On the other hand, including expensive meeting facilities in a new library was probably a big reason the library bond issue failed to receive majority voter support in the November 2012 election. It would appear that voters do not believe that conference facilities are within the scope of what our library should do.

Conference centers are expensive and rarely pay for themselves. I have seen no market study showing a real demand for a conference center in Ann Arbor. I can think of many things we might better spend our public resources on.

BTW, the originally planned 32,000 square foot conference center proposed by Valiant Partners was to cost $8 million to construct which they hoped would be paid for by the city.

Please read the following two Chuck Skelton interviews from 2010 at these websites:

[link]

[link]

SO, the AADL decided to build a conference center for itself disguised as a new library building. For that purpose the AADL board decided that the new library should almost fifty percent larger than the old library, that is, 160,000 square feet to replace 110,000 square feet. Schematics for the new library were not offered to the public in order to hide the AADL board’s true intentions. Fortunately, Ann Arbor voters would not approve new construction without knowing what they would be getting.

The recent EPIC-MRA satisfaction survey is a double-edged sword for the AADL board. On the one hand, the glowing report reflects excellent management of the library. On the other hand, the sterling report does not support the need for a new library and a possible repeat bond referendum effort next year.

I find it disturbing that the AADL Board resolution was a last minute add-on to its March 17 agenda. This was a substantial, important resolution on a complex issue. It carried potential ramifications for the several entities that should be collaborating for the good of the entire greater Ann Arbor area. Yet, as in the normal order of Board agendas, the resolution’s existence was not revealed until moments before the call for citizen comments to the Board. This gave the few of us present no reasonable time to prepare a considered response, and gave the rest of the community no opportunity to communicate with the Board about it in the week or so between posting of the agenda and the meeting.

I’m further uncomfortable with the fact that Director Parker was already at the City Council meeting to read the AADL resolution and announce its passing. I guess this explains Ms. Leary’s abruptly calling the question. The Board needed to pass the resolution before it was likely that Ms. Parker would address Council. And it was apparently a foregone conclusion that it would pass.

Golly whiz, I’m so naïve, that I expect just a slight possibility of free, open, lively discussions of any issue by my elected officials. I expect to hear debate bringing forth multiple points of view. I expect that such discussions can result in changed opinions right there in public and even revisions to or (gasp!) the occasional defeat of motions before those elected officials. Not what I saw or heard from the AADL Board on March 17!

To follow the board’s apparent line of reasoning, it seems that their opinion is that downtown cannot have inviting places – and therefore cannot itself be an inviting place – for the foreseeable future.