groland

Thu, Oct 4, 2012 : 3:46 p.m.

I am voting NO on the proposition not because I do not support the library but because w have better options. First, the current building is not so outdated that it cannot be renovated. Second, more and more people are getting content online, how can we justify spending money on a new building during these financially difficult times. Third, the current library is pretty darn good. Fourth, money would be better spent on schools, bridges, and roads many of which are in desperate condition. .

Andy Piper

Wed, Oct 3, 2012 : 3:51 p.m.

The Ann Arbor Library system is an incredible resource for families and kids - this is not discussed in your opinion. I believe the library system here in Ann Arbor is one of the best in any city around. It has had a deep deep positive impact on our children and family and we have used it consistently since we moved here in 1996.

Sooze

Wed, Oct 3, 2012 : 1:04 p.m.

Rehab the library and then consider building a community center with an auditorium and meeting rooms all rentable to the public. Small towns in the area have these buildings but here in A2 we either have UM or public school auditoriums or the Multipurpose Room. Nothing else is available for performances or conferences. Maybe put it on top of the multileval garage next door to the renovated library, with a small park in front. This would not be a huge hotel or lavish conference center: just a useable building.

HB11

Wed, Oct 3, 2012 : 12:46 p.m.

I don't have a dog in this fight since I am outside AA's boundaries, but this piece was very well written and rational. Nice job, Mr. Harris.

cindy1

Wed, Oct 3, 2012 : 12:42 p.m.

It would be the fourth "Nightmare on 5th Street." (I know, I know, it's 5th Ave.) Anyways, I'm for a moratorium on all new building. Find creative ways to use what we have. Remodel only if absolutely necessary. I'm highly suspicious of anything rumoured to be backed by the DDA. The primary work city gov. and the DDA have been engaged in for some time now concerns finding as many ways as possible to extract tax payer money. Usually for unecessary construction. Do they understand that tourists are attracted by "historic" architecture? (Even though the N. Main Community Ctr. mngmemt. isn't always accommodating, it's an excellent, well-maintained building with various sized meeting rooms.)

A2comments

Wed, Oct 3, 2012 : 10:46 a.m.

I'm voting NO. The price tag is too high. A 400 person auditorium is crazy, rent the unused Michigan Theater 12 times a year. Based on Traverwood, I have little confidence that they would build a building that utilizes space efficiently, with materials that withstand daily wear and tear, and a building that looks attractive.

Halter

Wed, Oct 3, 2012 : 10:23 a.m.

Absolutely I agree about voting NO on this project. Far far cheaper to remodel and repurpose what is already there than to start anew. It would be a bad investment for us and future generations. It is true that the library is used for far more than books. That is because the city of Ann Arbor doesn't have a community center with rentable rooms/auditoriums/theater that is available. THAT is something the city should be looking at, not our Library.

snapshot

Wed, Oct 3, 2012 : 5:36 a.m.

For those of you in favor of this unecessary community investment....know that you will literally be taking food out of property owners mouths that are not privy to a public pension or public salary. You also jeoperdize the stability of fixed income residents in losing their homes because they cannot afford the property taxes.

YpsiVeteran

Wed, Oct 3, 2012 : 2:48 a.m.

From the post of Jack Eaton: "A 25-year, $65 million bond would have an estimated interest rate of 5% and a millage rate of 0.59 mills. A 29-year, $65 million bond had a higher estimated interest rate of 5.25%, but a lower millage rate of 0.56 mills. It's better for taxpayers to pay a lower millage rate, Surovell said, even though the total interest payments would be higher under the longer-term scenario – $64.669 million in interest for the 29-year bond, compared to $51.478 million for the 25-year term. " Doesn't it bother anyone else that a library board member, Surovell, thinks it's a better idea for taxpayers to spend an extra (projected) $13.19 million dollars over the life of the bonds, over a .03 mill difference and only four years? Just so the board can ask for .56 mills instead of .59 mills? Either 13 MILLION dollars (of other people's money) is chump change to Mr. Surovell, or he doesn't feel very strongly about the board's argument in favor of the project. If this is the kind of judgment being exercised in developing and recommending this project, it would seem many other things would need to be questioned.

David Cahill

Wed, Oct 3, 2012 : 1:49 a.m.

Jack, if a paid library employee is using library resources to advocate for the bond proposal, then so doing would indeed be a violation of the Campaign Finance Act.

snapshot

Wed, Oct 3, 2012 : 1:07 a.m.

Right on the money Mr. Harris. So well put. Thank you for trying to put incurring such a cost into perspective for our city government officials and library employees who are promoting what might be the worst real estate investment possible. I wish our city officials would show more restraint in their ambitions to build a "world class" city on the shoulders of a few taxpaying property owners.

Adam Goodman

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 10:40 p.m.

If I'm not mistaken, I occupy a similar demographic to Robert Harris (young professional / recent UM graduate), but if I were to write an op-ed extrapolating from my own experiences to an entire demographic, I would arrive at a very different conclusion. Many of the people I know in a similar age group are among the most ardent supporters of the bond proposal that you're likely to find. Do I think this means that all twenty-somethings in Ann Arbor are the sort who regularly study and do research at the library? Of course not - but to conclude that only middle-aged people are in favor of (or stand to benefit from) the project would be even more ridiculous. Worse, this whole discussion is irrelevant. I do think that - with the branch libraries - the AADL has proven an ability to construct very attractive places to get heads-down work done (even without a mandatory beverage purchase!). However, the role of a public library is - and needs to be - so much more than just a repository of books and a quiet place to read them. It is a center of civic engagement and community learning, with programs to engage children in new ways to get excited about exploring knowledge, to teach adults new and important skills, and to introduce new perspectives to the community at large - all of which are open to *everyone*. The AADL has already shown the kind of thought-leadership necessary to define a brighter future not only for itself, but for public libraries everywhere. Yet, for us to fully realize this potential, we need to replace an aging, cobbled-together facility with one that's built from the ground up to fit with the library's evolving role in our community. Sure, we might not have a perfect idea of what'll be in store for us 30 years from now, but is delaying this project going to change that? No - we'll just have to hobble along with our existing building - one that's inadequate for the *present* - for that much longer.

say it plain

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 10:19 p.m.

So much fabulous crankiness, I'm not sure I'd want to spend too much more time as a 'community' with some commenters here lol... But it seems that a lot of the pro-spending people are saying we need a great library in a town like Ann Arbor. And we have a great library system in Ann Arbor for sure! I would absolutely want to continue supporting our system...just not $60million on a new downtown branch right now. I think the two are separable concerns... Investing in programming? Love to. Investing in more materials--which, by the way, I can say could use some doing (as a regular user of the system I see numerous holes they can fill! it's good, but could be better!)--great! A new downtown building that as @Veracity outlines above, isn't really much of a change from what it is now in terms of space, just more of a 'community meeting place' feel to it.? That's not the investment I think should be made right now, nor is it one I think the Library is being very straight-forward about.

Emily Puckett Rodgers

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 10 p.m.

As a young person, a U-M graduate, and a user of both my downtown and branch libraries, I'm voting an enthusiastic YES.

Jack Eaton

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 8:56 p.m.

Here's a question for David Cahill: Is it a violation of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act for a library employee to use library resources to advocate approval of the library bond proposal? For example, would it violate the Act if a library employee used a library owned computer to post comments on a2dotcom advocating approval of the library bond proposal while on duty (being paid) at the library?

David Cahill

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 8:08 p.m.

So - the quibblers with the $130 million total cost figure didn't realize that it came from the Library Board itself. Pretty funny. What a great campaign!

Veracity

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 7:45 p.m.

Few facts are available about the proposed new library: -- No artist rendition or architect's drawing of the new library is available, but will be done if the bond issue passes; -- the new library will have between 110,000 and 160,000 square feet of space (present library has 110,000 sq ft); -- Will have about a 400 seat auditorium. Apparently, the impetus for building a new library is not driven by a need for technology changes or the need to increase storage of materials and resources. Instead, the new library is being described as a community center idealized for meetings and gatherings and a place for quiet activities. Thus, the new library may be considered transformative, moving away from traditional library activities towards providing community services. Whether this effort is necessary and desirable should be the primary consideration. As for the size of the requested bond issuance, perspective is important. The $65 million bond issue will not be entirely used to construct a new library. $13 million of the bond issue will be used to pay for storing materials temporarily and for operating the library out of temporary leased quarters during the 30-month construction period. The $52 million of the bond issue that will actually be used for building the new library is the same amount of money that built the massive Municipal Building. By comparison the recently built Ashley-Terrace apartment building cost $20 million to construct. In fact the $52 million is what Valiant Partners was planning to borrow so it could build a 12 story 150-room luxury hotel over the subterranean library parking structure. The planned conference center with 32,000 square feet that would attach to the Valiant Partners hotel would have cost only $8 million. In summary, replacing the present library with a slightly larger building designed as a community center and its excessively large bond issue are not justified.

greg, too

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 6:46 p.m.

There are so many problems with this op ed, its hard to no where to begin. And I am even against the bond, at this time, by the way. While it is great that the hipster kids at U of M like to do their research while sipping $6 lattes (and utilizing a world class online library system with what seems to be an infinite budget that we do not have access to), the rest of the world works differently. Based on the author's statements about the library, I doubt that he has set foot in it in a while. As a quick recap since you last set foot in the place, the downtown a2 library offers programming for children and other age groups, meeting space for civic events, and computer access for the taxpayers of Ann Arbor. That's what a modern library is. And, I think they even have coffee too... And how do you know that this new library will be out of date in 20 years? As a librarian with planning experience, I am interested in knowing what experience are you using to make this claim? The current one is a ragtag grouping of renovations slapped together over multiple decades. Re-renovating it will just continue the trend. That would just be money wasted. I agree that this is being rushed and that the project requires more thought and input and more bids. But this op ed's argument is insulting to everyone in the community that the writer claims to represent. Step out of the ivory tower, take a look around and you will see a different world than the one you live in and you will be amazed at how off your opinions actually are.

Donald Harrison

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 6:18 p.m.

I think it's great to have voices from different generations contributing to this issue, so thanks to Robert Harris for at least helping engage a broader spectrum of our community. I have a different perspective, however, as a 30-something UM grad who's also committed to this community for the long term. I believe rebuilding the downtown library is one of the best investments we can make. The AADL is one of the most innovative in the country, widely respected in our community, responsive to its patrons and providing great value to everyone. Yet the current downtown facility is inadequate. It was built in 3 phases over 3 eras, all prior to the internet and technology era for libraries. It's become increasingly inefficient to operate, wastefully expensive to make necessary upgrades and constrained by too many structural and capacity limitations. It's simply a poor foundation for us to continue investing in for our future. With a great downtown library, many more people would spend many more hours there learning, listening, exploring and sharing this important community resource. The library is for everyone: kids, teens, college students & grads, young families, seniors, those with low income, high income or no income. Have you been to a city with a great main library? People are excited to go there. And for less than the cost of a coffee a week to most property owners, everyone in this community could have access to a great main library.

deanne

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 5:58 p.m.

Funny, as a recent UM grad you may like to keep going to campus, but you will not necessarily feel that way when YOU are middle aged, or using the library for pleasure, not "study". For you to lump all of the AADL patrons into one demographic shows that you do not go there at all. To extend that to the entire community is extremely close minded. I see people of all economic classes and ages using the AADL on a regular basis, and encourage you to know a little more about the place before throwing out untrue generalizations. Vote YES!

dotdash

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 5:40 p.m.

I don't mind the millage part of it, but I can't wrap my head around the need to tear down a perfectly good building. What kind of society do we live in where we tear down a building because it doesn't suit our exact needs at one exact point in time? Let's wait 20 years and it may well be the exact kind of building that we need then.

Donald Harrison

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 5:10 p.m.

Paul N. Courant, Dean of Libraries & Professor of Economics and Information, University of Michigan, has this to say about the AADL's bond proposal: "Great cities, like great universities, are homes to great libraries. The Ann Arbor District Library serves the community in myriad ways, keeping us abreast of current literature and art, politics, culture, and more. Our children learn about learning there. The history of our wonderful city is housed there. Both the University Library and the District Library are reinventing themselves in light of a digital revolution that makes the expertise of librarians ever more valuable to students and residents of all ages. As the demands on the library increase the demands on the physical and technical infrastructure are becoming insupportable. The building proposal will keep our library – and our city – strong." [source: https://ournewlibrary.com/testimonials]

Mike58

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 4:46 p.m.

The Ann Arbor Library System is a wonderful resource to Ann Arbor. However the many of the users use the satellite branches to pick up materials ordered online from the main branch. The role of the main branch is diminished for such services. The use of electronic media is only going to increase and the function of the library is going to change as well. The argument I hearing is that the library is going to serve as a meeting area for social gatherings and as a repository for educational items such as "telescopes". That sounds like a great idea too. But it doesn't sound much like a library anymore. There should be a little more effort put into the vision for the library system before we drop 65 million on a library with more meeting rooms. In the past year I have had to absorb a technology millage for the schools, a road millage, sidewalk millage and there is talk of a new county wide AATA millage along with some new art millage. I'm not sure I can afford to live in this ridicules city much longer and I'm not sure I want to. Voting NO!

Meredith Kahn

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 4:42 p.m.

As recent UM graduate and an employee of the UM Libraries, I can echo previous comments that the UM Libraries are not a replacement or a substitute for having a good public library. UM reference librarians (myself included) regularly refer patrons to AADL when it is prudent. The UM Libraries and AADL have different missions, services, facilities, and collections. Our strengths are different, and there are times when patrons are better served by going to AADL for particular needs. (Disclaimer: I make this statement as an individual, not in my capacity as UM employee.) Ann Arbor needs a library that can continue to provide excellent services, collections, facilities, and programming to our community. This bond will help AADL do exactly that.

aabikes

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 4:40 p.m.

What environmental considerations have been made for this proposal? Isn't the greenest building the one that's already standing? Even vast improvements in efficiency could take 20-70 years to overcome the initial resource demand, construction pollution, waste mitigation, etc. This is the issue my vote hinges on. Is it responsible to replace a building that *might* take 70 years to make up for it's environmental cost by tearing down a 60 year old building? I know people can calculate this. Has it been done.

Jamie Vander Broek

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 4:16 p.m.

A second comment, again as an individual and not an employee of the U. While it's true that we have another world-class library system in town, and that everyone is welcome to use the collections and spaces at Hatcher and Shapiro, they aren't designed to function as Ann Arbor's public library. The public access stations aren't for the community to gain access to the world via the Internet, but rather for explore the library's amazing online and print collections. Did you know that the public access stations don't provide access to email sites like Yahoo Mail or Gmail? I often hear comments that we won't need libraries in the future because of the influx of digital resources. I think this is a little bit like the assumption that we would have a paperless society by now. It's an oversimplification at best and it also turns out to be totally wrong. It disheartens me to hear another young person disregarding the needs of his community based on the assumption that everyone can afford to buy a latte every day in a coffee shop, setting aside the laptop needed to use one as an office or a place to browse online. The bourgeoisie likes to claim that we don't need to share resources now that we have the Internet, forgetting that it costs money to set up the infrastructure for the lives they lead. I think it's also misguided to assume the coffee shop model makes sense. Does Espresso Royale really want to become the public Internet access station for our community? Is that their business model? Should it be how we approach sharing resources as a community? Are we really so everyone for themselves here in Ann Arbor?

Jamie Vander Broek

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 4:15 p.m.

As both a young person and someone who works at the two libraries mentioned above (though I make these comments as an individual and not as an employee of the University Library System), I feel uniquely qualified to respond to this editorial. When I moved here in 2005 to start an internship in the Youth Department of the Ann Arbor District Library (where I eventually worked for three years), two things surprised me. The first was that an awesome little college town with a population known for their reading habits had such a shabby downtown Library. The second was that being a children's librarian at AADL was nothing like what I thought it would be. Instead of quiet read-aloud sessions from classic picture books, the librarians put on full-on performances, with puppets, music and theatrical flair. AADL isn't your average library. It's bursting at the seams with talent, programs, innovation, and more, and all built on the premise of coming together as a community to share resources. Libraries aren't what they used to be, it's true. And it's awesome. I want AADL to be able to fulfill its promise, and I'm excited to be able to help them make it happen by voting YES this November.

Lovaduck

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 3:26 p.m.

Boy, do I ever agree. Thanks Mr. Harris.

Arboriginal

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 3:26 p.m.

I'll be voting yes.

Jack Eaton

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 3:25 p.m.

@ A2Onward & Ryan Burns - The use of the $130 million dollar total cost is based on numbers reported at a library board meeting. The meeting report from the Ann Arbor Chronicle included the following: "Earlier in the meeting, the board set the length of the bond at 30 years – on a 4-3 vote. The original proposal had been for a 25-year bond, but board member Ed Surovell argued strongly for the longer period. A chart provided to the board gave estimates of possible bond amounts, terms and millage rates. "A 25-year, $65 million bond would have an estimated interest rate of 5% and a millage rate of 0.59 mills. A 29-year, $65 million bond had a higher estimated interest rate of 5.25%, but a lower millage rate of 0.56 mills. It's better for taxpayers to pay a lower millage rate, Surovell said, even though the total interest payments would be higher under the longer-term scenario – $64.669 million in interest for the 29-year bond, compared to $51.478 million for the 25-year term. [Details on the interest and millage rates will vary, depending on market conditions when the bonds are issued.]" http://annarborchronicle.com/2012/07/16/library-to-put-65m-bond-on-nov-ballot/ I think it is entirely reasonable to rely on the numbers presented to the board when discussing the 30 year cost of the library.

Jim Deakins

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 3:03 p.m.

I have trouble following the story the writer is trying to tell. The first point, "There are voices from the middle-aged, middle-class demographic weighing in [...] However, it is not likely they will be paying taxes for the next thirty years ..." I'm 32, add 30 years, that makes me 62. Unless there is a sweet loophole that allows me to _stop_ paying taxes at the ripe age of 45, i submit that this point is invalid. "What I want to do is to be a voice for the future tax-payers who have, do, and will call Ann Arbor their home." Self proclaimed "voices" rarely meet the need of the people they represent. I think my 10 month old son would be better spoken for by his father, and as his father, i plan on getting him a library card at our beautiful new library. I'll be voting yes.

say it plain

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 3 p.m.

What a fantastically well argued opinion piece; and the proper position on this ballot as well ;-) !!! I agree completely, and I hope that enough people are on the fence at least with this proposal that Robert Harris' great points help convince them! It is just not the right thing to do for our city right now! Harris has a reading on what recent grads who have chosen to stay in town are doing in terms of media use. His belief that a "library for the modern age" will not garner the sort of use that the pro-bond people think it will-- nor even be "state of the art" for long in our rapidly evolving media/tech landscape-- should be taken VERY SERIOUSLY. Plus, there is nothing green or cool or cutting edge about tearing down perfectly serviceable buildings instead of modifying or retrofitting them. I know I shy away from the downtown library only because getting there is a pain. I can't imagine if I lived nearby that hanging out there would be something I'd consider doing, but I'd surely use it very well. UM students using it!? Um, don't think so! And families and the meek are probably turned off by the level of 'unusual' people who spend a lot of time inside and hanging about outside the place, unless that somehow gets changed via bond-spending?! Now there's parking right next to the place lol, so that might help with out-of-downtowners, but it's not anywhere near as pleasant as when there was an easy visible surface lot! The only way the downtown library would increase traffic was via *programming from outside the library system* I believe. Which of course was one of the ideas with the convention center plans the mayor won't now even admit to being serious at one time! Now is *not* the time to get serious about building a totally new library!

a2grateful

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 2:44 p.m.

Agree with Robert Harris. Additionally, the increasing use of digital media means less need for physical books and physical media. Lesser need for this physical space translates to more availability of space for meeting areas, within existing walls. We don't need new bricks and mortar for our library. We need smarter and better use of our current library.

Ryan Burns

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 2:42 p.m.

There are plenty of residents of this town on the younger side of middle age that are *extremely* excited about this project, and I am one of them. I agree with you: "People just aren't using libraries the way they used to." They're using them in many more ways than simply checking out books. They are centers of connectivity, hands-on learning, and a community space to interact offline, which is more important than ever. They're using them in many ways the current building was not designed to support and this is one reason a new building is required. The current building (as of 2008) has elevators that break down monthly, a sewage system in need of replacement, unbalanced HVAC duct work due to multiple renovations, inadequate space for the innovative and well attended programming, and substandard lighting. The younger people I talk to are thrilled with the prospect of having a modern library as a center of culture and learning. They love the idea of a library with windows. A library with drive up book pick-up / return. A library with an auditorium so we don't have to view events in an overflow room over CCTV or in an offsite facility. The downtown library cannot be replaced by a coffee shop. Instead, we can reuse those bricks to build homes and replace them with a modern building that lets in natural light and emits a beacon of learning and culture for this community.

Peter Baker

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 2:30 p.m.

"People just aren't using libraries the way they used to." Well, you are right about that, they're using them to borrow telescopes, hold children's events, use musical instruments, show timber framing demonstrations, consult with autism education specialists, save money by borrowing movies instead of buying them, get help with resume writing, meet with friends. So you're right, libraries aren't what they used to be, but there is no doubt ours sure is popular. It's worth investing in.

Ryan Burns

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 2:23 p.m.

I'd like to point out that multiplying the $65 million bond value by 2 is not a responsible way to do financial modelling. Municipal bond rates are 3.2% and inflation averages 2%. The total cost to taxpayers will be *far less* than $130 million, as you can check yourself with an amortization calculator. This is a time of historically low interest rates and a great time to invest in our future. Waiting to rebuild will no doubt incur higher costs in the future as interest rates go back up.

A2Onward

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 2:20 p.m.

$130m is an absurd figure, made up by opposition campaigns trying to use a 6% interest rate to make things sound worse than they are. 3% interest and 2% inflation add up to a total cost FAR less than their 'multiply by two' claim. Record low interest rates and construction costs make this a unique moment to invest in our future.

A2anon

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 2:15 p.m.

Just because YOU don't use it, doesn't mean nobody does. The library is heavily used, by all sorts of people in many demographics. Maybe you should visit on occasion, and see for yourself.

Peter Baker

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 2:10 p.m.

The library board absolutely has consulted with renovation experts. You can see their findings here: http://ournewlibrary.com/current/

Peter Baker

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 2:09 p.m.

A quote from David Osler about the building: He talked about the current Ann Arbor downtown Library addition, finished in the early 90s. Not, he said, his "best building" He talked about the formidable constraints, "So many things, within that simple form that we couldn't do... one has got to have some legroom for creativity." [http://savetheannarborlibrary.blogspot.com/2012/09/note-for-people-wanting-basic_21.html]

Linda Peck

Tue, Oct 2, 2012 : 2:02 p.m.

I agree and will vote no. Your reasoning is good on this issue. Also, I like the present library.