Bill Wilson

Mon, Nov 12, 2012 : 2:57 p.m.

My .02: Whenever I come across those "friends of AA" groups, I always stop, reach around behind me, and make sure that my wallet is tight in my pocket. Generally, these people are friends of nobody but those with an economic interest in that particular scheme. And their post-election behavior is a tell: this was nothing more than a scheme. The fix is obvious. We need to work with Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Netflix, and other cutting-edge tech companies to create a community account that would provide basic services for library users: X amount of copies of book and video catalog available for community loan... X amount of office software available for community loan... etc.... etc.... Physical buildings and books are obsolete: you can read a book on most telephones these days. A better job that would cost far less can be done electronically. Just look at a2.com, right in front of you. Time for the physical libraries to join the elephants in the graveyard. The voters have demanded it.

Roger Kuhlman

Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 9:53 p.m.

Why is there no mention in this story that the Director of the Ann Arbor Library system abused her position by using the Library email notification system to send out information favoring passage of the Library bond to virtually all users of the Library. This type of campaigning was clearly inapproriate and wrong.

JRW

Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 2:34 p.m.

These elitists who spend big bucks at Real Seafood have probably never visited the branches of the library and experienced the jammed parking and incredibly crowded conditions at branches such as Mallets, or the ridiculous parking for the Traverwood branch on Traver Blvd (where there is no way to walk from the car to the library without scaling a muddy hill or walking in a busy street). These are problems that need to be fixed for the already exisiting NEW branches. Technology is the future of libraries, not space for books. If there is money to burn, build more branches.

JRW

Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 2:24 p.m.

This was a resounding NO vote for the library bond. What part of NO does this group not understand? Going back to the voters and wasting more money to persuade them to reconsider is not a prudent approach. Admit that there are major problems with the downtown location (located in an increasingly desolate and unappealing area of the city surrounded by parking structures and across the street from the bus station, major homeless problem inside and outside the building). If there is a new building in the future, build it in another location with surface street parking lot. DEAL with the homeless who harass patrons inside and outside the building and who trash the magazine section, shout obscenities at patrons, etc.

A Voice of Reason

Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 1:55 p.m.

Ellie, please accept the citizen's message to you vs. thinking you were not clear...DROP IT!

kms

Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 1:15 p.m.

I had a hard time finding a reason to support a new library. I certainly wasn't looking forward to having that area shut down by construction again. Also, I don't visit the downtown branch that often because parking is too expensive. I order my books online and pick them up at a satellite branch where parking is free and convenient. I've enjoyed the excellent computer classes but also prefer to take them at a satellite branch. I didn't find the cost to the average taxpayer to be much of a hardship personally, but overall just thought the case for a new building to be weak.

Greg

Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 12:11 p.m.

1. Would really like to see a report on where the large ammount of money came from (funneled thru an advertising company) that worked to defeat this. 2. Downtown library is highly used, IMHO is a very good use of taxpayers money. Far exceeding buying ugly public art only a few could love. Priorities seems wacked by mayor and his following.

DMBE

Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 4:27 a.m.

I very much appreciate or libraries. I like being able to check out books for my 3 year old and taking her to the story times and other activities. I am happy with the current library, though we live closer to Mallet's so we use that location more often. Why is our society so obsessed with needing NEW; tearing down... It seems so wasteful. And even if it were the best thing to do economically (vs a repair), maybe it's just not the right time for us to be spending more money on things that could wait. The icing on the cake for me was the plan for a new library. It seemed like a cafe/mall more than a library. Do we really need that? Why can't we appreciate a nice, simple library. That's more appealing to me!

Jack

Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 2:04 a.m.

"We didn't really expect to have to argue for investment in libraries." "I think the general idea in a democracy is that we know who pays for what and I'm not sure the current rules about campaign finance reporting allow us to do that." Feelings entitlement and sour grapes. I notice in this article annarbor.com fails to mention at all that the pro campaign by far outfinanced the anti campaign. As for the feeling that we "didn't get it," we got it fine. We know what infrastructure is, foks.

Goofus

Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 1:56 a.m.

I guess Ann Arbor voters cared for approving this dog of a millage about as much as Leah Gunn cares for rescuing real dogs.

talker

Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 1:34 a.m.

I think Leah Gunn said she was "... sorry that people did not see how necessary this is." I hope she reads all the comments because people considered if it was necessary and decided it wasn't. Writing checks for property taxes is necessary. Paying utilities bills is necessary. A new downtown library building isn't necessary. That's the conclusion of taxpayers who use the library a lot, use the downtown library a little, or don't use the library at all. This is not about politics. This is about dollars and cents, as well as need. I recall reading the comment in the voters' guide by one trustee who was looking forward to a stunning library that she expected would bring millions of visitors to Ann Arbor. Huh? Stunning? Millions of visitors? This is Ann Arbor. It's a big deal when over 100,000 people come to town for a football game. Maybe she meant million years would come over a period of a few years, but still... As I've written before, Ann Arbor's former, largest property tax payer, Pfizer, is gone. The cities whose libraries are compared to what Ann Arborites have been said to need are cities with larger populations and more businesses. Many people rank the need for more police and fire protection far above the need to build a new downtown library building.

TommyJ

Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 1:08 a.m.

Libraries are an obsolete concept. I've lived in this area for 23 years and never been in a single public library. I live 2 miles from a nice new modern building library, never been, don't need to go, won't be going. There's nothing in a library I can't get elsewhere, and probably easier. Don't need bigger, more expensive library buildings.

kremlach

Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 12:55 a.m.

This is the first time I've heard the term "special interests" used to describe taxpayers.

dawn

Thu, Nov 8, 2012 : 12:36 a.m.

We just built 3 new libraries in the last 8 years, can we take a break from building and pay off some of that debt before building another new library?

Roger Kuhlman

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 10:01 p.m.

Who says the downtown library needs to have costly renovations made to it? The Library Board of Directors and top management want to do a lot of costly empire building that is pretty clear. Why don't they ever think of the cost to Ann Arbor taxpayers and come up with frugal plans for the library that will do instead of being grandiose and lavish.

Bertha Venation

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 10 p.m.

Leave It Alone!!.... THAT's "what now."

Cendra Lynn

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 9:46 p.m.

Say whaaa? "a weird alliance of the property owners in town and the people who wanted something to protest." Are you for real? Have you talked to any of us?? There was no alliance; there was agreement. I think most of us came to that conclusion on our own. Karen Sidney's doing the numbers clinched the realization that the proposal was ridiculous. As for needing something to protest...What? You think we have so much spare time that we have to protest something just to have a good day? I would be much happier if there were nothing to protest here; say, like having a full police force, enough firefighters and their equipment, fire stations within two minutes of every building in the city, a Council that welcomed and even sought citizen participation, City staff that obeyed City rules, enforced City codes, and did not begin new projects without citizen agreement. If everyone simply did their job; if the City books were done openly and did not need to be FOIA'd for citizens to learn where our money has gone... I would love not to have to protest just about everything City government has done in the past decade. I think you need to get out and talk to folks; well, really you need to listen to us. Sheesh!

Classof2014

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 9:40 p.m.

I disagree with Leary's comment that people who voted no don't go into the library that often. Even though I am not a voter, I go to the library multiple times a week for many hours and I find it fine! I don't think there is a need for a 400 seat auditorium or a cafe. Unfortunately, in this digital age, libraries are going unused. In 20/more/less years, there will not be a need for a fancy library with a cafe and an auditorium. People will and are using electronics for books etc instead of their libraries. Ann Arbor Board, the people have spoken. There is not going to be a new library. I'm sorry, but this is for the best. This dream is gone. If you decide to put this out again in the next few years, it will most likely be shot down again, but a new library is not needed. Fix the "problems" that it has, (I have not seen any but thats just me). Move on, there has to be other important things to do that does not involve building a new library for things that are not needed. A new library is a boondoggle! I would like it if there was no construction in town, of course, that is not going to happen, but it never hurts to hope. For 5 minutes, I wish there could be no construction anywhere in Ann Arbor. By the way, has anyone heard any news about when the Stadium Bridge is opening? Is it on time or will it be a little late?

Goofus

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 9:38 p.m.

One thing that has been underestimated by the DDA and the pro-library lobby is how much ill will has been built up over the years against the AADL for its absolute refusal to engage in any libary sharing / cooperative lending with any other regional libraries. All the other local library districts : large ones like Ypsi, Canton, Dexter, etc. plus small ones like Northfield and Chelsea, allow some degree of inter-sharing of lending materials, and hold processes where one can order items from cooperating libraries simply by using a library cards; AADL meanwhile, is alone in not sharing materials with any other libraries, and does not allow non-A2 residents to lease or lend ANY materials, ever, without paying an outrageous tacked on fee of several hundred dollars a year,. I am against all their works until they join the 20th century and allow some degree of reasonable and resource sharing with other cooperative libraries (which all cooperate with each other anyway...) Glad to see their costly and unnecessary millage money grab go down hard!

Brian

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 9:36 p.m.

Personally, I am glad to see the library ballot proposal fail and voted against it. $65 million is a wasteful and galling sum. I would have expected more discussion and justification for the cost. Perhaps a survey of how the library used is useful for Annarbor.com to consider. I've been at the downtown location once or twice per week. I also have been to the Traver and Malletts Creek facilities. I think they are all somewhat overrun, but the downtown location is less overrun than Traver for example in my limited series of interactions. Focusing downtown, the computers in the kids areas are ancient and clunky, and perhaps more computers could be deployed upstairs for our daily users. That seems to be a real need. I have rarely seen the downstairs area used to its full potential. The booksale area is open once a week for 4 hrs, and doesnt have to be co-located in the actual library. The multi-purpose (MP) room could be used as a true multi-purpose room. Seems odd that the MP room doesnt also have bookshelves or other things included. Overall, its a big failure for the library and this board 4 members of which were just reelected. I'm struck with the fact that the one person who was running and was against the ballot initiative somehow didnt garner enough votes. The recent electees are highly encouraged to chat with the rank and file about how to satisfy the overall need more effectively. Not another boondoogle. I'm open to renovation and an IT expansion. I also think that books overloading the shelves could also be a larger structural problem, and that might be a stronger justification for a new facility. Rarely circulating books ought to not be stored indefinitely on the shelves in high rent locations, but in cheaper remote storage locations. A joint venture with the Blake Transit Center to stock less valuable books might encourage reading there. Just a few thoughts, Ryan.

Steve Bean

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 9:32 p.m.

The voters were told what the proponents' vision was, not asked about their own. To mangle a phrase: ask, don't tell. Another horse that left the barn early on: the proposal could have been presented in terms of a solution to problems, which then opened opportunities. Instead it was presented--pushed, actually, by ONDL, not so much by the AADL board--as "we want a new, way-better building that fixes some problems and you should agree to help pay for it because libraries are great". A request quickly became a campaign. Good ideas don't need a campaign; campaigns raise suspicion that "good" ideas are actually bad ideas. I'm glad the proposal failed. I'm open to voting for something in the future if a creative, affordable option is presented, but I'm not optimistic about such a possibility, mostly due to financial circumstances beyond our community's control (per my previous comments on coverage of this issue).

Brian

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 9:32 p.m.

Personally, I am glad to see the library ballot proposal fail and voted against it. $65 million is a wasteful and galling sum. I would have expected a more discussion and justification for the cost. is useful for Annarbor.com to consider. I've been over there at the downtown location probably weekly or twice per week. I also have been to the Traver and Malletts Creek facilities. I think they are all somewhat overrun, but the downtown location is less overrun than Traver for example in my limited series of interactions. If we focus downtown, the computers in the kids areas are ancient and clunky, and perhaps more computers could be deployed upstairs for our daily users. That seems to be a real need. I have rarely seen the downstairs area used to its full potential. The booksale area is open once a week for 4 hrs, and doesnt have to be co-located in the actual library. The multi-purpose (MP) room could be used as a true multi-purpose room. Seems odd that the MP room doesnt also have bookshelves or other things included. Overall, its a big failure for the library and this board 4 members of which were just reelected. I'm struck with the fact that the one person who was running and was against the ballot initiative somehow didnt garner enough votes. The recent are highly encouraged to chat with the rank and file about how to satisfy the overall need more effectively. Not another boondoogle. I'm open to renovation and an IT expansion. I also think that books overloading the shelves could also be a larger structural problem, and that might be a stronger justification for a new facility. Rarely circulating books ought to not be stored indefinitely on the shelves in high rent locations, and perhaps would be better used if situated in remote stacks in much cheaper locations. A joint venture with the Blake Transit Center to stock less valuable books might encourage reading there. Just a few thoughts, Ryan.

davecj

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 9:21 p.m.

I am an avid library user and voted NO. I search and request all my books, dvds, etc through the electronic catalogue, and then have them delivered to my branch library where it is easy for me to pick them up. The library board needs to survey its users with a real survey that asks real questions about how people use the library, not a survey that is slanted to give them the answers they want to justify what they want. I do not need a 400 seat auditorium, commercial kitchen, and coffee shop in the downtown library at the cost of $100mil. There need to be more branches around Ann Arbor.

Machine

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 9:09 p.m.

I was ready to vote for the bond proposal until I looked at it closer. Replacing an aging facility and adding additional space are good ideas. What is not a good idea is expanding the uses beyond those that fall within the traditional mission of a library. Cafes, catering kitchens, and media facilities are completely unnecessary and the minute I saw those ideas being tossed around, they completely lost me.

Mark

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 9 p.m.

I'm as big a capital L liberal as there is, but I too, voted against the library's proposal. Given the population shift in town, the branch libraries probably serve a lot more families with children than the downtown building. All those high-rises going in will not be producing a ton of new patrons, either, as they are mostly UM students. Second, I had the feeling that the board was acting much like the Mayor's office in selecting that piece of art in front of city hall. The "We know best what we need and you will like it." kind of approach doesn't sit well with me. Third, there are many creative alternatives to doing more with what we have by engaging people who are not necessarily in lock-step with the AAPL. Fourth, the internet being what it is, they do not need to have the servers located in the main library. They could be anywhere else in town, and run by people that do just that.

G. Orwell

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 8:25 p.m.

In my opinion, these elitists on the AADL board want to feel relavent in the era of the Internet. You will be better appreciated and respected if you spend minimal funds to update and improve the existing library. Try using common sense rather that using other people's money.

Donald Harrison

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 7:45 p.m.

A lot has been said over the past few months against and in favor of the AADL's bond proposal. For 45% of greater Ann Arbor voters the case was made and for 55% it wasn't. And while I can't speak for everyone who advocated for the library proposal, I respect the voters of the greater Ann Arbor area, even when my vote doesn't land with the majority on an issue. I've appreciated many of the conversations about the importance of the public library in our community and the best ways to take care of it. I hope this heightened level of civic engagement continues on this issue well past the election (especially with real names and respectfully). The AADL board meetings are open to the public. I believe their leadership is fundamentally responsive and working to make good decisions for our community. I will look forward to seeing some of you there.

John Morgan

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 7:16 p.m.

On average, I have probably used the downtown library several times a week for more than 15 years. I love the Ann Arbor library. But I voted against the bond because it's silly to talk about a massive expansion when the conference rooms that the downtown library has now are nearly always empty except when there are homeless people sleeping in them. Stick to what the library is supposed to be doing, namely providing books and media services. I also didn't like the idea that the Friends of the Library's book sale was to be, in effect, shut down. As a loyal customer there of many years, I found the bond proponents' disregard for the importance of the Friends, both to the library and the community, appalling.

Kathy Griswold

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 7:14 p.m.

"Kathy Griswold, who headed up the Protect Our Libraries group that opposed the proposal, celebrated her team's win Tuesday night at Weber's Inn." Protect Our Libraries did not have a party. The local Democrats and Congressman Dingell held a party at Weber's and I was there celebrating the Dem victories. Other members of the "team" attended events sponsored by their political parties or stayed at home to watch the national news. Many issues more important than a local library bond were decided on Tuesday. Thanks to everyone who voted.

Ryan Burns

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 7:12 p.m.

All in all, I think it's been an interesting couple months, and great to see everyone engaged in a debate about the future of libraries in general, and this one in particular. One thing all four campaigns agreed on: we love AADL and want to support it, while differing on how best to do that. One of the most interesting aspects of this discussion, for me, was to see the dichotomy in how people react to the idea of public libraries and their evolving role in our society. There is clearly some portion of the population that feels the library is being rendered irrelevant by the internet and ebooks, and that its time has passed. On the other hand, there was also a constituency that feared that the books would be eliminated in the new building, and the non-book part of the library's role didn't look like a library to them. I think the plan for the new building tried to compromise these viewpoints, by providing the same space for physical collections while expanding facilities which support an educated and literate citizenry through means other than the physical book, such as talks, workshops, computing access, children's activities and performance, activities which to some extent take place now, but which are awkwardly accommodated. However, I don't think either constituency was won over by the Yes campaign. So, I think this meta-dialog about what libraries are and where they are going is something that's important and something that will continue to be discussed across the country and internationally as well. As you could probably tell, I love libraries, and I think their role does encompass learning more broadly than the book, and includes their role as third place and platform for our community's intellectual and cultural life. But I also love the printed book, and connect with it in ways that can't be replaced by a PDF file floating around the cloud. Thanks for listening.

Robot Charles

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 7:07 p.m.

Yea! This is one of the few times a millage was voted down in Ann Arbor. The feeling of fiscal responsibility feels...it feels so nice and refreshing. I might do that horsey dance.

Homegrown

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 6:58 p.m.

I question the fiscal responsibility of anyone that dines at Real Seafood Co.

golfer

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 6:53 p.m.

maybe you wanted to much in the building. a 400 people meeting place. sorry but you got some darn good library's around town. look at what you need vs want you want.

Sam Grant

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 6:37 p.m.

I disagree with the statement that people who don't use the library very much probably voted against it. I am in the library several times a week. I have never found it to be inadequate. I think there needs to be a better utilization of space on the 3rd and 4th floors. I voted against it because I would like to challenge the library board to work within the structure they have. Just because a building's infrastructure is outdated doesn't mean it should be thrown in the landfill.

Ron Granger

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 6:15 p.m.

The misuse of the library mailing list for political promotion should be investigated. There is a state law that covers that, and it may have been a violation.

A2centsworth

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 5:57 p.m.

With our present technology libraries are pretty much extinct. Reference books are outdated almost immediately, and the lending library has gone electronic. It is time to realize we are in the 21st century, and change with the times.

Bill

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 5:45 p.m.

Perhaps the Library Board should be replaced by individuals that are more intune with technology and the fact that Ann Arbor exists outside the downtown area. Many of the posts refer to the undersized and perhaps neglected branch libraries. With proper technology infrastructure, the library could be developed into a library system with access of resources from many locations that would serve the needs of Ann Arbor far better than a single downtown facility. The library board needs visionaries and in a city like Ann Arbor with so many high tech companies and world class university finding the right board members should not be too difficult.

talker

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 5:44 p.m.

The defeat wasn't because of how they ran their campaign. It was because of (1) people not wanting to add to their property taxes and (2) because the argument about needing an auditorium sized room didn't fly because there are so many places to rent such space when needed and because such space in the library appeared to some to be a proposed substitution for the conference center than voters turned down previously. Now it's time to renovate wiring, etc. at the downtown library, instead of delaying such improvements. Did the bond issue campaign add to the delay? It's interesting that the photo Ellie Serras and others was taken at Real Seafood, which is owned by Serras' husband (and possibly Ellie Serras, too).

aanative

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 5:32 p.m.

Baker and the Board are tone deaf! The proposal was outlandish and irresponsible during this economic downturn. Outrageous that Serras and Leary still don't get it: work with what you have!

steven

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 5:12 p.m.

The statement that they simply did not make enough of a case to voters is puzzling. Ann Arbor has, by far, the most educated electorate of any locality in the state, and people in Ann Arbor take voting seriously. The library wasn't just rejected in the townships, it was rejected throughout the City, too. Insulting the electorate probably isn't the best way to get what you want going forward. They've already stated that they can accomplish the same goals through renovation at a 10% savings to taxpayer and without tearing down a fairly new building. As others have said - get professional renovators, tell them your needs, figure out how much it costs, and make your case to the voters again. Don't just ask for a new library over and over again - that's insulting. Personally, more and more I am finding Ann Arbor unrecognizable. Don't get me wrong - development projects are necessary, and a sign of a healthy city - but do we really need to tear everything down and rebuild it? The YMCA, City Hall, the Library... where does it end? Is it necessary? Is it good for the community?

Pappa

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 5:12 p.m.

Maybe that money they spent at Real Seafood Co. could of been better used as a donation to the library.

JB SHOOTER

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 4:47 p.m.

I was in the building on Sunday and I just could not figure out why it would need to be torn down. Next time, try to work with what you have. It has nice open rooms with lots of natural lighting. We all know books are going to be like a typewriter very soon. Still around for those that want them, but the library should be looking to the digital future. Still plenty to offer at the library, but extra space is not something librarys will need. Books will be digital, customers will be borrowing via the internet. Maybe a technology bond for more faster computers/servers are what direction the library needs.

Peter Baker

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 4:34 p.m.

@Northside, that's fair. I wasn't referring to people that voted against the proposal, but some of the people that have been campaigning hardest against it. I've had lots of conversations with people over the last few months, almost all of them reasonable, but the ones I've had that seemed most off the chains ("They're going to get rid of all the books!") also came from the people that were working hardest to campaign for other causes that I agreed with them on. I'll just say it, I was frustrated with some of the arguments against, and the conspiracy theories that kept coming up from the people I normally am in lock step with. I have no beef with people who had thoughtful reasons to vote against the bond, and do hope that people at least see that all we actually disagree on is how best to make Ann Arbor's library the best it can be.

wolverine27

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 4:30 p.m.

I no longer live in Ann Arbor, but I think that part of what makes Ann Arbor so great is that its citizenry has been willing to fund these kind of cultural institutions, among other programs. Taxes are surely higher in Ann Arbor but then again the city is quite insulated from the recession, has very little violent crime, enjoys an increasingly diverse economy, and excellent cultural attractions. Perhaps $68 million could be better spent (returning AAPD to previous levels) but nonetheless, this seems like an unfortunate development. Hopefully not a trend.

northside

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.

@ Peter Baker: You seem like a cool person, someone who makes Ann Arbor a unique, interesting town. But I've found your comments on this issue to be troubling, especially the talk of a "reactionary left" that is "just looking for something to protest." There's plenty for the left to protest: outsourcing of jobs, big money domination of politics, the eroding of reproductive rights, the fight for gay/lesbian rights, etc. I could go on but hopefully you get the point. Could you find a way to advocate for what you believe in without trashing those who simply have another view? Maybe we just didn't agree with the library's rationale or think that this isn't the economy in which to spend $65 million-plus for a new building.

Tru2Blu76

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 3:50 p.m.

Well, the new Stadium Bridge is about to be completed and it'll look nice in addition to improving that infrastructure. But it took a $20 million grant from the federal government to get the job done. I think we all understand that comparison: a new bridge for $20 million (which Ann Arbor could not raise) and a new (entirely theoretical at this point) new library for $65 million with that amount of obligation going to tax payers. Still, if the fine people on the AADL had not brought this up and the library becomes widely criticized as being aged / inadequate, we'd blame the AADL for negligence. They were just doing their jobs. Oh, and I think anyone who spent their own money on this campaign deserves to get it back -with thanks for their devotion. Where do we send donations?

Widow Wadman

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 3:44 p.m.

Here are the names of the Board of Directors of the Friends of the Ann Arbor District Library. Please tell them that we don't want our membership fees going to support political campaigns. 2012-2013 Friends Board of Directors: Pat McDonald, President Pat Settimi, Vice-President Lara Thomas, Secretary Mary Borkowski, Treasurer Mary Kay Cotter, Membership Chair Kathy Ciesinski Sue Fraser Fred Mayer Paul Morel De Bora McIntosh Sheila Rice Clare Canham-Eaton

L. C. Burgundy

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 3:43 p.m.

--- She said just ask the moms who bring their kids into the children's room and don't have a place to sit or the teens who come in and don't have a computer to use. --- Gee, I somehow think these kinds of shortcomings are fixable for less than $100 million+. Board, we understood the proposal, such as it was. This bond failed because Ann Arborites do not cut big checks for public works projects of dubious value for the sake of a pretty building. I think there was serious doubt about the ability of the library board to actually come up with a design that would last longer than, say, 20 years. Information access is still changing rapidly and a new giant brick edifice would quickly be functionally obsolete. $100 million+ would buy an awful lot of digital information access.

EyeHeartA2

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 3:42 p.m.

Other than a great spot for homeless people to hang out at, I don't see a lot of use for the downtown library anyway.

Cathy Doran-McMillion

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 3:32 p.m.

The west branch of the library could really use some help. I'd really like to see it upgraded. Parking is free there too! The focus of this proposal was solely on the downtown library.

Nice in A2

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 3:30 p.m.

I'm a little bothered by their response. I love the library and use the downtown one the most. I read their proposals carefully and came to the conclusion that their case was not convincing. Now I learn that they are not willing to listen to my voice and are going to go ahead with planning along the same lines as before. I hope this is just a first blush reaction on their part. Their next step should be to ask for views from the public with an eye to their frequent users, particularly their frequent downtown users. Had they done that they would have gotten my view on the matter -- reuse, recycle and keep our wonderful downtown library.

Jim

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 3:24 p.m.

"Can't think of any missteps..." Really? I saw a bunch. Starting with the 18 minute video showing 1-2 Million worth of plant improvements to justify a 65 Million dollar bond. And it went downhill from there. Also, hanging out at real Seafood to watch the results? I can't afford Real Seafood. Many others can't. Show some humility (Fleetwood!). Even the auto execs knew to drive the DC (versus their jets) to ask for Gov't money. Don't get me wrong. I think there's a case to be made for a new library. But you failed to make it. Big time. And got folks angry at you, to boot. So it will be hard doing it again anytime soon.

Unusual Suspect

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 3:23 p.m.

The arrogance shown here is amazing, but not unexpected. Basically, they're saying the reason it failed is because we're all too dumb to understand (that's what's meant by the euphemism, "we didn't make our case clearly.") Yeah, that attitude will certainly help you out next time you ask us for more money. Unfortunate for you I have a long memory. Also, I would suggest that if you can't raise $7000 first for a campaign but have to put it on your credit card instead, then there just might not be enough buyers for what you're selling.

Patricia Lesko

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 3:19 p.m.

This piece about the failure of the AADL bond proposal (http://www.a2politico.com/2012/11/library-tax-proposal-goes-down-in-flames-and-the-political-firmament-trembles/) presents a less simplistic perspective on the "What's next?" question. The Our New Library PAC's effort was an expensive, slick marketing campaign dressed up as hipster grassroots support of technology, the AADL and "the kids." I would point out that developers and privately-owned business donors to the PAC are out over $30,000, and library board/school board members out another $5,000. The nonprofit Friends of the Ann Arbor Library? That group is out $25,000 that should have gone to programming and the purchase of materials. Former AADL Trustee and attorney Dave Cahill alleges the Our New Library PAC broke the law in an effort to get this bond question passed, and that the AADL Executive Director violated the library's privacy policy (and federal law, as a result). It would be worthwhile to ask the Michigan Elections Bureau, IRS and the FTC to rule on the allegations Cahill (and others) have raised. It was brought to my attention that the Michigan Theater ran videos in support of this campaign, yet that donation/expense did not appear on the PAC's October 26, 2012 campaign finance statement. Finally, the Our New Library "grassroots" effort including employing local high school kids to drop lit at $150/500 pieces in the final days of the campaign. If Leah Gunn, Prue Rosenthal and others wonder, "What's next?" the obvious answer would be for the ladies to get out and drop their own lit, so people can tell the AADL Board and DDA Board members directly they have no intention of supporting a $110-$130M bond to provide conference facilities, espressos, catered meals, and video production facilities to the community.

nickcarraweigh

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.

A $65 million bond issue in Ann Arbor works out to about $600 per head. When I visit the downtown library now, I see nothing that needs my $600 more than I do. If there is a case to be made justifying the expense, I never heard it. I've routinely used libraries all over the world for decades, and the only thing that really stands out about the downtown branch now is the surprisingly high percentage of cranky librarians.

easy123

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 3:09 p.m.

Funny how people dont\'t want to spend when it actually comes from their pockets, but a "free lunch" from the govt - no one is going to pass up. I am joining the 47% as of now.

fjord

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 3:08 p.m.

I just don't think that now is the right time to be spending $65 million (or more) on a new library, and that's why I voted no. We're currently witnessing a tremendous wave of technological change, and that wave has not yet crested. Five years from now we may have a better idea of what a future library should look like, and of the kind of services it will need to provide to its patrons. Simply put, the timing for this bond proposal just wasn't right. Ask us again in 2017 — and offer a detailed plan next time. Maybe by then the need for a new library will be obvious to all.

AJD

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.

I'm hearing all kinds of talk about No No and no....but I have a question: What is the library's function, both official and un-official? Officially, It serves as a library, a place for information and a resource for media loaning, but it also serves other purposes: a meeting place, a community center that Ann Arbor continues to need. In my mind the jury is still out on the cost and if it would be possible to do something with this library to update it. The fact remains that it is old, and outdated and in need, at the very least, modernization. I have been to a few meetings there and it was standing room only. Talking about "sore losers" and tax hikes etc doesn't address the issue: this library is in need of modernization and it is a focal point for individuals meeting and using the resources. What makes Ann Arbor a great place to live and work: its community amenities - ALL of them. Don't cut off Ann Arbor's nose to spite it's face. Remember, what attracts people to move to Ann Arbor. Something will need to be done, perhaps not in an economic downturn where everyone is guarding their pocket book, but as things begin to turn around, we need to address this.

Ashley Zimmerman

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 2:51 p.m.

Griswald is exactly right. Why would I vote yes to them spending up to 65 million dollars when there is NO clear plan in place? If my husband came to me and said, I want to update our kitchen, can I spend 10 thousand dollars? I would say... um, before I tell you yes, can we talk about what we're going to do? Also, I completely agree that a new downtown library does not help all of Ann Arbor. I never go there because I hate paying the parking and navigating the city traffic. If they can present a case to me on how this new building will help me and the rest of our community (that doesn't live downtown) then I will consider it. We need better library systems and services before we need a new downtown building. If Leary believes that the building is going to require costly updates if it's not re-built, then she needs to make that case to Ann Arbor, not just ask for a blind 65 million.

Mick52

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 2:47 p.m.

After having South Fifth Ave closed for a couple years, it was kind of too soon to put drivers through that again. I agree with those suggesting enhancement of branches. Easier and cheaper to park.

Ron Granger

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 2:40 p.m.

I can't be the only one who thinks the outrageous threats of a rennovation costing 90% of a new library were intended to coerce voters into approval. Such a plan would still require voter approval, no?

mady

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 2:39 p.m.

To Ms. Serras, Ms. Gunn, and Ms. Rosenthal: the majority has spoken. some of us are really tired of being treated like ignorant children when we are neither. let it go!!!

Ron Granger

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 2:35 p.m.

Backlash from the ill-conceived and bungled DDA parking structure also seems to have been a factor. Too much, too soon, with too little transparency.

Ron Granger

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 2:29 p.m.

It sounds like some bitter library proponents want to investigate to determine who the naysayers are and punish them, and their businesses. I see a lot of quotes in the article from proponents who are in complete denial. They were asking for an incredibly lavish facility with absurd cost per square foot - more expensive even than other top libraries around th country. There were also hints that they wanted to compete against local businesses in the expanded service offerings, but they also kept those details mostly secret.

David Cahill

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 2:27 p.m.

No missteps in the "yes" committee's campaign? Taking $25,000 of funds charitably donated to the FAADL helped sink the bond. Ditto the e-mail blast from the Library to its patrons. If and when these people try again, I hope they run a clean campaign.

Momentum

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 2:23 p.m.

why is Margaret Leary not getting it ? It is not this hard - the people of Ann Arbor do not agree with her and her followers - put it to rest and start acting on behalf on the Ann Arbor residence and start listing.

sjs

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 2:17 p.m.

If the current Library Board members fail to acknowledge the message given to them by the voters and continue to push their vision of what this community "needs", maybe we ought to pay more attention to who serves on this elected Board.

Bill

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 2:09 p.m.

Thank You Voters!

heresjohnny

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 1:58 p.m.

"But I think we sort of overlooked the reactionary left, I guess. It's sort of a weird alliance of the property owners in town and the people who wanted something to protest." Wow, I didn't know the reactionary left could get so... touchy. I'm a Republican and decided on my 'No' vote almost instantly. Here's the thing: not one municipality- NOT ONE- approved this millage proposal. This has nothing to do with landlords and signage, you just saw the entire city of Ann Arbor and townships shoot this idea down. NOBODY thought it was a good idea. If you're doing a postmortem, I would think you'd start with that fact and work forward, not wring your hands about 'special interest' money. Here's a clue- everyone had a reason to reject this proposal. People who live downtown don't want streets locked up for two more years (we just went through that). People who live outside downtown find it difficult to get down there- who would go downtown just to get a book/DVD? That's where the postmortem needs to start. The library system does a great job of making stuff available to people through branch libraries- I think that's the future for Ann Arbor.

Linda Peck

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 1:40 p.m.

If the people who want a new library are "gearing up" for the next onslaught, perhaps they did not hear very well the choice of the people yesterday. It is an idea that the majority don't want, this building a 65 million dollar library downtown. Just because some people want something very badly does not mean it is a good idea. What the next step should be is to make the library we have the best that it can be. Make the necessary repairs and make the best use of the huge open spaces that exist there already, unused or underused.

Chase Ingersoll

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 1:35 p.m.

The cost of used smart phones that can access any of the free wireless that is already available in downtown Ann Arbor, have fallen below $100.00. The new non-Apple pad devices are about $200.00. If we want people to have access to information, let's go in the direction that the free market is already going in the 21'st century with 24/7 personal access from anywhere, rather than a 19th century brick and mortar model.

murphthesurf

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 1:31 p.m.

i would like to know just how many people use the library every day? how many people from outside the city actually go there? how often? for what? whose using the one on oak valley drive? the people in scio and pittsfield twps. don't need to go downtown unless they need something that isn't available at the oak valley one. the library board needs to prove to me that a $65 million dollar upgrade is really needed and at this point im not convinced!!

1959Viking

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.

"The current library is too small, too inefficient, too impossible to make better, and if we didn't convey that to the voters, then that's unfortunate." You're right you didn't make that case. especially the "too impossible to make better" part.

PhillyCheeseSteak

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.

DonBee - thank you for your articulate and thoughtful posts regarding the library these past weeks, and the many others who used reason to make their points. I agree with DonBee about thinking differently about the "main" library needing a downtown location. Ann Arbor's "main" post office is not downtown and people seem to be okay with its location. Also, there has been no discussion about using the small parking lot immediately behind the library (near the credit union) to build an addition on to the library. Do the employees really need their own parking lot? Could the library lease the necessary spaces from the adjacent, huge, underground parking structure?

Chase Ingersoll

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.

It is interesting how Ann Arbor is a conservative majority on issues of an economic nature, where the issues can be clearly defined and there is not a candidates' personality involved. I think the ballot initiatives that were rejected also reflected that, except for #1, where I don't think that a number of voters understand the alternative, because Michigan has yet to let a city go into bankruptcy, but has instead bailed them out or emergency managed them. On this, I think that what needs to be done is to let a city go through bankruptcy and then the unions and pension funds will be clamoring for an Emergency Manager Law.

EyeHeartA2

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:54 p.m.

"She said she put more than $7,000 in expenses for the campaign on her own credit card and she's now soliciting donations to pay herself back" While I appreciate the effort Kathy put into this, the credit card thing doesn't seem particularly fiscally responsible. I hope she can afford the 7K.

skigrl50

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:53 p.m.

What will a library look like in 30 years from now? Surely not what they are envisioning building now... We built a new high school that we can't afford, thank heavens the community was smarter this time around! I'm all for libraries, I love the main NYC library, Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh,, etc... and they are not new but still highly functional and heavily used.

A Voice of Reason

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:53 p.m.

Give the Friend's Money back to the library! Oh, you wasted it on a millage campaign. BAN THEM FROM THE LIBRARY.

northside

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:44 p.m.

Wow, the main backers of the $65 million building still don't get it. They lost because people realized that a new building wasn't necessary, despite their best efforts to spin it as such. I'd like to hope that in the coming weeks this reality will set in with them, but that doesn't sound likely. As for annarbor's coverage? It continues to put way too much emphasis on the donations made to the No side. Perhaps the No side won simply because a lot of average people in Ann Arbor did not think a new building was necessary and were upset that it was being requested at a time when the economy remains shaky?

Billy

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:42 p.m.

What now? STOP TRYING TO WEASEL MONEY OUT OF TAX PAYERS!!!!!!!!! That is 100% what this project was intended to do.....what I want to know is who was getting the kickbacks from all of it. Who was going to make the profit...

John Floyd

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:40 p.m.

Elsewhere in AnnArbor.com, brimble made this well-put statement: "Ultimate results notwithstanding, there is clearly not strong consensus for an open checkbook for pet projects any longer in Ann Arbor. Both the millage for art and the one for the downtown library building demolition and reconstruction represent spending ideas outside the core of services. It isn't that the community doesn't value public art or libraries, but rather that we value those things hand-in-hand with fiscal sensibility. We have to make real choices -- real decisions -- about a prudent and responsible course going forward, so that we can have a vibrant community and be able to afford to live in it." Wish I had written this!

DonBee

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:39 p.m.

I was against the proposal for a large number of reasons, all flaws in the proposal: 1) The conference center - I am sorry - this is not the purpose of the library. Dump the 400 seat auditorium and focus on good meeting rooms that are flexible space. I would not mind if there was a space that could be opened to seat 400 people in folding chairs - but normally was broken into 6 to 20 spaces for study rooms, and small classrooms. Let the Michigan Theater hold the big events. 2) The media suites - CTN has good media suites, partner with them and stop trying to take their place. 3) The idea that the existing building can not be made to work. Get a real renovation team in to look at the space, let them make a proposal, better yet get two or three in. Let them come up with some concepts - the fact that there was no renovation only look at the library building was a clear miss. 4) Think about where the people are - they are not downtown - they are scattered around the district - what do you do to improve access for everyone, but the real question is how do you improve access for the low income children which mostly are living on the edges of the district, out of bus range and without much in the way of transportation? Do you improve the branches? Bring back book mobiles? Partner with AAPS (which you used to be part of) to deliver books to the schools? Provide after school staffing of school libraries to keep them open late for children to study in? Think - dig deep and think about this issue. 5) How do you upgrade (renovate/replace) the library without closing it for a year or two? The argument that the library is critical is defeated by the idea of losing it for a long period of time. Temporary homes are not the answer. Yes, you are worried about AAPS wanting the site, well go work it out with them in advance. (cont)

brimble

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:36 p.m.

Clearly, there is not strong consensus for an open checkbook for pet projects any longer in Ann Arbor. Both the millage for art and the one for the downtown library building demolition and reconstruction represent spending ideas outside the core of services. It isn't that the community doesn't value public art or libraries, but rather that we value those things hand-in-hand with fiscal sensibility. We have to make real choices -- real decisions -- about a prudent and responsible course going forward, so that we can have a vibrant community and be able to afford to live in it. Does that make me a left-wing reactionary? As others have observed, come to the voters with a plan for a reasonable renovation of the existing Downtown facility, coupled with a solution which provides a real West location and adds another neighborhood branch -- one which expands the real reach of the system -- and you'll have my wholehearted support.

DJBudSonic

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:30 p.m.

Did big property owners come out against this bond? Every property owner I know, big and small, came out against this bond. Does it matter who we are or how much property we own? Not at all. One person, one vote. Now, I fully expect the library board to raise the existing assessment to its maximum, but that is still better than this additional bond. Thank you to everyone who had the sense to vote NO, and I hope the AADL Board does something about the west side branch.

Bob W

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:28 p.m.

Pursue the satellite approach. Why force e everyone to a downtown location with traffic and parking issues? We don't need a "book palace" with additional luxuries and amenities. My biggest complaint is nobody thought outside of the box (current library) and next time we are presented with the costs, include the total interest over the life of the bond(s). This should be done on all bond funded issues. We ignore the interest as though the money is free.

Wolf's Bane

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:24 p.m.

So now we get the community involved and begin the process anew without some outlandish milage sponsored for developers. We can upgrade our existing library to meet the needs of citizens while also ushering in 21st century technology AND NOT spending 165 million dollars. Thank you!

a2grateful

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:23 p.m.

Hey, library board: Why don't you do something about your dismal west branch? It's the one that is crammed into a small rental bay of an old shopping center (just in case you didn't realize, notice, or comprehend).

A2Mike

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:23 p.m.

Personally, I spent a lot of time researching this issue before voting 'no.' I find it somewhat insulting that Ms. Leary assumes that voters like me acted solely out of ignorance. I understand the need for a new building. But this proposal was far too extravagant, especially considering that most people use the branches. If the board really wants to try again (and I hope they do), I would suggest scrapping the cafeteria and replacing it with parking validation. There are plenty of places to get a sandwich downtown. I love my library; I love libraries in general. It made me a little sick to vote against this. But from my perspective, this proposal was more about another trophy protect for the DDA than it was about serving the legitimate needs of library patrons. I look forward to voting yes on the next proposal, assuming the new version is a little more grounded in in reality.

Jeffersonian

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:22 p.m.

Why can't we keep what we have? Libraries seem to be vestiges for people who aren't willing to pay for music, books or magazine subscriptions, need a warming station or want a cheap place to congregate. I'm not sure where they fit going forward because they are becoming a secondary research option. It's great for people who want to take advantage of these things but not by shaking down everybody else to pay for it.

deb

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:21 p.m.

I live on the westside. There was nothing in this proposal for me other then a tax hike. The library board, by not mentioning the fact that the Westside/Westgate branch is way too small and cramped, showed me that they do not care about the people they serve. If you compare at the main branch and the westside branch, it is obvious that the westside branch is much older and should have priority in being replaced, or redone (especially when it is compared to the other branches).

Thoughtful

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:20 p.m.

I had already decided on NO before the Protect our libraries campaign. Again, have some common sense and use a high school auditorium to have a meeting. Or a church. You say you want to reach lower income people, then go to where they live, because its not downtown on Main. If this nonsense comes up again, I will vote NO with a louder voice- and join the campaign as well.oh, and I would get yourself a refund from Peter Baker.

a2grateful

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 12:19 p.m.

"There is a case to be made," a2 grateful added. "The current library board's listening and comprehension abilities are too small, too inefficient, too impossible to make better, and if voters didn't convey that to the board, then that's unfortunate."

Alan Goldsmith

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : noon

"By the end of the night, they had accepted defeat, but they weren't budging on their position that a new downtown library is needed. "It means we didn't make our case to the voters, but it doesn't mean there is not a case to be made," said Margaret Leary, president of the AADL's governing board". Ms. Leary just doesn't get it. NO means NO. No to moving forward with no concrete plan other than 'trust us'. No to letting the DDA highjack the library for a 400 seat 'auditorium' that would function as a conference center that was previously rejected. No to an elite core of local politicos who more and more from taxpayers and who don't realize the local political sands have shifted due to their own lack of inclusiveness and openness. And now let's see if the Friends of the Library violated campaign finance rules with their non profit's 'donation' of $25K to the YES campaign. And, enough of this silliness that somehow you are a book burner is you aren't in lock step with plans such as this. We love literature and books and LIBRARIES just as much as the YES people do. Hopefully Gunn and Serras and other political high rollers have learned an important lesson here.

1bit

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 11:57 a.m.

"too impossible to make better..." Really? That's nonsense.

PWJT8D

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 11:54 a.m.

Library? I haven't used one of those since a last minute run for a book report I did't tell my mom about back in middle school. Now I have iBooks.

Barzoom

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 11:39 a.m.

The voters of this city have spoken. What part of no don't the people pushing this waste of money understand. They'll waste more money by putting it on the ballot again in the future.

RUKiddingMe

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 11:39 a.m.

"It's sort of a weird alliance of the property owners in town and the people who wanted something to protest." Seriously, Baker? It's an alliance of a bunch of people being taxed to freaking DEATH while this town continues building and renovating and wasting and coming up with new and fascinating ways to take more money to do more unnecessary things. Again, LOVE the library. Use it. Visit it. Don't need to trear it down and rebuild it. DO SOMETHING WITH THAT EMPTY UNUSED TOP FLOOR!!

Me717

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 11:31 a.m.

The people have voted!

Thom in Ann Arbor

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 11:30 a.m.

Dear Library Board: It seems the people have spoken. And the last-minute ad blitz had nothing to do with it. So now, please find ways to upgrade/renovate/improve the current building to meet 21st century needs. You know you're not going to to get $65 million to do it, but I bet the people would be willing to fund quite a bit for an upgrade. Oh, and by the way, DDA folks, we're not interested in the convention center aspects of the new plan, either. If a convention center is what's wanted, propose it and see what the citizenry has to say about it. All for now!

oyxclean

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 11:29 a.m.

"It means we didn't make our case to the voters, but it doesn't mean there is not a case to be made," said Margaret Leary, president of the AADL's governing board... What part of "NO" did you not understand? You made your case loud and clear. Deal with it.

Chip Reed

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 11:25 a.m.

Talk about sore losers! If the national republican party takes the same attitude as the backers of the defeated library proposal, then we're in a world of trouble...

Halter

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 11:18 a.m.

So now, lets have all the same people argue and debate how to put it back on a future ballot where the people will once again defeat it. Plain and simple: there is a disconnect between what the Library Board wants and what e people are willing to give them...not some "inability to understand"...