Library bond both visionary and fiscally responsible
As a grateful resident of Ann Arbor for 27 years, I’ve voted in favor of every millage and proposal that has come before the voters. Why? Because our support for improvements to such services as schools, parks, and libraries are a big part of what makes Ann Arbor such an incredible place to live.
As a person who was initially swayed by the campaign against the library bond proposal that’s on the November ballot — despite being an avid and frequent user of the Ann Arbor library system, I’m writing to share just one of the several reasons why I’ve done an abrupt about face and plan to cast a vote of YES on Nov. 6, and why I encourage you to do the same.
No. 1 Reason to vote YES: The library bond proposal is both visionary and fiscally responsible.
Library administrators and board trustees have proven over and over to be fiscally responsible, and this bond proposal aligns perfectly with that commitment. For example, the millage funding paid by residents has been used to build and improve the branch libraries, improving services to people across the city. The current bond proposal is fiscally savvy both with regard to the amount of the proposed bond and the wisdom of new construction instead of costly, restricted renovations over time. This is also a perfect time financially and practically for us to build a new library. Interest rates are low and it’s a “buyer’s” market with regard to the costs of construction. In view of these economic times, a new downtown library will give our community much greater bang for our buck while also giving life to a more expansive and exciting vision of a library of the future for this fine city that we proudly call home.
On Nov. 6, I’ll be casting an enthusiastic YES for the library bond proposal. For the sake of our entire community, I hope you’ll join me in adding your YES.
Glenda Haskell
Ann Arbor
Comments
TommyJ
Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:18 a.m.
Libraries will be obsolete in 20 years. They're nearly there now.
TommyJ
Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 3:20 a.m.
Did the movie theaters ask for a $65 million bond to build a bigger theater?
A2Onward
Thu, Oct 25, 2012 : 2:29 a.m.
That's what they said about movie theaters.
Alan Goldsmith
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 7:08 p.m.
"It's simply not fair to lump the taxing entity that is the library in with other taxing entities that you have issues with." It's the same cast of characters over and over and over again. New library, more skimming of property taxes for the DDA, WALLY, taking city operating dollars for train station studies, secret deals to build ugly art projects, the secret meetings for a downtown conference center, la la la. It's the DDA, it's the Mayor and all his friends that seem to pop up like Zelig in every situation that occurs where money is misspent. The library head WANTED the Conference Center let's not forget--it's no wonder there is a lack of trust when it comes to spending millions for this.
brimble
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 11:48 a.m.
The net gain of space is 50,000 sq/ft. So, let's decentralize and build an additional branch, perhaps near Maiden and Broadway. At $350/sq ft, plus land acquisition, we spend a mere $20m. And we don't close and demolish an existing library. And we give another neighborhood better access. But, of course, the DDA wouldn't have their fingers in that candy jar.
missmisery
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 11:10 a.m.
Really, I'm not eager to have Fifth St. closed down again.
Alan Goldsmith
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 10:50 a.m.
As ANOTHER 'grateful resident of Ann Arbor' for nearly 40 , I've HAVEN'T voted in favor of every millage and proposal that has come before the voters, because I look at each one carefully and want to see there is a careful process and project plan in place, that every PENNY is going to be carefully spent and if the governmental unit has been open and transparent throughout the process. NONE of that has happened with this bond proposal. And it slays me, just because you ask specific questions about spending tens of millions of tax dollars that somehow you are anti-library or you are some sort of 'hater' of art if you want to know why neighborhoods are flooding while we spend infrastructure dollars on the blinking Walmart style fiasco at the Cit Center building. We ALL love books and art and baseball and apple pie. From the recent goings on with the DDA, the Mayor, the AATA asset giveaway, the spending on "WALLY" from the general fund, et. al. color me skeptical when you haven't made a clear case to build this. No blank checks without a plan.
Peter Baker
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.
Alan, in what way HASN'T the library board been open and transparent? Every document, consultant's report, and proposal that's been generated is available on their website, and they've held numerous public forums where everyone can give input and have their questions asked (did you go to any of them?). It's simply not fair to lump the taxing entity that is the library in with other taxing entities that you have issues with. I've got issues with how the city is spending my money, but I don't have issues with how the library has been spending it. They've shown themselves to be trustworthy.
Cathy
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 12:50 a.m.
This one is tough for me. I'm certainly no fan of the present building, which has as much charm as a Wagon Queen Family Truckster. On the other hand, it could be replaced with something like the Traverwood Branch building, which is just plain hideous.
CynicA2
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 4:09 a.m.
Appearances are the least of the problems with this - in fact, I'm not even sure they know what the final product is supposed to look like, so complete and advanced is their planning.
antikvetch
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 12:20 a.m.
Gosh, it's only a few dollars more. Think of the children.... Or some such.
RUKiddingMe
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 11:13 p.m.
"I've voted in favor of every millage and proposal that has come before the voters." This lead-in, this proud exclamation with no hint of sarcasm or mockery, was good enough to copy and send to my friends and family. This is why they make fun of where I live, and why I hope to be able to leave soon. This is the mindset that powers the toppling of nations.
CynicA2
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 4:13 a.m.
One relative who visits occasionally (but did grow-up here) says, "Ann Arbor's good for a hoot every once in a while". So true.
Linda Peck
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 9:25 p.m.
So now we should spend money because it is currently a "buyer's market"? That just does not make sense. No is my vote.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 1:30 a.m.
"No, but we should BORROW money when interest rates are low, lock them in, and pay it back over time." ... which costs a whole lot more than not borrowing it in the first place.
CynicA2
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 10:45 p.m.
... But only for what is absolutely necessary and worthwhile - not for ill-conceived, poorly thought-out homages to the past.
Peter Baker
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 9:47 p.m.
No, but we should BORROW money when interest rates are low, lock them in, and pay it back over time.
Julie Baker
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 8:11 p.m.
Comments discussing moderation have been blocked. Feel free to email moderator@annarbor.com with questions about moderation policies. We welcome opposing viewpoints. You can send letters to the editor to letters@annarbor.com.
Peter Baker
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 2:20 a.m.
Nope. At least, not that I know of.
DJBudSonic
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 2:18 a.m.
Any relation to Peter Baker?
Bcar
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 7:20 p.m.
PLEASE tell me how this is fiscally responsible!?!? Borrowing money in a recession to tear something down and replace it with something that is NOT NEEDED this year... You sound more like a lemming voting for every millage, or a 1%er. Oh wait, it's "on sale" so we must be able to afford it...and im sure our city leaders will find the best deal out there to have it built...
Townspeak
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 6:16 p.m.
does anyone know where i can get a VOTE NO to this proposal so i can put a lawn sign on my lawn?
talker
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 11:20 p.m.
For others beyond the number of signs available from Dave DeVarti, at least the last few weeks there have been people with information and signs on Saturdays near the Food Coop (and near Farmers' Market) on 4th Avenue.
Dave DeVarti
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 6:56 p.m.
I have a couple extra Vote No signs. Email me at daveydina2@comcast.net with your phone # and I'll be happy to arrange to drop one off or have you pick it up.
LXIX
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 4:53 p.m.
Seen that calim somewhere before "fiscally responsible". Didn't the library somehow fall into its current dilapidated state? Another meeting room? "It is the mission of the Board of Education to make school facilities available to the community. We welcome the use of our buildings by school groups, community groups, and private organizations. Facilitating community access to the schools is an important goal of the Community Education and Recreation office". Just pay the privatized janitor $50 for the extra effort. City Hall. Michigan Theatre. Maybe even the UM can participate with some of their empty space? $65M can also buy a whole lot of libros too. NO.
annarboral
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 4:49 p.m.
The future of the library is the remote sites like Pittsfield. There is absolutely no reason to go downtown when all the services are provided in the remote sites. Why should I waste time driving downtown and then pay for parking? The future of the library is mostly digital and the location of the computers should be in low cost sites not expensive downtown land. I can accept maintaining the existing downtown structure but building a new one is flushing money down the toilet. Oh yeah, librarians are not noted for their financial expertise. So all these cost projections are just a way to "set the hook" so we end up paying for their Taj Mahal" no matter what it ends up costing.
talker
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 11:23 p.m.
Sarcastic comment: If people go to the branches, then who will use the overpriced underground parking facility near the library?
Brad
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 9:15 p.m.
And that seems to be working OK, doesn't it?
Peter Baker
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 7:47 p.m.
Those remote sites are only there because of the support of the main library. Ever notice all those big trucks bringing books to the branches? They're bringing them from the downtown library.
Dog Guy
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 4:47 p.m.
Recently, we teachers have seen our reputation as underpaid, overworked, dedicated professionals get smeared unjustly with uncaring, greedy, half-time, unionized babysitters (plus a slight tinge of child molester). Librarians are at their historical summit of reputation and do not deserve what shortsighted ego-driven library board members are doing.
Wolf's Bane
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 4:47 p.m.
I strongly disagree with Glenda Haskell. A 400 seat auditorium and lockers is not worth tearing down an entire library complex that was just updated and renovated not even 20 years ago. Also, would it not be more prudent and fiscally more responsible to first determine what to put on top of the underground parking garage next door prior to locking down plans for the new library? What about community input? After all, it is our library, don't we have a say? Finally, consider the environmental impacts of tearing down the library; disposal of all that hazardous material, asbestos abatement? Vote No!
Peter Baker
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 7:45 p.m.
Community input? I'm curious, did you attend any of the frequent open forums the library held before they even put this issue on the ballot? And will you attend any of the many planned if this bond passes?
Mark
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 4:31 p.m.
"Library administrators and board trustees have proven over and over to be fiscally responsible" A library administrator's idea of fiscal responsibility, "Drunkenly waiving library fines for all the parents in the preschool coop. DRUNKEN LIBERRY FINE WAIVING FTW" http://twitter.com/ulotrichous/statuses/5724773007
dotdash
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 4:08 p.m.
I seem to be where you were before: a grateful resident who has always supported library initiatives but is dubious about this one. I'm having trouble with the need to tear down a structurally sound building because it doesn't suit our exact needs at this exact time. Maybe in another 20 years, we will wish we had this building back again and bemoan our 2012 400-seat auditorium? I'm also displeased that the DDA will take a significant amount of the millage off the top. Maybe it's okay that they get a % of the operating millage, but why do they get a % of the capital millage? How does that make sense? Are they building something, too? I'm just not sure.
Dave DeVarti
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 3:58 p.m.
I will be voting against the overly expensive $65 million bond proposal. One commenter here makes reference to the Community needing conference rooms. The yet to be fully articulated "plan" mentions a 400-seat auditorium , cafe and catering facilities. This all raises the question: Is this just a way to get the taxpayers to foot the bill for the conference facilities and high tech infrastructure to facilitate the potential development of a large hotel next door on the new Library Parking Structure? When City Council was considering a conference center development proposal it looked clear that it would not work without direct public subsidy! Now here comes the Library Board, with the support of the Chamber of Commerce looking for an indirect, back-door public subsidy by building the conference center infrastructure on the backs of the Ann Arbor Taxpayer! We already support the Library with a generous annual millage. And that has provided a library system with several branches that continues to serve the community very well. I just checked out a couple books from the downtown branch yesterday, so you can mark me down as a Library supporter who will be voting NO on this ill-advised $65 million project.
Peter Baker
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 1:25 p.m.
Dave, I am a taxpayer here. My property taxes go towards a lot of the things in this town that make it livable and attractive to people, and the library is one of things I'm most happy to pay towards. Believe me, I've got plenty of issues with where some of the other property taxes are going. Why so dismissive of someone that disagrees with you on one position? I think we agree on far more than we don't.
Dave DeVarti
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 2:59 a.m.
Oops!! I will actually be voting yes on proposal B- the millage to support public art! But I will be voting no on the Library $65 million dollar bond issue, whatever letter or number that it is!
Dave DeVarti
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 2:49 a.m.
Peter: How about the catering facilities and cafe I've heard mentioned? Aren't those facilities more appropriate for a conference center than a community library. I've been involved in local politics for many years and I know from experience how things get done around here! Seriously-- $65 million for tearing down and replacing a building that is perfectly functional and whose problems can be fixed for a small percentage of that expenditure. You must not be a taxpayer here. We already pay a generous annual library millage here that has built a library system with several branches that we can be very proud of and that is the envy of many communities larger than Ann Arbor. I am a library user and supporter, but will vote NO on Proposal B.
Peter Baker
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 7:44 p.m.
I'll use my real name. No way is the library interested in hosting traveling salesmen and their conventions. A 400 seat auditorium does not a convention center make. Enough with the conspiracies.
Dave DeVarti
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 4:35 p.m.
Ordmad: how about using your real name and putting forward some actual arguments for your position.
ordmad
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 4:15 p.m.
Exactly, and there's a secret landing pad for spaceships too. Hogwash.
Bob Zuruncol
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 3:57 p.m.
I cannot in good conscience vote for the further inconvenience and damage to the small business owners negatively impacted by the long-term closing of 5th Avenue again so soon. Timing is everything. Write that down.
Brad
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 9:12 p.m.
The "support" from the owner of J. Garden is conditional on his business not getting hammered again due to the construction mess. And all we seem to be getting for assurances about street closings are opinions from people who I'm guessing don't have much in the way of construction engineering credentials.
Donald Harrison
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 7:45 p.m.
Supporters of rebuilding the downtown library include small business owners who were directly effected by the underground lot: https://ournewlibrary.com/testimonials The recent long closure of 5th Ave was due to the construction of the parking garage under the street. While AADL has no control over the city's decisions about street closures, the Downtown Library property line is well inside the sidewalk and AADL cannot build under the street. Construction to rebuild the downtown library would not start for at least a year.
Peter Baker
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 7:42 p.m.
Who says Fifth Street would be closed again? The parking garage was tunneling under the street. A surface building wouldn't have to do that.
George K
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 3:35 p.m.
I support the bond. Ann Arbor should modernize to keep up with the next generation. If we want to stay competitive and attract new businesses to the city, then we have to build a modern infrastructure. A downtown library with modern amenities and conference rooms would make a great contribution to the downtown experience. We can't keep all the old buildings just because they have historical significance. If Ann Arbor wants to stay relevant, we have to embrace the future.
Unusual Suspect
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 1:24 a.m.
"modernize to keep up with the next generation ... stay competitive and attract new businesses ... build a modern infrastructure ... modern amenities and conference rooms ... great contribution to the downtown experience ... embrace the future." None of that even means anything. It's just jargon. It's no different than the art-babble we see from those who want more money for public "art." A great contribution to the downtown experience? I didn't realize the "downtown experience" was broken.
DonBee
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 3:35 p.m.
And the counter reasons are: 1) It is much cheaper to do a renovation only 2) It much more environmentally sound to do a renovation only 3) closing the library again for 2 years downtown hurts the mission of the library 4) the streets just reopened - now we are closing them again - hurting the businesses close by 5) the per square foot price in the proposal is 3x the average midwest price per square foot for libraries according to the largest construction database 6) the library is not getting much bigger - so how does this fix the crowding issues 7) the 400 seat auditorium is not a library function - so why is the library adding it 8) since no plans have been drawn, no one knows how much the building will really cost or what it will look like, the library bond may be very wrong for the final design 9) the prior bonds are not paid off yet, so we will be paying double for two years for no library - the old and the new millage 10) no one has explained how the new e-book technology impacts the library design 11) there was a promise last time that the update would last generations - is 20 years generations? 12) no one has explained how the AADL fits into the overall regional scheme for libraries, including UofM and others
DonBee
Wed, Oct 24, 2012 : 11:55 a.m.
Mr. Baker - See my response here: http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/value-to-the-community-makes-library-bond-proposal-worth-pushing-through/
Peter Baker
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 7:40 p.m.
1. 10% cheaper is not "much cheaper" 2. Not if the building you're replacing is more far more inefficient than the replacement. 3. A massive renovation would close it too. 4. Who says the street would have to be closed? Fifth Street was closed because they were tunneling under it, something that building a surface building wouldn't require. 5. If you don't factor in branch libraries, and only account for main libraries that actually house all the facilities that support the branches, that's not the case. Des Moines, Salt Lake City, and Eugene have all recently built libraries that cost far more per square foot. 6. 1.5x as big seems bigger to me (110,000sq ft increased to 160,000sq ft) 7. Speaker events and lectures are absolutely a library function, they're already doing it and they're extremely popular, more than justifying a small auditorium 8. The library is not going to spend a large chunk of their operating budget on architects and engineers before they even know if they'll use the building they design. 9. The downtown services will be moved to temporary locations, there will be library services during construction. 10. I would trust the people who live and breath libraries to determine that. 11. It's one. The library has always operated on a 20-year feasibility update schedule. That's why there were additions to the 50s building in the 70s, then again in the 90s, and now it's time to expand again. 12. UofM runs research libraries, they don't want kids coming for reading time.
aabikes
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 3:11 p.m.
Still haven't heard a word about how building a new library is environmentally responsible.
Peter Baker
Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 7:41 p.m.
"Rebuilding the downtown library is an ecologically sound decision for our community. The alternative would lead to continue investing in structurally inefficient and inherently wasteful systems. The AADL has demonstrated a strong commitment to sustainable building practices and cost conscious management in the construction of its other branches. I believe an investment in a new downtown library will return huge benefits for families, children, adults, and the disabled community. " – J.D. Lindeberg President, Resource Recycling Systems, Management Consultant in Sustainability/Material Reuse