find a way to make do with the current building. It isn't perfect, but is perfectly fine. Thoughtful leaders would also listen to the many voices in the community that are opposed to this project, not just dismiss their concerns as 'sound and fury.'
say it plain
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 5:35 p.m.
I must not be reading the right buzzword sources lol, because I've not heard of this "thought leader" idea! I hate it immediately though. What does that mean? Leader in thought, as opposed to action? Marketing genius--as in "knows what you want before you want it?" ?! So very orwellian in tone lol...
lou glorie
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:08 a.m.
The term "thought leader" really should be banished from our language. What a concept. Self appointed thought leaders are indeed behind the idea that we need to spend $65 million (plus) to become even more tumescent with civic pride.
Basic Bob
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:32 p.m.
I think the *opponents* of the bond are unanimous in their support of library services and programs. It is exactly these services and programs that they hope to maintain by *disagreeing* with the library board in the need for a brand new building. New buildings always have hidden costs that must come out of the operating budget. A great example of this is Skyline H.S. Many of us hoped that although the new high school building would be expensive, the board and administration *promised* that they would find ways to save money. They have not, and now they continuously ask for more and more money. The library board is doing the same to us now. There is no fury, only genuine love and support for the library's mission and purpose. What we don't need as another monument designed to last as long as a typical passenger car.
CynicA2
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.
The only thing worse than right wing 1%-ers are left wing 1%-ers, like the proponents of this new library boondoggle. All this money comes from the same place (taxpayers), a great many of whom are really sick of being nickel-and-dimed to death by everyone under the sun, including various government entities. I can think of many things more deserving of 65 to 130 MILLION dollars than a new library, which only a small percentage of the total population ever uses, and which has been largely rendered obsolete by advances in information technology. If this is so important to Ellie Serras and all her rich friends, let them pass the hat and fund it themselves. Not THAT important, they say?! That's what I say, too. VOTE NO!!
CynicA2
Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 2:07 a.m.
Point taken - the one might kill me, whereas the other just makes me really sick!
northside
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 7:54 p.m.
What you term the leftwing one percenters are asking the public to vote on a new library using tax money. Rightwing one percenters (George Bush, Enron, et. al.) took the economy to the edge of collapse through deregulation and fraud and lied the nation into an immoral invasion of Iraq. Thanks, but I'll take the left-leaning one percenters any day. And I say that as someone who is voting against the new library.
Pete
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 8:20 p.m.
AADL: c'mon out and build a branch library in Superior Township. The Ypsi library reneged on our branch after taking our money.
A Voice of Reason
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 8:06 p.m.
I am no longer giving my used books to the Friends of the Library. I thought they were selling them to raise money for books or books on tape for the library vs. wasting the money raised on an advertising campaign. You are taking and selling books and wastefully spending the money! Shame on you all!
kathryn
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
I did wonder where all the money was coming for the "anti" campaign. Thanks. Personally, I support the new library because renovation and maintenance can only take you so far...and I think the library is a wonderful resource and helps make Ann Arbor an attractive town to live in. Libraries in the 21st century will be public meeting areas as much as anything, and we should have one. I'll be at the meetings pushing for a "recital hall" size performance space instead of a large auditorium; it's an unmet need since there isn't much available for townies to use other than Kerrytown Concert House.
J K
Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 2:43 a.m.
There are plenty of "recital hall" size spaces available in town. I don't know the countless numbers of recitals I've played at and attended over the years, not at the Kerrytown Concert House.
Veracity
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:46 a.m.
...just as I stated also in an earlier comment, Angry Moderate.
Angry Moderate
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:01 a.m.
This is just a backdoor way of building the conference center that nobody wanted.
Jack
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 7:35 p.m.
From the headline, one would assume the anti-library group was doing something illegal or nearly so. But, no. In fact, the money provided to that group is by far less than the money provided to the pro-library group. But we have to go well into the article to discover that. This is factual reporting? Hardly. By the way, pro-library group, I don't spend my money on the junk you seem to assume I do. I find you ad insulting.
kittybkahn
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 7:06 p.m.
I'm wondering if the possibility of putting an additional story on top of the existing library has been explored. It could easily accommodate a large meeting space and coffee shop. Just a thought.
Vivienne Armentrout
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 10:53 p.m.
I hope that after the mllage fails, the AADL board will give some thought to my suggestion that the top floor could be better designed. Most of the entire space is wasted. The part that is not executive offices could be reconfigured, probably into a large meeting room and a smaller conference room (actually there is already a small conference room which to my knowledge is not used by the public).
Peter Baker
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:31 p.m.
It had been looked at, but the underlying structure can't support it. Expansion is really the biggest issue, because of the way the building was built, they can't up, and they can't go out.
Westfringe
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 7 p.m.
Can't believe someone actually paid that much money for those hideous ads. I work in creative for an ad agency and our interns make better stuff than that! The vote yes ads are 10x better.
lou glorie
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:10 a.m.
Well we're all doing what we can.
Peter Baker
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:30 p.m.
Hey, thanks!
Wolf's Bane
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 7:54 p.m.
Westfringe, that's because they have big money behind them. They can afford to hire the best. My goodness, a bit slow on the uptake there, slick? Don't see what this is about? Developers pushing their agenda on taxpayers and City Council going along with it because they want the cash.
Wolf's Bane
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 6:26 p.m.
Voting based of fiscal responsibility, mitigating wasteful spending, and shutting down developers attempting to fleece Ann Arbor taxpayers should be your only clear motive. In addition, the "Our New Downtown Library committee" comic arguing for a new downtown library being well worth $1 a week in new taxes, is false and completely outlandish. The figures amount to a far heavier burden for us taxpayers. I won't state a number since we're still crushing the "proposed" numbers.
Goofus
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:48 p.m.
I'm against most anything the AADL does because they are the only area library that does not share with any other local libraries. I hope their moneygrab millage goes down in flames, selfish organization.
Ron Granger
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:33 p.m.
"The move to digital media will make a library building totally irrelevant." That is like saying that parks are irrelevant because people have grass lawns. It wasn't true a hundred years ago, and it isn't true today.
Elijah Shalis
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:24 p.m.
Most of the library was built around 1992 and isn't old at all. To tear down and rebuild the old part on the front would cost a lot less money than they are saying. My parents are voting for the new library and my roommate and I are voting against it. Go visit the library and you will see that most of it is new. This is a waste of tax dollars. We are going to go tour it today and maybe check some movies out. Some of us have quality college educations, which tell us they are lying about the costs.
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:27 p.m.
Read the report, it's very specific: www.aadl.org/files/ProvidenceReportjul2307.pdf
say it plain
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:22 p.m.
News Quiz: Where do you think AA.com stands on this issue, given that the present story's headline is : "One company puts more than $21K behind attack ads" and buried in the middle of a long-winded set of sentences is the real accounting here, namely: "The money spent by the opponents of the proposal pales in comparison to the more than $70K raised by the *PRO*ponents of a new downtown library"?! Think hard, now.... Unnecessary spending, people who live downtown and use the downtown branch as 'their' library might be happy to have new windows and fresher coffee spaces, the rest of us would rather spend any library bond money on better and increased materials! I have yet to see any convincing evidence that people who don't have internet at home remain un-served by the current downtown branch. And people who would be spending the extra dollars per week to buy more luxurious computer-station rooms downtown already spend that money on their own, home-based internet. If this were about improved materials, or even spending on improved internet and configurations at the existing downtown branch, it might be a different story on the spending. But I can comfortably just say no to two more years of high-priced construction on more glass and fancy downtown!
Brad
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 1:31 p.m.
@Sayit - in an earlier article Mr. Stanton commented that Zingerman's campaign contribution was somehow to be viewed as "giving back to the community". Yeah, no bias there. Say, do you think that Jeff McCullagh's contributions are "giving back to the community"? No, you think they are an "attack", or at least that's what your headline says.
DonBee
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:53 a.m.
Ryan - I beg to differ, your article is probably worth $30 to $50,000 in kind support to the yes side.
Ryan J. Stanton
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:27 a.m.
@DonBee — there are no new contributions to report to the "yes" side other than what I've reported twice now. You can look for yourself here: https://secure.ewashtenaw.org/campaignfinance/userViewCommittee.do?cid=B-2012-006
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:45 p.m.
Mr Stanton - How nice of you to make an appearance, continuing to maintain your bias? The headline is much more neutral and the article far more nuanced than this one. I used to trust that you were trying to report news, not make news, this article proves differently. So what is the new total for the "YES" side, with the latest filings, which interested parties are behind the "yes" side? Come on Ryan give us a balanced article like you used to do.
Brad
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 6:52 p.m.
And those two headlines are equally impartial, right?
say it plain
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:46 p.m.
Fair enough, Mr. Stanton, thanks for that info. That headline, however, was different in tone, for sure. It reads : "Zingerman's, non-profit, among donors giving thousands to campaign for new downtown library". That makes it sound almost like they are 'donating' directly to the cause of building a new library,now, doesn't it? Donating money to this good sound cause...doesn't really indicate that it is *advertising* they're buying, whereas this headline makes that first and foremost clear, no? Zingerman's is beloved by many in this town, me among them. And who doesn't love non-profits? They must deeply believe in the value of a new building, then, and we love them, so.... But here, the term "attacking" is in the headline, and the verb is "put up", as though ante-ing in a poker game. Very different from 'donating'. Subtle, perhaps, to some, but this is what 'advertising' does, and I think the contrast in headlines is rather striking. Just to say.
Ryan J. Stanton
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:31 p.m.
The $71K had its own headline already: http://annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-library-bond-proposal-campaign-finance-reports/
lou glorie
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:26 p.m.
Regarding the Pro-Bond "comic" ad: annarbor.com's management while providing free ad space for this cutsie little thing, also provided me with a good look. I noticed the flyer yesterday clear-taped to a couple lamp posts near the co-op (good luck staff peeling them off) but didn't have the patience to read it. Please everyone scroll back and have a look. It portrays a self-involved, latte drinking couple ignoring their toddler while the toddler pulls a book down from the shelf behind mommy. If only the subsequent cells were available. We might see a pile of books on the floor and torn out pages in a cute, chubby fist. Is this what the board has in mind for our downtown library? Or is the board attempting to make a "statement" in glass like the Rem Koolhaas Seattle library? The pro-bond campaign has been touting this $165 million pile of glass as an example of what we might see on Fifth Ave. Seattle's new library is noisy and decidedly not a cozy, place to do some reading and writing. Turns out the building is expensive to maintain (the planes of glass are inaccessible to window cleaners). And now library hours have been cut and librarians demoted to part time clerks. But Seattle's library IS a "destination" for tourists and another page in the archistar's portfolio. Is this what the board has in mind? It's unfortunate that "destination" making has become a modus operandi for the DDA and the library board. Most of us know that our town already is "someplace"—certainly not perfect but good enough. Regarding the financing of these campaigns: It may be that the money going in to both the "pro" and "no" camps indicates that the clash of the downtown titans is heating up. But most of us don't have deep pockets. We just see this proposal as wasteful and want to prevent the library board from making a mistake that could damage the whole library system. No amount of hype and spinolla coming from the pro-bond campaign will change that.
northside
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 7:58 p.m.
If Lou Glorie had a regular column in annarbor.com, I might actually subscribe.
kittybkahn
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 8:40 p.m.
Hear Hear!!
Ryan Burns
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:56 p.m.
This is buried in a thread above but I think it's important. A commenter says "Then why do you want a bunch of out-of-town strangers and conference goers --who are in town for a good time, coming to a conference center around our kids? " The new library is not a conference center. The library is the non-commercial center of this town, and the keystone of our public commons. All events at the library are required to be free to attend - even if someone rents a space. The meeting space / workshop space / small auditorium you are conflating with a conference center are for things like book clubs, programming meetups, electronics or knitting workshops, and talks by people in the community, authors, and performance of film and music. These are things that the current building restricts downtown, and tiles in the mosaic of a vibrant intellectual community. I understand why you wouldn't want a conference center downtown, but I really think that transposing that fear onto the library is a mistake. The library is for us, not for out-of-towners. Don't hobble our intellectual life because of this confusion.
kathryn
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 7:47 p.m.
To Basic Bob....The Diag is the center of the UNIVERSITY. Not everyone in this town is affiliated with the University or has access to their building spaces for activities.
Ryan Burns
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:05 p.m.
Well from what I've read over the past month it seems that this is actually one of the primary objections of the No campaign, and it was one I hadn't addressed in the past.
brimble
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:30 p.m.
@Ryan -- You've picked an odd strain of the discussion as a bit of a straw man argument. The question is not about 'out-of-town' convention-goers, is not 'us versus them' and is not about 'our intellectual life.' It is about spending a lot of money on a construction project that may or may not have value for the taxpayers and the people (whether they are locals or not) who use the library system.
Basic Bob
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:21 p.m.
"The library is the non-commercial center of this town, and the keystone of our public commons." What happened to the Diag???
tmc
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:56 p.m.
There are two aspects of the bond issue that bother me. One, the confing stipulation that a new faciltiy be built on the current site, even if that should, for some reason, turn out to be impratical or impossible. Second, and more troubling, the stipulation that the DDA be allowed unfettered and undefined access to stick it's thumb into the money pie. The latter is the deal killer.
brimble
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:46 p.m.
...which is all the more reason to expand the system in the neighborhoods outside of the reach of the DDA, rather than rebuild the existing downtown branch.
Ryan Burns
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:57 p.m.
I believe that the DDA part is state law and out of the library's control. It's true of any building downtown.
golfer
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:47 p.m.
this goes on all the time, here, washington, and the state. we just do not know about it. if you really want to know more try finding out what the us government does. so what is the big deal. people back for different reasons. i say this is normal so vote for what and whom you feel is the best. i for one think stuff like whom is backing whom is a joke. look at tv adds who pays for them? who give them money to run them. this is normal. live with it.
leaguebus
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:28 p.m.
Who gave money for or against the library should not be an issue, this is not a group of Matty Marouns trying to enrich themselves by stopping a public bridge. Look at the proposal and vote yes or no. I think the scope of the rebuild is too large. Media editing suites are provided by the Community Television Network and not needed at the library. A 400 seat auditorium is expensive and I am not sure it's really needed. Smaller meeting rooms make sense to me. I don't support a Rolls Royce downtown library, but would support a scaled back version. The library needs to provide resources to families that can't afford computers and Internet at home, but expensive meeting rooms and media editing suites go too far.
aataxpayer
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:26 p.m.
We are making Ann Arbor unaffordable for too many people. Ann Arbor will see more wealth move away to low tax areas and see huge fiscal problem if we don't start lowering taxes. This is a great place to start. Vote NO!
kathryn
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 7:53 p.m.
We choose to live in Ann Arbor (despite the costs) because of the resources: a vibrant downtown, a great parks system, walkability, AND yes, a great library system. Low taxes aren't the only thing that make a town great. (Well, perhaps for "aataxpayer" they are.)
Larry Baird
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:29 p.m.
Affordability is one of the contributing factors to the demographic trend of a shrinking average household size within the city. Since the majority of the board members (DDA, AATA, AADL, city council, etc.) are "empty nesters", I would hope that this statistical trend would be of great concern to them. This leads to the following two questions: 1.) How many of our children and grandchildren will be able to afford to buy a home and raise a family within the city? 2.) How are our decisions today going to effect the answer to the first question?
Tony Livingston
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:19 p.m.
Yes. There are 2 main reasons that people buy homes in the surrounding townships instead of in the city of Ann Arbor. 1 is newer, larger houses. 2 is lower taxes........much lower. Let's not make this already bad situation worse. No more city tax increases.
SonnyDog09
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.
How is borrowing money to build a new library in 2012 any different from borrowing money to build a new blacksmith's shop, horse stables, choo-choo train station or a new dreadnaught? Times change. The things that were important in your youth are barely relevant now and will almost certainly be anachronisms by the time we pay off the debt. Think of how much the world has changed in the last thirty years and then try to imagine a world where a library will still be relevant in thirty years time. The move to digital media will make a library building totally irrelevant.
kathryn
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 7:57 p.m.
No, it won't. A public library, well-run and supported by its community, will continue to be a center for the public to get information and share information. We're lucky to live in a town where some, at least, are working to preserve public space and public resources.
Ryan Burns
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:15 p.m.
The Yes campaign has broad based community support from over 100 donors.
djm12652
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.
So why don't these "donors" chip in a bunch more money to fund the library? Then they can have their names on a plaque for a winter warming shelter, and summer cooling center....
Halter
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 11:03 p.m.
Doesn't matter -- it doesn't have population support -- I can get every business in downtown to support a new library -- that doesn't mean anyone outside if those businesses will vote for this... Going down in flames
Brad
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 10:24 p.m.
Over 130 plus one online publication (unofficially) actually.
brimble
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:25 p.m.
@Ryan -- So those who are most willing to spend more at tax time are also most able to spend more to support spending more. The real answer to the question of 'community support' will be determined in just a couple of days. Thankfully, we all vote with votes, not dollars.
Peter Baker
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.
Over 130 actually.
Hornsby
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:59 p.m.
One of the things disappointing about the Proposed Library Millage is the AADL Board decided to ask the voters for all the funding before finding other sources. Often touted in the vision for a new library, are three projects currently, or about to be under construction: The new San Diego, Madison, and Austin libraries. The San Diego Library is getting over 33 percent of it's funding from foundation and private sources, and for Madison it's over 25 percent. The Austin Library is receiving around $10 Million from a sale of city owned land. Ann Arbor residents should expect similar funding creativity before being asked to exclusively fund a new library.
arborarmy
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 6:29 p.m.
So, if the people of Ann Arbor want (in this case), a new library, they need first to mooch money from prospective donors rather than pay for it themselves? How Republican.
johnnya2
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:53 p.m.
The AAPL is using the LAND they already own, so a cost savings is there. The city can not sell land give to AAPL. They are not the same entity.
David Cahill
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:55 p.m.
As the article points out, the funds received by the "no" committees pale in comparison with the huge amounts received by the "yes" committee. The "yes" committee got $25,000 from money the Friends of the Ann Arbor District Library took from charitable contributions such as book sale money. It also got $5,000.00 from the Library's own law firm. The recent contributions from this ad agency have at least made the funding a bit more balanced. They have helped create what the "yes" committee feared most: a level playing field.
CLX
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:23 a.m.
I'll be curious to see who swings in and pays back the "loan" put up by the woman on the no side. I suspect that she wouldn't be "loaning" that kind of money unless she was darn sure that the money was coming right back to her. My question is who is hiding behind that "loan." At least people on the "yes" side were happy to put their names on their donations.
Anti Crankypants
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 10:38 p.m.
It's not evil to support a campaign for either side - that's politics. What's troubling here is some mysterious "ad agency" without a website that's contributed over $20K into this hot button issue. Cahill can criticize the pro library proposal people because he knows who they are. People have a right to know who's really funding the NO side - that's why there's campaign financing laws.
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:38 p.m.
Anti Crankypants - So it is evil that a company puts up money for the no side, but fine that the yes side has their law firm and its principals, and many others who will directly PROFIT from this bond contribute? Is that a double standard? Then there is the Friends who took my surplus books, and sold them so they could add to the collection at the library taking that money and using for a website to promote this millage. My books will go elsewhere in the future.
Anti Crankypants
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:03 p.m.
Right, "balanced" by $21K from some mysterious "ad agency" with no website. Who's really behind the big red wave of NO?
Greg
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:55 p.m.
Getting real interesting in how those with deep pockets to spend seek to determine our future to their views. Likely soon, if not already, we will have the best government and policies money can buy.
Pat
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
Why is the law firm that works for the library contributing money to the campaign for a new library? That doesn't seem right. AAPL always likes to refer to part of the building dates back to 1958. That is only part of the building. Most of the building is much newer. It is amazing that so many in Ann Arbor like to think of themselves as pro-environment and all for preservation. Where are they on this? How is tearing down a building to build a new one good for the environment and how does it preserve anything? I agree that we do not need to fiund an auditorium or a coffee shop. If the school board needs an auditorium for their public meetings then maybe it is time to start utilizing the high school auditoriums.
PhillyCheeseSteak
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 2:46 p.m.
johnnya2: You say, "Also to call the current building something worth preserving, it is a building that was built in the time of generic buildings. It has no character and quite frankly is an uninviting building. It is institutional looking." However, the 1957 building was designed by Alden B. Dow, who received the Diplome de Grand Prix at the 1937 Paris International Exposition, and in 1983 Dow was named the architect laureate of Michigan. Also, Dow's home in Midland, Michigan, with its internationally-recognized design, was designated a National Historic Landmark.
Angry Moderate
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 6:05 p.m.
You're worried that paying to rent a high school auditorium costs more than a $60 million bond plus interest? What a freaking joke.
johnnya2
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:52 p.m.
Why isn't that right? That would be like saying a company that builds roads supports a proposal to fix roads. hat is wrong with that? Also to call the current building something worth preserving, it is a building that was built in the time of generic buildings. It has no character and quite frankly is an uninviting building. It is institutional looking. As for using high school auditoriums, you do realize that they must PAY to use those? Then the money comes out of the operating budget, instead of out of a bond. If a coffee shop is in the library a profit is likely to be made from either running it, or outsourcing it to a private group that pays rent or a fee within the building.
Kai Petainen
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:35 p.m.
"That's pretty interesting that you'd have one company that could have that kind of clout and have that kind of agenda" ha.... look at how much Maroun has spent on his campaign to save his bridge. he should have put that money towards fixing the rust on his bridge. the priorities are mixed up. that's one person, trying to save his monopoly... and thumbing his nose at homeland security, canadians who are giving the money... now... THAT is POWER.... when you can buy a vote and control even the security across to Canada (by fighting against a 2nd bridge, that is a matter of security)
A Voice of Reason
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:46 p.m.
I agree that Main Street Venturers owner putting in $5000 to the campaign and Zingerman's putting in so much money is not right. That is why I am voting no. They clearly have a vested interest in using tax payers funds for their own personal profit.
Patricia Lesko
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:29 p.m.
I spent two hours yesterday being interviewed by a national publication about AnnArbor.com and the product it provides to our community. I suggested the reporter study the coverage of this particular campaign, as it embodies AnnArbor.com's efforts to put pageviews over substance. Ellie Serras is disturbed to learn a single media agency has that much clout? Ellie Serras spent $30,000 paying Elevated Works for media work, and another $2,019 to Mr. Peter Baker for more media work. Baker went on to post dozens and dozens of comments in support of Serras, the Library Board and the bond proposal (and to conveniently link to the media he designed) on AnnArbor.com's coverage—until outed after campaign finance documents were released. What Peter Baker did was manipulative of the media site and its readers. The Michigan Theater is playing a video that supports the bond proposal before feature films. That donation does not appear on campaign finance records. How about Print-Tech, the local company that donated over $8,500 in design and printing work to Ms. Serras' campaign? As for your blowsy reporting that "many donors" have contributed to support Serras' campaign, the names of those donors are, in most cases, the same ones that show up on the campaign finance reports of candidates who run for Council with the support of John Hieftje and his political friends (Joan Lowenstein, Leah Gunn, Peter Allen, Jeremy Peters, Laura Rubin, Leigh Greden, Susan Pollay, John Splitt, Tony Derezinski, Arthur Nusbaum, etc...) Connect the dots and one finds the majority of the support for Ellie Serras and her $100M-$130M bond proposal comes from the DDA, developers, political appointees and politicos who promised to bring us an Interplanetary/Intermodal station on Fuller Road parkland, and a county-wide transit scheme that cost taxpayers millions before imploding, and "environmentalists" who support using parkland for parking.
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:24 p.m.
Once again people, read the report: www.aadl.org/files/ProvidenceReportjul2307.pdf It's very specific.
timjbd
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 8:10 p.m.
thanks Pat, This whole library issue is beginning to smell. $65 million for a library but no plans to see? How would they know that? So what IS known about any $65 million construction project? The percentage that will funnel to the DDA. And how would they know how much it will cost to renovate the existing library without a request for bids on a specific set of renovations? They just need it to be a number high enough to sound like too much to spend. I guess they decided that number is 90% of $65 million?
Stephen Landes
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:57 p.m.
Thanks Pat. I commented a while ago asking "Who is Peter Baker". The replies did not, as I recall, include that he was being paid by the AADL or Ellie Serras to work for them. A little transparency is a useful thing.
Rick Stevens
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:10 p.m.
Thanks Pat. I really wish our media would investigate and post these kinds of facts. We need to know who is paying for political stuff like this -- tells you volumes about hidden agendas, etc. So much is now hidden to us with such astro-turf names like 'Citizens for XX' while the majority of the funding is from some huge corporation, Manny Maroun or Karl Rove or the Koch Bros. It's just hiding things from voters (like a candidate who won't release tax returns). We need a lot more transparency and the media, if truthful, could do that. I don't see AA.com doing that much.
DJBudSonic
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:48 p.m.
Say what you want about Ms. Lesko, free speech is our right. But I fully support anyone who is willing to take the time to research and present "the rest of the story". Many stories from the desk of Mr. Stanton seem to be thinly veiled opinion pieces; Mr.Baker's comments from the start were rabidly pro-bond, I assumed after reading one string of them that he was either on the library board or on the payroll of someone with a vested interest in the bond passing. It turns out this assumption was correct, now, it takes Ms. Lesko to bring him out of the woodwork on this thread... I wish I wasn't so busy working to try and pay my bills and taxes, I would read all the comment sections all the time, as well as Ms. Lesko's informative blog. It seems that as far as annarbor.com is concerned, the real news can be found in the comment section!
Tony Livingston
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:16 p.m.
Thanks, Pat. It is great to read all of the points of view and research that people are doing. It is clear that the timing for this bond effort is way off.
cindy1
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:07 p.m.
Thanks MUCH to Pat Lesko for all of her digging into the mire of what Ann Arbor politics has become.
Patricia Lesko
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:56 p.m.
@Peter Baker, I know you did; I looked up your comment history. However, when you get paid to do work by a PAC and then post 10-20 percent of the comments on posts and letters to the editor without your financial incentive being made clear, it crosses a line that the newspaper should have addressed—as they addressed when political candidates were barred from posting anonymously. It would be interesting to see how AA.com readers would have responded to your numerous comments in support of, well, your own employer and your own work, if they had known from the beginning your financial gain from the PAC (over 70 percent of the total money spent as of October 26, 2012)
johnnya2
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:46 p.m.
A failed wanna be mayor. Bitter much? The city continues to thrive as you try to bring it down. The world is waiting for you to go away. ""Pat Lesko has become an embarrassment to our community and reflects badly on all that we value and worked so hard to accomplish," Phil Volk said in an official statement. "I feel it is imperative for our LGBT political future that Pat Lesko steps out from the campaign for mayor and apologizes not only to the LGBT community but to the general public as well."
Peter Baker
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3 p.m.
Also, there have been over 130 donations to the Our New Library campaign.
Peter Baker
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:59 p.m.
I have been commenting on AnnArbor.com long before, and will continue long after, this library bond campaign. Being paid for my, and my employee's, time spent creating logos, websites, videos, flyers, signs and advertisements has not skewed my support for this library one bit. If anything, it's given me a chance to study the proposal and all aspects of the issue as much as anybody ever would or could, and has only reenforced my opinions.
Veracity
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:16 p.m.
The reason why many Ann Arbor voters are skeptical of the new library plan is that library officials are using Republican strategy in order to get funding approved. By providing almost no details about the appearance of the new library or how most of the additional 50,000 square feet of space will be used, voters have nothing to find fault with or to complain about. Once the bond referendum passes, library officials can design the building to look anyway they wish without requiring citizen input. Also the bulk of the 50,000 square feet of additional space can be used to build an auditorium much bigger than the 400-seat one being mentioned now. A 400-seat auditorium can consume 8,000 square feet but the remaining 42,000 square feet can create many more sizable meeting rooms. It is very possible that as much as 26,000 square feet of new space may be devoted to meeting facilities similar to those proposed by the Valiant Partners convention center. Josie Parker was a strong proponent for construction of the Valiant Partners luxury hotel and convention center because the library was promised access to the meeting rooms after construction. Once the new library has the expanded meeting space the DDA can push once more for an unfeasible luxury hotel to be built over the Library Lane Parking Structure. Another unknown variable at this time is the coupon, or interest rate, that a bond issue will have to offer in order to sell the bonds. Though interest rates are low now, library officials can not guarantee a 2% interest rate. In fact, the bonds floated to pay for the Library Lane Parking Structure (underground) required an interest rate near 4%. So if the bond issue for a new library has a similar coupon then a millage that will cover servicing the bonds should require a 1.12 mill rate, or twice the present anticipated rate. The higher millage rate will translate into $112 per tax payer rather than the $56 per tax payer rate stated by library proponents.
djm12652
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 6 p.m.
That's so comical! Calling anyone a Republican in this town is tantamount to shunning! lol...even thought there are quite of number of FISCAL CONSERVATIVES....
Tom Whitaker
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:01 p.m.
So "Anti Crankypants" is criticizing "Veracity" for using an online handle and spreading misinformation? What about Anti's comment just a few spots up that is basically implying that Dennis Dahlmann, owner of the Campus Inn is behind the funding for the anti-bond group? If you are going to make accusations, then you should back them up with real information and a real name.
Veracity
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:42 p.m.
What "misinformation" is included in my comment? Speaking in generalities while avoiding specifics is a well-known Republican strategy, along which worked well for Governor Snyder's 2010 election campaign and is being used in the 2012 elections.
Anti Crankypants
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:25 p.m.
Let's call ourselves "Veracity" and spread misinformation. Let's call ourselves "protect our libraries" by shouting "NO" against investing in our own. Talk about Republican strategies - sounds like you know them all too well.
Ronald K. Dankert
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:15 p.m.
Can't vote to help encumber the local citizenry (present and future) with an additional $56 a year, or $65 million, or $130 million for 30 years to support a new library when we are already facing an uncontrolled national debt, a vastly underfunded FEMA, and "Taxmageddon" wherein starting next year income taxes are expected to increase anywhere from $1,000 to $4,000 or more annually, just to name a paltry few current and looming obligations on the taxpayers' calendar. The new library, as proposed, would be a great anchor attraction to downtown and is well presented by its supporters. It has lofty objectives, good financing, and would stimulate development of Ann Arbor's vacant sites in the area, but this is a matter of priorities and a bigger picture. Think of all the other institutions and street level non-profits competing for money and other finite resources just in the Ann Arbor area, and wonder which ones can do with less next year as discretionary funds are diverted to new library debt. Until we start managing our government finances better I can see more and more worthy local developments and initiatives failing at the ballot box.
Vivienne Armentrout
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:07 p.m.
Mr. Dankert deals in commercial real estate and was at one time a very responsible member of the DDA. It took me two or three readings to understand that he is actually saying here that though he sees benefits from the project, he opposes the bond and the additional debt. It appears that some members of the business community are able to look beyond their own immediate gain. Congratulations.
Anti Crankypants
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:13 p.m.
What kind of "ad agency" (McCullagh Creative) doesn't even have a website? This looks shadier than the parking lot behind Campus Inn.
Brad
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 1:03 a.m.
Who exactly are they "deceiving"? My guess is that McCullagh Creative has been in business many years longer than you have lived here.
Anti Crankypants
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:19 p.m.
Okay then, so who is McCullagh Creative and why the deception? And its the cost they spent on full page/front page annarbor.com/Observer ads, not the mysterious McCullagh's time and paper inventory.
Basic Bob
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:19 p.m.
Tinfoil headgear alert! They reported the "value" of the advertising, not the true cost to print the material. If the owner volunteers his time and donates the paper, he must still report $21k to the campaign as an in-kind donation. This is not half as shady as the donations to the tear-down-the-perfectly-good-building fund.
cindy1
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:11 p.m.
Profit motive is the driver behind the new event center. It's not about books, knowledge, or the needs of residents. Ellie Serras, head of the effort, is an owner of Main St. Ventures. The enormous $71K for the group's advertising is all about attracting people to her restaurants, Zingerman's, and other businesses, after events. It's beyond ironic when she says how interesting it is that one advertising co. could have "clout" and "agenda" in opposing her plans. How about the clout and agenda of the appointed officials at the DDA and some downtown businesses?
DJBudSonic
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:55 p.m.
That is exactly right.. Our tax dollars are being sought to pay for an unnecessary building, with a plaque in the lobby, with a bunch of rich peoples names on it... Vote 'NO'.
Indymama
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:46 p.m.
AHHHH...the TRUE reason comes out for the push for a new building downtown. I say IMPROVE the neighborhood libraries instead of wasting our precious $$$$ on a "temple for Ellie"!!
johnnya2
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:40 p.m.
Are you kidding me? You think the people who use the library are the same people using MSV restaurants? You really need to get a clue. MSV and ZIngermans both know that a thriving downtown increase ALL the property values of the community. PERIOD. The proof is in the results. Build a house in Ypsi and build the exact same house in Ann Arbor. Which one is worth more? It is BECAUSE of the thriving downtown and the services like the library, schools, public safety, parks etc.
Brad
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:30 p.m.
"Just follow the money". It never gets old.
Kathy Griswold
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:05 p.m.
"What is the truth is this: a new downtown library will serve Ann Arbor's needs long into the future," What about the needs of those, especially low income people, in parts of Ann Arbor, Lodi, Webster, Pittsfield, Superior, Salem and Scio townships. The Loving Library branch on Packard, just east of Platt, was closed and replaced with the Mallets Creek branch further west on Eisenhower. We need to examine the needs of people on the east side of the district, which goes all the way to Golfside on the south and beyond Prospect and Curtis on the north. Also, people on the west side of the district have been asking for improved library services for many years. Technology provides an opportunity to decentralize library SERVICES, the opposite of this DOWNTOWN BUILDING proposal. These service improvements can be accomplished within the perpetual operating millage, without a costly 30-year bond.
deb
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:38 p.m.
like more space or a better westside library? Westgate isn't exactly a beacon . . .
sellers
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:57 p.m.
So if the nearly $30k was spent toward a fund to help improve the library - would we all but the printers and signmakers benefit ? It is sad how out of context statements and warped persuasion rules elections. How can we better education the populous, especially the majority of us who have no time (read interest) in getting all the facts about each item/person on a ballot.
arborani
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:10 a.m.
Say what?
aanative
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:30 p.m.
Huh?
Vivienne Armentrout
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:51 p.m.
"Serras said she doesn't buy the argument that people in Ann Arbor and surrounding townships can't afford a new library. She said it's only going to cost them about $1 a week in taxes and that's much more affordable than trying to pay for Internet, books and other resources on their own." This is typical of many of the pro-bond commenters. They are conflating the things we all love about the library - and that we already have! - with a new structure and huge debt over 30 years. This is not about whether little kids will have books and computers, or whether any of us in the AADL district can check out DVDs, books, and even telescopes. It is not about any of the wonderful things the library already means to our community. A vote against the bond is not a vote against the library and its functions. It is a vote against a huge downtown building project that hasn't even been fully described, that will place us in debt for 30 years and lose the function of a downtown library for several years in the bargain. The point of this story seems to be that the proponents are stunned that there is actually effective opposition.
Linda Peck
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 2:55 p.m.
To John Q, I read you to mean that the branches are in the townships. We have a few branches within Ann Arbor and they are not township branches.
John Q
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 3:39 a.m.
In other words, Township voters were pleased to have new branches built to meet their needs but have no interest in having the same done downtown.
Tony Livingston
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:09 p.m.
People in the townships are well aware of this vote. The township residents that I know who support it are the ones who work downtown or at the U. The rest of us out here are very happy with our branch libraries that are very nice and already heavily used. Full parking lots at the branches is not uncommon at all. There are needs and there are wants. This project is a definite want during a very tough economic time.
aanative
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:29 p.m.
Well said! Just how I read the article.
Ron Granger
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:41 p.m.
The world will not end if we wait a couple years. They are asking for too much money, and this will be a luxurious glass palace, rather than a very functional taxpayer funded facility. They have not been honest or transparent about that. This is not the time to build a glass palace on the backs of taxpayers. They want to spend $334 per square foot. Seattle's gorgeous glass palace library was only $273/sqft in 2004, when construction costs were very, very high: http://seattletimes.com/news/local/library/stories/seattlesnewlibrary.html FACT: they do not have a plan or budget that is based on specific minimum need, or requirements. They just want a "pie in the sky" amount of $65 million, that grows to over $100 million with interest. Read it for yourself on the library "info" site, copied in part below. Generally you must do more pre-planning and have some mock up models before asking for a specific amount on a project like this. The public should know what they are buying, whether austere box, or glass palace. DonBee points out that the cost is 3X more per square foot than the midwest average. From the library "info" site: "The Board is asking the community to first decide if it is willing to invest $65 million. 2. What will the new library look like? The Library Board has not commissioned any specifiplans at this time. .. In 2008, we estimated spending $334 per square foot on a new downtown facility. In the library's experience managing construction projects, that cost per square foot is sufficient to deliver an outstanding facility."
johnnya2
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:36 p.m.
"The world will not end if we wait a couple years." This is the mentality that destroys things. Want to know why doing things now rather than waiting is fiscally soound 1. Cost rise- a $65 million project could be $100 million ESPECIALLY with the economy improving. The time to do this was actually two years ago. Finding construction firms willing to bid the project at the lowest cost would have been ideal 2. Interest rates. Do you know what borrowing costs are today? LOW LOW LOW. Based on the simplest math, a 1 % increase in interest rate will cost $650k in interest every year. Why not borrow when the rates are about as low as they can go?
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:08 p.m.
Or maybe they didn't want to spend a bunch of the library's slim operating budget on an architect's drawings until they were sure they'd use it.
Vivienne Armentrout
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:05 p.m.
A friend suggested that one reason that no design has been revealed is that there might be a negative public reaction against the design itself. The design of the late unlamented hotel and conference center plan ended up as an iconic image that we turned into a campaign button. http://localannarbor.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/and-why-are-we-worried-about-it-valiant-loi/ Doubtless this would have been something the current proponents wished to avoid.
A Voice of Reason
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:38 p.m.
No matter how much it cost, we do not need more strangers downtown around our kids. Obviously those planning this addition do not have small children and are out of touch with parents and changing technology. Also, who wants to go downtown and have to park when you can go to a library branch and park for free! Zingerman's and Main Street Ventures are trying to make a profit on the taxpayers backs. Vote No! Vote No! Vote No! Vote No! Vote No! Vote No! Vote No!
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:34 p.m.
Mr Burns - Based on what is posted - the conference part of the library will consume more than 30,000 square feet - between the auditorium and the various conference rooms. Add the catering kitchen, cafe and other non-reading related functions and most of the additional space will be taken by this set of functions. So to say it is not a conference center may be correct - but do we really need to build this conference room for 11 meetings a year? Really? I wish I could give you the exact use of the square footage, but unlike any other public request, no preliminary drawings have been done. So no actual floor space usage can be determined. My numbers come from construction databases that give averages for parametric planning, which is as good as I can give you.
Tom Whitaker
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.
If the room is too small for just several events per year, then the AADL has many choices: 1. Don't hold the event at all. 2. Partner with the U of M libraries and/or other U of M organizations to co-sponsor the event in one of the many under-utilized auditoriums on campus. 3. Partner with the public schools to use one of the many under-utilized auditoriums in the middle schools and high schools. 4. Rent the Michigan Theater screening room or one of the above if a U of M or AAPS partnership can't be made (although I can't imagine why it couldn't, with strong, creative leadership from the AADL). 5. Use the existing room, but hold the event more than once--say two times in one night, or over two or three days. An online RSVP system could be used to make sure the crowd is distributed as evenly as possible. I see no justification for the economic or environmental costs of building yet another auditorium in Ann Arbor that will sit unused for all but a few hours per week. What would the utility bills be just to keep the space heated and cooled between events? What would be the cost to clean and maintain it? This will come out of the AADL operating budget.
Ryan Burns
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:55 p.m.
Regarding the meeting sizes, it's difficult to have an event larger than 135 people currently when that's all the multipurpose room would hold.
Ryan Burns
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:53 p.m.
The new library is not a conference center. The library is the non-commercial center of this town, and the keystone of our public commons. All events at the library are required to be free to attend - even if someone rents a space. The meeting space / workshop space / small auditorium you are conflating with a conference center are for things like book clubs, programming meetups, electronics or knitting workshops, and talks by people in the community, authors, and performance of film and music. These are things that the current building restricts downtown, and tiles in the mosaic of a vibrant intellectual community. I understand why you wouldn't want a conference center downtown, but I really think that transposing that fear onto the library is a mistake. The library is for us, not for out-of-towners. Don't hobble our intellectual life because of this confusion.
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:46 p.m.
Ryan Burns - 3 or 4 times a year there are large gatherings of children downtown. Every day there are large numbers of children in the branches. It is like the 11 meetings a year that have more attendance than the 135 seat meeting room can hold. This number comes directly from the AADL. Since approximately 10% of the square footage will go for this 400 seat auditorium, stage, wings, A/V room, and other support - that is $6.5 million of the 65 million that will be used for this space. At 11 meetings a year and 30 years for the bond - we end up spending over $19,000 a meeting for the overflow meetings. We have 8 years to go on the last bond millage on the library.
A Voice of Reason
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:44 p.m.
And, name calling is not an argument!
A Voice of Reason
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:42 p.m.
Then why do you want a bunch of out-of-town strangers and conference goers --who are in town for a good time, coming to a conference center around our kids? All library board members are over all over 60+ and I am guessing not running 3-4 kids around and trying to go to the library too. Parents do not want to drive and park to go to the library. This new venture is not for the kids. Nice try A2Onward. I am missing your argument back.
Ryan Burns
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:14 p.m.
The Downtown branch hosted storytime for 650 children on Halloween. 650 children. http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritagemedia/sets/72157631897106039/ There are plenty of supporters with children, including myself.
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:09 p.m.
A2Onward - Based on visiting the various libraries, I would say the board is out of touch about children. Not in the way the comment above indicates. But rather in the fact that almost all of the children I saw on my visits were in the branch libraries - not the downtown library. If I wanted to support the children of the library district, I would focus the money on improving the branches, not the downtown library.
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:47 p.m.
The people that are running the library "do not have small children and are out of touch with parents and changing technology"? That might be the winner for most inane comment yet.
Brad
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:37 p.m.
Just more slanted annarbor.com coverage of the library bond proposal. While purported to be covering those not in favor ("attacking"!) of the very expensive, and many think ill-timed bond proposal, it seems to consist largely of remarks from Ellie Serras. Is the reason the anti-bond contributions "pale" because there isn't anyone on that side of the equation with a potential profit motive? So is annarbor.com OFFICIALLY endorsing this proposal?
Ron Granger
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:36 p.m.
From the new library info page: "A Media Production Lab that provides high--end computer production bays adjacent to larger, comfortable, public computing areas" Why must taxpayers finance a "high end media production lab"? Shouldn't that be a function of private industry, or an individual's whims?
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:28 p.m.
kathryn - There are production studios that can be used by any citizen at public television that televises the school board and council meetings. All it take is a call and an appointment. Why should we have the library duplicate what is already available for free?
kathryn
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 8:03 p.m.
The idea is to provide the modern tools of communication to ALL citizens of town, not just those rich enough to afford expensive computers equipment.
Kathy Griswold
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:24 p.m.
My $7,000 contribution is on my VISA. I have received $1000 in contributions against the loan and will continue to fundraise. Information on donating is on the www.ProtectOurLibraries.org website or a check may be sent to Protect Our Libraries, 3565 Fox Hunt Dr. Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Thank you.
Mark
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:24 p.m.
I renewed my library card last week, and it was the first time I had been into the downtown library in about a year. As I looked around at the ground floor, all I saw was DVDs and CDs. No wonder we lost a local video store. Now, I do appreciate the AAPL, but why does it have to be the center of the universe? We do not need a new downtown library. There are obviously some things that need upgrading, but we don't need a new building. Instead of focusing on that, maybe the AAPL should think outside the box and move their servers to a different building. After all, it is just crazy to think that they need to have al that crammed into the main building. Lots of empty real estate around town. One can buy a Google Chromebook for less than $300 and have Internet access by going to any place with a wifi hotspot. The library can turn anyplace in town into a wifi hotspot and let folks use that space. It would free u space in the main library for things like, you know, books and magazines.
deb
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:36 p.m.
The problem is you already pay like 1.5 mills for the current library, so now you would be up to 4 x $56 for the same service. So you should basically say that 4x that is worth it to you. If you rent books on CD a new library will not help you at all
DeeAA
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:51 p.m.
Do you realize that most new books are available as Books on CD? For the last 6 years I have "read" hundreds of books this way while commuting or just working around the house. I always check to see if the library has a Books on CD copy available when I see a review of a new book. They used to have Books on Tape, but the tapes never lasted. With CD's you can restart at any point in the book. $$56 per year or even twice that is well worth it to me.
Linda Peck
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:23 p.m.
Mr Stanton, I think the language of this article is very negative towards people who support the "no" vote on the library proposal. I do think we are entitled to speak up in this free world and certainly have the freedom to donate money to our causes. Your article would have been better presented as an opinion. It is unprofessional journalism, in my opinion, to call this expression of our constitutional freedom an "attack."
Morris
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1 p.m.
I am an ardent supporter of libraries and use the library very very regularly --- my local branch library. The main library is a good place to organize sending out the books I request. We don't need a 400 seat auditorium and kitchen facilities to serve the needs of the large district well.
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:25 p.m.
A2Onward - 600,000 out of 1,700,000 visits - so yes technically it is the most visited. But the vast majority of visits are to the much small and more crowded branch libraries. If this millage was to improve the branches, I would be all for it.
jcj
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:54 p.m.
A2 The library can and is being supported! EVEN by some of those that vote NO!
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:02 p.m.
Well that's great for you, but considering the downtown location is still the most highly visited, and the hub to the branches spokes, I think it still deserves the support of the community, especially library users like yourself.
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1 p.m.
For everyone that thinks this is a rushed project, but hasn't done the research to find out, here is a link to the 2007 engineering study by four different firms commissioned five years ago when the library started planning this project. 73 pages of plans and expert opinions. http://www.aadl.org/files/ProvidenceReportjul2307.pdf
northside
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 7:44 p.m.
Onward you're undercutting your position by bringing up this report. As Moderate said, it shows the library began pushing for a new building not long after we paid for the remodel. Ditto for the part about the remodel being done poorly because the school board ran the library. That's of little consolation to those of us are being asked to pay for a new building just 16 years after paying for a significant remodel.
A2Onward
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 12:27 a.m.
DonBee, that was a 10 year bond. It's paid off already.
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:23 p.m.
A2Onward - We are still paying (through the school district) for the last addition. Now we want to tear it down. The real laugh is for 2 years we will pay twice for NO library downtown. Makes huge sense to me.
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:21 p.m.
The building was built in 1956, added to in the 70s, then added to again in 1991. So even by your own twisted logic, in 2007 the newest part of the building was 16 years old, not 10. "Anyone who designs a library that needs to be replaced after 10 years should be thrown in jail, not given more money." Lucky for us, the library isn't run by the school system anymore, and the people that were in charge aren't anymore.
Angry Moderate
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:56 p.m.
So they started planning to spend $50 million to replace the library back when the current library was barely 10 years old? You think that makes the situation look BETTER? Anyone who designs a library that needs to be replaced after 10 years should be thrown in jail, not given more money.
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:05 p.m.
A2Onward - Yes, read the original report carefully. It is not a renovation study. See my reply to you above.
Lets Get Real
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 12:54 p.m.
This is a sound building - able to be refurbished, like many older buildings. The young, hip, entrepreneurial businesses seek out old spaces with character.. Menlo, Pure Visibility, Workantile, Second-to-None all have chosen older spaces that have been renovated to accommodate their high tech needs. Add a wing, add a story, renovate floor by floor, but get ideas and input prior to the mileage. The $65 million number came from somewhere. Serras says no need for all this due diligence until after the millage? What if it comes up short? Another millage ask later? This sounds like the "We've got to pass the bill so we can find out what's in the bill" statement from another progressive. How's that working for you? VOTE NO. Make them do the planning, then come back with a feasible sollutionl.
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:04 p.m.
A2Onward - Yes, read the original report carefully. NO renovation only option was done because the library board decided not to. So the report only looks at options that start with destroying at least part of the library. A walk thru of the library by several renovation professionals showed that the renovation option could be done for less than $15 million dollars. Access was not provided to everything, so the number is inflated to cover unknowns. I posted how in a couple of other threads, and will not repeat it here.
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 12:57 p.m.
Quite a bit of planning in the engineering study from 4 different firms they commissioned 5 years ago when they started this project: http://www.aadl.org/files/ProvidenceReportjul2307.pdf
Alan Goldsmith
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 12:43 p.m.
"Friends of the Ann Arbor District Library put $25,000 into the campaign. Other major donors include Zingerman's Bakehouse Inc. ($5,000) and Detroit-based law firm Dykema Gossett ($5,000), which does legal work for the AADL, and many individual contributors." 1. How much legal business does Dykema Gossett do for the library each year? 2. Has AnnArbor.com looked in the "Friends' $25K donation (i.e. who lobbied for it, what are the legal issues for a nonprofit to use their funds for this issue, etc.). 3. Isn't the DDA's Leah Gunn actively leading the pro-building campaign? How does the 400 seat auditorium tie into the failed 'conference center' the DDA and others were pushing? 4. Will it really cost $13 Million just to STORE current library items during the build out process? Trust me--there are a huge number of life-long Democrats who thing this plan is a fiasco.
NoSUVforMe
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 12:42 p.m.
McCullagh Creative is obviously being funded by a secret and devious source. As another poster states, it is probably a developer or commercial real estate owner. Let's pay a visit McCullagh Creative and find out the truth. Offices right downtown.
kb3
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 8:23 p.m.
I'm curious. How would a developer or commercial real estate owner benefit or profit from failure of the proposed Library bond? kb3
aanative
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.
NoSUV: "...obviously"?? How so?
jcj
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2 p.m.
Obviously some will support ANYTHING that uses more tax money, I question how much these secret entities actually pay in taxes themselves!
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2 p.m.
Oh our local conspiracy theorist weighs in. Again NoSUVforMe, you assume someone is getting paid for what they do by someone else with motives. Proof? Any proof at all?
jcj
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:52 p.m.
I am waiting for an answer to an earlier question. Please show us where and how ANY on the NO side can or will benefit from a no vote. Other than putting the brakes on run away tax increases!
brimble
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 12:37 p.m.
Ms. Serras' arrogance is remarkable. "What is it that doesn't resonate with them about having a new library downtown?" I can't speak for anyone at McCullagh Creative (I have no idea who they are), but I can answer the question. 1) The cost to demolish an existing, flawed, but serviceable building to rebuild is too high. A new Mercedes would resonate with me, but I'm not willing to pay for that either. 2) There is an opportunity cost to any money spent. This project represents money that can't be spent on additional branches or on doing something with the woeful West branch. While the AADL is distinct from general revenues for police or roads, I have only one taxpaying checkbook. 3) I don't care -- yes, that's right -- about a cafe, a 400-seat meeting space, or innovative architecture in a new building. I do think handicap-accessible restrooms should be there, but I don't buy that the cost to do what is necessary is 90% of the $65M cost of the new building. I don't see buildings as disposable, and don't buy the line about 50 years being the usable lifespan of a library. 4) Nowhere have I seen anyone identify a cost breakdown, including what portion of the bond goes to the DDA. 5) "A dollar a week" is a shyster line used by vacuum cleaner salesmen to mask the real cost of a purchase. We might as well be told that it is $.15/day. It is, in fact, $65M plus interest. It adds $56 to an approximately $4500/year tax bill. Ms. Serras: I like, use, and support the library, just not this project, because it does not represent a good value for the taxpayer. Wasting money doesn't resonate with me.
Steve Bean
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:37 p.m.
To build on your second point, the main opportunity cost could turn out to be in the area of library operations unless AADL chooses instead to default on the loan, which isn't likely. The reason for such a dismal choice will be dropping property values and foreclosures (on retirees who lose savings and newly unemployed home "owners"). leading to lower property tax revenues. The AADL legal counsel will contest those of the city and AAPS arguing over who should get the limited property tax revenues to pay their respective entity's debt service. Meanwhile, millage rates will increase as property values drop, just to (attempt to) keep bringing in that $56/year from the average home. Or maybe it will need to be higher by then to make up for the foreclosures. The initiating event for all this will be the deflation of the current credit bubble. The "recovery" is nearing its end. Markets will crash, "wealth" will disappear, businesses will close. Will the libraries stay open? We'll see.
northside
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:01 p.m.
One of the best summaries of the No view - great message.
northside
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 12:10 p.m.
No one on the Yes side should be complaining about this. They've spent plenty of money, including the unethical $25,000 donation from Friends of the Library. To see Ellie Serras, who donated $5,000 just on her own, gripe about this turns the stomach.
Goober
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 12:07 p.m.
Vote no on this proposal. Start a new trend in Ann Arbor - the prudent use of hard earned tax money, the elimination of waste and good sense used when it comes to city visions and use of assets. Many of these are foreign concepts when it comes to city leaders. Vote no! Rebuild or refurbish what we already have.
Itchy
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:14 p.m.
You're right, Goob. Rebuild or refurbish what we already have - the existing building. If the library engineers and construction experts do not know how to do this cost effectively, fire them and hire someone who can do this. I am voting no too!
Goober
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:11 p.m.
Definition of rebuild - from Merriam-Webster: 1 a: to make extensive repairs to : reconstruct b: to restore to a previous state 2 : to make extensive changes in : remodel Once again - rebuild or refurbish what we already have. Most important - vote no!
Anti Crankypants
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:01 p.m.
You say rebuild what we already have but vote no? That's the whole point of the proposal.
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 11:49 a.m.
So it seems McCullagh Creative is obviously a proxy for some big money interest that doesn't want their name out there. I sure have seen a LOT of NO signs on some Dahlmann-own properties. Does Ann Arbor have it's own Matty Moroun for the library?
Brad
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 10:34 p.m.
Similarly it would seem that @A2Onward might be a proxy for some interest that obviously supports the proposal but doesn't want their name "officially" associated with that position. Yeah, Jeff McCullagh is the "Matty Moroun for the library". He is secretly planning on building his own downtown library and doesn't want the competition. I guess the jig is up.
Brad
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 7:12 p.m.
Not only is it cowardice, it is prohibitied by annarbor.com's "guidelines". To wit: "- Personal attacks against private individuals"
Tom Whitaker
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:02 p.m.
Having been on the receiving end of online, negative comments, I can honestly say that I object to any and all anonymous attacks against individuals regardless of what side of an issue the commenter is on. It is a distraction that only weakens the commenter's side, and generally erodes the public discourse. The exception in my mind is for legitimate whistle-blowers; those who provide real evidence of their assertions via links to actual sources, but might be personally harmed if their identity were known. If it's true, it ain't libel. But those who think an online handle insulates them from any potential legal repercussions from posting baseless, defamatory statements would be well served to keep abreast of the evolution of case law on this issue: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/anonymous-libelers-you-may-be-exposed
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:11 p.m.
Is that what you've been telling all the other anonymous commenters?
Tom Whitaker
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:53 p.m.
It is the epitome of cowardice in the internet age to post anonymous accusations (implied or otherwise) against an individual in the comment section of the local online paper. If you have proof of something, then post it using your real name and let the chips fall where they may. Besides, the list of contributors to the pro-bond side don't exactly strike me as poor and powerless.
Albert Howard
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 11:39 a.m.
On Nov. 1st, John Hieftje and I attended an election forum at Rackham Auditorium. Kathy Griswold walked up to me and introduced herself at this event. I support this effort. Please Save our Library. Vote No.
djm12652
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 5:11 p.m.
A2Onward....I would dare say that Rev Howard [our new Mayor!] doesn't make statements like this without searching out all the truth.
peg dash fab
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:28 p.m.
It's hard to keep track of all the civic enterprises Kathy Griswold opposes.
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 11:43 a.m.
THAT'S what you're basing your vote on? Because you met Kathy Griswold???
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 11:34 a.m.
What was it David Cahill said about the pro-library campaign? Ann Arbor resident Dave Cahill, said some of the contributions to the Our New Downtown Library group raised his eyebrows: "This contribution is so large that it could fund a mayoral campaign." http://bit.ly/S1tYNN I wonder how he feels about all of the funding for the anti-campaign coming from basically one large corporate donor and a lady with a grudge against the library board.
northside
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 12:39 p.m.
I can't speak for David but will say that I'm relieved to see some resources behind the No campaign. There is certainly plenty of money behind the Yes, including the unethical $25,000 donation from Friends of the Library. It looks like the last of many deceptive arguments put forth by the Yes side is that the No campaign just boils down to a one company.
cook1888
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 11:31 a.m.
It is the sum total of all requests for more tax money that is frightening to people who pay taxes and are trying to survive in this economy. The people who seek to build a new library instead of reusing/recycling are one group among many asking for more money. There is a never ending demand for more tax money from people who are making less and paying more for just about everything. Thank you Kathy Griswold and Doug Jewett for using your own money and time to fight this. It appears the group in support have pretty deep pockets. There are plenty of us out here who love the library system in Ann Arbor and are still against this.
Tony Livingston
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:46 p.m.
I agree. It is a bit obnoxious to go to the voters for this money in this economy. I don't think people really stop to think about the way the Ann Arbor tax base affects property values and residents' finances. If you live in the township, this is not too bad as the taxes are already low. But city residents are already paying huge taxes. The old west siders, Burns Parkers, and Ann Arbor Hills are doing fine. But many working class neighborhoods have been decimated by foreclosures and joblessness. The last thing needed now is more taxes.
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:37 p.m.
No it's not, you're just only able to see the last 12 or so, which yes, have all been today.
deb
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:28 p.m.
Funny looked at A2Onward joined just last month and this is the only article that the person has ever commented on . . . .
Tom Whitaker
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:30 p.m.
Baker and Harrison seem to have been told to stand down on commenting, but I see "A2onward" has filled the void with about a dozen comments on this article so far.
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:57 p.m.
A2Onward - How about the pro-library group? $25,000 from the Friends of the Library and more than $71,000 total on their last filing. We have another filing or two to go. I suspect they will have spent over $100,000 total. Why Mr. Peter Baker - the frequent commenter here on the vote yes side got $30,000 to build the website for the yes side. Others who have commented frequently have been paid to make videos and other publicity materials for the yes side. In other words about 3 TIMES the money the other side has.
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 11:35 a.m.
It appears the group against has deep pockets too.
Thoughtful
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 11:30 a.m.
I already have Internet which I pay Comcast dearly for. Now, if you want to take on my Comcast bill....maybe Zingermanns and Dykema Gossett want to pay for a new library. My kids will be long gone to college before this irresponsible use of public money is over with, and I rarely, if ever, go to the downtown branch. It's not worth the hassle. Go bother the minute amount of the population that goes to the eleven meetings a year.
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 9:20 p.m.
A2onward - 1,200,000 of 1,700,000 is the vast majority. Thank you for proving my point.
brimble
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:17 p.m.
@A2Onward -- those numbers are a good argument for expanding access through additional branches, not the closure, demolition, and reconstruction of the existing downtown branch.
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 4:14 p.m.
DonBee, the 590,000 visits IS just downtown. It's over a third of the total 1,700,000 visits that includes the 4 other branches. http://www.aadl.org/aboutus/annualreport/statistics
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:39 p.m.
johnnya2 - The VAST majority of those visits are not to the downtown library, but to the branches.
johnnya2
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.
yeah,. I guess over 590k uses of the library is a minute segment of the population. That is the number of visits to the downtown branch in the last annual report. Out of a population of a little over 160k in the AAPL district it seems that is a LOT of people using the building. I know facts won't matter t you though, since you have shown you think once your kids are out of school it won't help you, and if it doesn't help you personally it shouldn't be done. Oh and by the way, the library has ZERO to do with AA public schools, so why would you even bring that up?
peg dash fab
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:27 p.m.
You need to get out more.
Chip Reed
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 11:29 a.m.
For Ellie Serras to remark on someone else's clout could be seen as a trifle disingenuous. I work on that block and I got tired of the construction from the parking project. I love the library (my sister and my aunt have degrees in library science), but coffee shops and auditoriums (what's wrong with the Michigan Theater?) are not high priorities in my view. I don't mind the $1/week in taxes, but this block could use a rest before it gets chewed up again.
djm12652
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 5:09 p.m.
Oh Chip....you hit that nail on the head!
ArgoC
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:06 p.m.
I wonder if the movers and shakers realize that a lot of residents are sick of construction ... especially since some (or more!) of the recent completed projects seem like they weren't worth the long disruption.
Tom Whitaker
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:10 p.m.
And during that 2 years, the new transit center--replacing the current one that is about 30 years old--will be under construction on the other side of the street.
A2Onward
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 11:39 a.m.
It would get a rest. It's going to be at least 2 years before any construction would be able to start.
cook1888
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 11:38 a.m.
I sympathize with you Mr. Reed. My family and I were frequent customers of many of the businesses in that area and have been disgusted by how long the construction has taken.
McGiver
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 11:25 a.m.
I will take the cup of coffee per week, thank you . I can count on one hand the number of times I have used the AAPL in the last 35 years.
cheryl
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 4:45 p.m.
While not ideal (but what in the world is) the current downtown library gets the job done. No, we don't need new 65 million (plus interest) library
johnnya2
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 3:40 a.m.
@ Angry Moderate. There is not ONE single person who believes the current library is adequate. The options presented are rebuild/retrofit/remodel or build a new one. Your solution is to put asphalt over the road and repair it again in a couple of years, which is why we have some of the worst roads in the COUNTRY in this state. Those that want roads that last, tear them up, REPLACE them with new concrete and they last much longer. Except in that example asphalt is much cheaper, whereas the library renovation is not really that much cheaper.
Angry Moderate
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 5:53 p.m.
johnnya2 - the proper analogy is paying to tear down a road that is still in perfectly good condition, and then building a new one.
johnnya2
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 3:11 p.m.
I can count on one hand the times I have used the AA police department, Fire Department, many roads, certain parks, in fact since I have no children I have NEVER once used a Ann Arbor public school facility. I guess I should just say I want to stop paying taxes on anything because I don;t use it? The value of your house increases when there are good public safety, schools, roads, parks AND libraries. In fact, look at home values in A2 versus Ypsi. Build the EXACT same house in Ypsi and I guarantee the value will be lower. It is BECAUSE of the things that A2 offers.
peg dash fab
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:26 p.m.
Your loss
TommyJ
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 1:55 p.m.
Right on.
mgoscottie
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 11:12 a.m.
If you vote based on advertisements, please punch yourself in the face.....
cindy1
Mon, Nov 5, 2012 : 2:13 p.m.
yes, from the biased headline to the final 2 paragraphs, a gift from annarbor.com to the pro library people.
Brad
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:20 p.m.
@Don - as you may have seen in my vaious comments, I agree 100% about the "reporting" bias that's been consistently displayed in the library bond articles. Hence my question about whether annarbor.com OFFICIALLY endorses the proposal. I'm still waiting.
DonBee
Sun, Nov 4, 2012 : 2:14 p.m.
Or on this biased article, yet another opinion piece from Ryan on the library. Normally Ryan keeps his own opinions out of his articles and writes some pretty good news, on this issue he has been letting his bias show through. He knew that Mr. Peter Baker and his company were paid, but decided to say only that Mr. Baker was a frequent commenter when a reader asked about Mr. Baker's involvement. This was Ryan commenting back, not Mr. Baker. Read the original engineering report - see how the library decided not to look at a pure renovation option before the engineers were even brought in. Read the library web site and see how they decide to stretch out the length of the bond so it would be easier to get people to vote yes, even though it added over $30 million in interest to the loan.