Steve Johgart

Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 4:59 p.m.

I'm certain a new library building would be of great benefit to the community, and if there were no other pressing expenses, I'd enthusiastically support it. But here's the problem. According to a report on Public Radio, this bond will add $50 a year to the taxes of the average homeowner. That's a significant amount, but if there were no other bonds coming soon, I'd vote for it. However, as things look now, sometime in the near future, if the planning all goes well, there will be a major mass transit bond issue coming before the voters. I'm guessing (entirely guessing, I admit) that this could be another $50 a year. I fear that if the $50 a year bond for the library passes, folks will be much more hesitant to vote for the far more significant mass transit bond issue. Thus, my plan is to vote No on this otherwise worthwhile issue, and look forward to an enthusiastic Yes vote on a well-planned comprehensive mass transit initiative in a couple of years.

Dave DeVarti

Tue, Oct 23, 2012 : 4:13 p.m.

i am a Library user and supporter and I will be voting NO on this proposal. Taxpayers in Ann Arbor already pay a generous millage to support a Library system we can be justifiably proud of. There are many competing community needs for taxpayer support, which we should look to before substantially increasing the amount of tax dollars we already pay to support the Library.

A Voice of Reason

Mon, Oct 22, 2012 : 12:52 p.m.

This is a waste of tax payer money! Why is big business (GRATZI) owner putting $5000 into the campaign and the treasurer is a banker who is hoping to finance the loan. SELF INTEREST in front of what is best for the people. Plus, we do not need any more strangers, especially out of town visitors at a new conference center, around our children. I am very worried about safety of our kids. VOTE NO!!

Richard Wickboldt

Sun, Oct 21, 2012 : 2:01 p.m.

Our Library doesn't need to be reinvented. We have a library which already is "a resource for our entire community, and one that takes into consideration how the world has changed in seeking knowledge". What we do not have is the $130 million of bonded payments to tear down and rebuild a building already constructed as a library. There is no need to rush. I am sure we could come up with a 10 - 15 million dollar refurbishment project which will keep our functioning library look like it is made for the 21st century. I will be voting NO and urge my fellow citizens to do also. Besides having property/homeowners bear the burden of the cost is also very unfair!

KINGofSKA

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 11:49 p.m.

I've heard from a couple different places, that it costs around a million dollars a mile to repave a road, and I know there's plenty of roads that need to be redone. 65 miles of road is probably all of downtown and alleyways. There's something this money could go towards.

Halter

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 7:38 p.m.

I respect this opinion -- I can also go on record to say I am NOT voting for this proposal. Does the Library need some updates? Sure. Am I proud of our Library. Sure. But what we need is to spend some money on upgrading THIS library, not a new one. What Ann Arbor needs for its other needs is a viable community center with theater and gallaries and break-out rooms for rehearsals and artists. What we don't need is to try to create community meeting spaces inside the Library.

Brad

Sat, Oct 20, 2012 : 2:40 p.m.

OK, let me ask the "elephant in the room" question. How many of those "door counts" are what we would call "non-traditional library visitors"? And you know exactly what I am talking about. I don't care that they want to hang out at the library, but their numbers sure shouldn't be used to bolster the case for building a new library. How about it, AADL? Got those numbers?

Donald Harrison

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 11:43 p.m.

For those interested to learn more about the five buildings of the AADL and the bond proposal to rebuild the downtown facility, there's a free informational bike tour this Sunday. It's about a 20-mile ride to visit each of the branches and learn more about them. The ride will depart from Common Cycle at the Kerrytown Artisan's Market at 1pm. Full details: https://www.facebook.com/events/122538461229232/

talker

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 11:43 p.m.

Some of the larger cities cited as having better library buildings also have more businesses to provide the type of tax base Ann Arbor hasn't had since the departure of Pfizer. Pfizer was Ann Arbor's largest payer of property taxes. Many homeowners and at least some renters I've heard say they can't afford ANY increase in property taxes. It seems strange that people in houses that are 40+ years old are expected to pay to replace a library that includes a 20 year old addition (and the entire building is about 50 years old). On another site discussing the library proposal, at least two poster emphasized specific things they'd like, but can't afford.

Arboriginal

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 11:37 p.m.

I'll be voting yes, but this seems like a bad year for progress!

LXIX

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 11:03 p.m.

"I hope I've clarified things. The important thing for you to remember, Montag, is we're the Happiness Boys, the Dixie Duo, you and I and the others. We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought. We have our fingers in the dike. Hold steady. Don't let the torrent of melancholy and drear philosophy drown our world. We depend on you. I don't think you realize how important you are, to our happy world as it stands now." (Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury

Tyler

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 11:03 p.m.

Didn't they just build a new library in the past 3 or 4 years? Why didn't they address these concerns when they build the library on Traverwood?

Donald Harrison

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 10:45 p.m.

Ann Arbor's downtown facility is falling far short of the needs and expectations of our community. It's a wastefully inefficient building to operate, poorly accessible for people with disabilities, difficult to upgrade or add technology and it's exceeded capacity in significant ways. Downtown draws over 600,000 visitors/year. Cities like Seattle, Madison, Austin, Salt Lake City and San Diego have invested significantly in new downtown libraries. I think Ann Arbor has a great library system, but the main downtown building is not well structured or designed to serve this community now or well into the future.

David

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 9:54 p.m.

We are still in a major state of flux on information dissemination. Not outlandish to think that in ten years most volumes currently on shelves will or could be replaced with ebook licenses that are leased or owned by AADL, that e-readers or tablets will be ubiquitous, and that universal wi-fi will make physical trips to the library unnecessary. Libraries should undergo metamorphoses and become centers of culture, repositories where one-of-a-kind visual elements, print and fine arts media are available for use or enjoyment on premises. It's way too early to commit $65 million to an exciting but nonetheless uncertain library of the future.

Dog Guy

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 9:47 p.m.

A compelling and essential vision for reinvention to connect with history can bring the downtown library branch into the 20th century for only about $150 million total.

A2Onward

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 9:39 p.m.

For those questioning the popularity of library's these days, check out the library's annual reports: http://www.aadl.org/taxonomy/term/574 2010 Systemwide Door Count: 1,767,784 (up 3.2% year over year) Downtown Library: 649,231 (up 5.6%) 4 Branches: 1,118,553 (up 1.8%) 2009 Annual Report Systemwide Door Count: 1,713,595 (up 4.4% year over year) Downtown Library: 614,533 (up 2.3%) 4 Branches: 1,099,062 (up 5.4%) Total Program Attendance is up even more, 6-15% more every year. Book circulation is up to (14.2%), and the AADL barely has any ebooks. Say what you will about how much money to spend on a new library, but the library is clearly popular, and increasingly so.

Brad

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 9:29 p.m.

If we're reinventing it what makes us think that the librarians would still be the "experts"? Just because it's still called a "library"?

A2Onward

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 9:12 p.m.

There are some pretty compelling and concrete reasons in this 20-year feasibility study: http://www.aadl.org/files/ProvidenceReportjul2307.pdf The library needs to expand the building to continue provided services to the growing number of downtown users, and they can't do that with the cobbled together buildings. There's no room to expand the footprint, and the buildings that are there cannot sustain extra floors above.

Brad

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 7:36 p.m.

It's "vital for the future of the community"!! Sounds good, means nothing.

DonBee

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 7:14 p.m.

They have never done a renovation only study. All the studies they have done has included some demolition. I would want to understand what can not be fixed in a pure renovation. 2 years without a library? After only 20 in service. Does that make the library a 90% service? We just finished opening the streets around the library after years of closure. Do we really have to close them again? $65 million is the building cost, what is the cost of the actual bonds - by the time the interest is paid. Since we are still paying for the last renovation that was done on 30 year bonds. Does that mean we pay double for a decade for 1 building - and 2 years of that double we have no building? Come back and ask again if you can prove that a renovation only option will not work or the existing bonds are fully paid off.

alarictoo

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 6:44 p.m.

I have yet to see a compelling reason presented from AADL to tear down the existing library and replace it. When they present compelling reasons for such a radical approach I might be willing to entertain the idea. In the meantime, while I think that the downtown library could do with some renovation, I do not see any compelling reason to spend $65,000,000 on this. In fact, if you go to the URL below, #1 lists what they believe cannot be done with/in the current building. If you look at #2, you will see that they have not even commissioned specific plans for the building, but want to assure us in #3 that $65,000,000 will cover it all. http://www.aadl.org/node/212308 I think that AADL owes us a lot clearer information than this before coming and asking for $65,000,000.

Tony Livingston

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 6:24 p.m.

We use the libraries a lot. The branch buildings are great and the only problem is that the parking lot gets full. That is a good problem to have. I don't see the need for a new library with all of the expenses that go along with it. Too much of a financial burden on top of already very high taxes in the city of Ann Arbor. We are big library users but we will be voting no on this one.

Roaring_Chicken

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 6:13 p.m.

Well let's see, I have about 30 years of library experience: let's evaluate these thoughts: "It would be easy to assume in a world of constant connectivity, instant communication and ever smaller, cheaper and ubiquitous electronic devices, that a library is now a useless anachronism of modern society." No one here assumes any such thing. YOU are leading the jury. "We desperately need places to connect with history, with art, with knowledge and with each other." These ubiquitous elec. devices allow you to do just that, in case you haven't experienced them. And libraries all over Creation know it & are prioritizing digital over print. And YES they ARE downsizing: staff, footprint, etc. " The vision that the Ann Arbor District Library has for a reinvention of our public library ..." Reinvented as what? It's not going to be a library anymore? "... as a resource for our entire community..." It isn't now? You mean, a BIGGER BETTER building will accomplish this, having failed with the current building ... "... and one that takes into consideration how the world has changed in seeking knowledge, makes their proposal compelling and essential." Not compelling, not essential. Yes, the world has changed in using "discovery platforms." No, the downtown library doesn't need reinventing to keep pace with the changes.

groland

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 6:11 p.m.

We have an outstanding library here in Ann Arbor. It can continue to be outstanding without the need for a 65 million dollar building. Let's dial back the ambition just a bit. I am sure that renovations to the existing structure can be done to update the building and create new spaces. More and more people are getting content online, so it is hard to imagine that library use will grow substantially in the future. Under the current financial constraints , this project is poorly justified.

PersonX

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 5:46 p.m.

Why publish such an empty statement? There is no debate about the importance of libraries, but only on the wisdom of tearing down a perfectly good library building to replace it with something else. This short statement makes no clear argument one way or another. What is its purpose? Perhaps the author should spend some time reading ....

Linda Peck

Fri, Oct 19, 2012 : 5:45 p.m.

With all respect, Mr Sheridan, and thank you expressing your opinion, but the majority of people who are going to vote "no" on the new library I would guess are not anti-libraries, but anti-this particular library at this particular time. Sixty five million dollars for our children to pay back is a lot of money. Our downtoen library is working now and it is not dangerous, so why tear it down? It was just added on to twenty years ago and totally refurbished.