http://freerangelibrarian.com/2008/12/11/why-yes-librarians-do-rock-thank-you-for-noticing/

It may well be that the library would be enhanced by additional space. But I’m far from convinced that it is necessary to spend $70 million on a new building. How much energy retrofitting and repair could we have gotten for the $900,000 that was spent on architects and other fees for this misbegotten project?

What the downtown library sorely needs is more staff and a more welcoming environment which it used to have.

I think this relates partly to the point that Jim Rees makes in [12] above: “I’m skeptical but could be convinced. You are not doing a good job of convincing me.”

If the library does eventually bring this before the public for a millage vote, to succeed they’ll need to present a convincing case that — among other things — this auditorium will be heavily used by giving a clear vision of how it’s going to be programmed.

During the DDA September 2008 DDA board meeting Josie Parker discussed briefly the general approach to programming the auditorium:

“Board member John Mouat inquired about how the proposed 400-seat auditorium would be programmed. Parker stressed that it was not a full-performance stage. For example, it will not have fly space. But it would be big enough for small orchestras and bands. Parker predicted lots of lectures would take place there. She pointed out that the capacity of the theater had an impact on the parking requirements for the new facility. Last year, without the 400-seat auditorium, the downtown location counted 600,000 door swings made by patrons visiting the library in person (1.7 million system wide).”

Why should you pay for books? Why should you pay for anything? People should have equal access to information. If you are offering access to all kinds of books than the Internet access should be equally broad.

“As stand by my statement that a 300+ person auditorium is a waste of money. There is no need for an auditorium this large during the day, and a great number of similar rooms available at night.”

Again, fact-free analysis. I would expect that there are numerous times during the day that the library needs a facility of this size. As for the rest of the claim about costs, they are based on the assumption that an auditorium space would be rarely used. Again, you have no basis for making that assumption.

You state that my comments are uninformed, but you offer no conflicting information other than your own opinions. I also see no attempt to voice your own alternatives, simply blind following of an economically outdated plan.

Regarding computer, when did web access become a right? Why should I pay for other people to have access?

I did not say there should not be a downtown library, simply that any additional monies should be spent on more branches. Smaller and more widely distributed branch libraries can be scaled easier and technologies and populations change.

As stand by my statement that a 300+ person auditorium is a waste of money. There is no need for an auditorium this large during the day, and a great number of similar rooms available at night. You voice concern over paying to use these other auditoriums, but I guarantee you that the price for occasional use over the next 25 years will not approach the cost to build, furnish and maintain the auditorium at the library.

As stated before, the library needs to go back to the drawing board and avoid this albatross of a new building that will saddle the city in dept. and severely limit flexibility.

What do we truly need? Not flights of fancy from a survey that had no references to cost, thus leading to flights of fancy.

How else can the needs be met? Reuse of common resources is environmentally responsible, fiscally responsible and just plain good business!

How can we hold down costs? This limits the burden to the taxpayers and allowing for other changes sooner as needs shift further.

“Why should tax payers fund web surfing for the public? I am in full agreement that the web is an great place to perform research, but I see the library providing too much support of random surfing at the cost of the tax payer.”

Since when was it decided that my tax dollars should be limited to using the Internet for research? Should we also empty the library of popular fiction, magazines and anything else that doesn’t meet your standards? I’m glad that the library provides the research resources that it does but I’ve never been to a library that serves the public where the materials in print have been limited in the way that you propose for the Internet computers.

“they don’t create a haves/have-nots situation that shows Ann Arbor’s crass class system”

Which libraries in the area are “have-nots”? Not Ypsi, not Chelsea, Dexter is building a new library. What community that is willing to pay for library services is being left out?

“I’m still amazed by this pushed for an entire new library when the public would be better served by more branch libraries near their homes.”

The system has 3 branch libraries already. Where would you propose additional branches? And what about all of the people who live in the downtown area?

“2. Auditorium – why would the library have an auditorium?”

The library is open in the evenings and weekends when the schools are not. The library often has programs on the weekend and evenings when the schools are closed. The library also has programs during the day, when the schools are in session and there is limited availability of their facilities. Opening up those facilities just for the library to use results in costs to the schools for staff time to have someone monitor and clean-up and energy costs to have lights on, heating, cooling, etc. The library can easily justify the space and having it located in the library makes a lot more sense than what you propose.

Rather than worry about what other people are doing at the library (they’re in a library–I don’t much care what they’re doing as long as they’re not disruptive), I make the most of its availability and the services it provides. In other words, I get my money’s worth. I think that part of the idea of the new building is to build on the success of the library and make it an even better contributor to the community. I’ll gladly pay a few more dollars a year to help make that possible–and I’ll continue to get my money’s worth by using the new services.

I encourage you and MarkAA to communicate directly with the library board about your concerns and ideas.

Why should tax payers fund web surfing for the public? I am in full agreement that the web is an great place to perform research, but I see the library providing too much support of random surfing at the cost of the tax payer. Maybe they should start charging for time (like an internet cafe).