I think categorizing into “needs” and “wants”, as you’ve done, is a difficult thing to do. All of these things that would be possible in a new building help serve the library’s mission of developing literate and informed citizens, and I think furthering that mission is a “need”, and hardly specious.

Would adding CDs and DVDs to the collection have seemed like a need or a want in the mid nineties? What about adding computers? I think the library must continue to innovate and improve over time, and not simply be content with fixing the plumbing.

Really, it will be up to the voters to choose which path to take, and weigh the costs and the benefits. While this issue might have been more contentious than many anticipated, I’m heartened to see everyone looking out for this community, although from different viewpoints.

Not that it matters to anyone, but I fully support the bond proposal to build a new library and now have placed a sign indicating that support in my front lawn. I still believe it will pass quite easily.

@6: “Interest rates have never been lower in my lifetime; now is the cheapest time to rebuild.”

Interest rates are that low for good reason: it’s risky to borrow in this economic climate, i.e., a credit bubble.

The private sector in the US is deleveraging at an unprecedented level while the public sector continues to increase debt levels. Interest rates will remain low while that deleveraging (i.e., deflation) plays out over the next few years. Being in debt during deflation is a situation to avoid if at all possible. We would be much wiser to wait until the bottom and then see what we can afford as a community.

Because they haven’t demonstrated that they’re taking the larger economic context into consideration and they haven’t (to my knowledge) stated the economic assumptions they’re making with regard to future property values or stated a contingency plan in the event of a drop in those values.

#@8: The cost to property owners, while relevant and important to consider, is less relevant than the affordability to the district that collects the revenues. When property values drop and tax revenues follow, the entire system will be put at risk.

In such a situation the only thing the board would be able to do is raise the millage to the maximum allowed within their discretion, except that this proposal would have already put it above that level, so that’s not even an option. AADL would have to ask voters to tax themselves at an even higher rate in order to maintain the current level of operations, which wouldn’t likely pass. (After all, who would trust them then?)

The alternative would be to somehow reduce costs: wages could be lowered, staff could be laid off, hours of operation could be reduced, fees levels could be increased, assets could be sold, branches could be closed. The new, more energy efficient building would only cost less to operate if the total power load is less than the current building. With the new features and spaces added, it’s not likely that that will be the case. I posed that question on a previous thread and haven’t seen a response, likely because it can’t be answered until the proposed building has been fully designed.

The low cost per taxpayer, coupled with a desire for improvement, is a pitfall that will make the district even less able to provide the services that proponents of a new building say are important to them.

In addition, without substantive data to prove it, i very much doubt that the cost of energy consumed to take down and to rebuild an entire building can ever be recovered in lower utility bills even over the thirty years of the bond payments.

We LOL: Love Our Library
and still can vote NO

1) No doubt a rebuilding of the downtown library would create a temporary inconvenience for patrons and library partners. Same would be true of a major renovation. Anytime you improve something, whether it’s work on a building, a piece of machinery, computer or human body, you experience an inconvenience. You only do this when the situation merits it and the improvements are worth it. The deficiencies of the downtown building have reached such a critical mass. I believe the library bond proposal is a responsible plan for the long-term vitality of our library system. Additionally, regarding staff, in Josie Parker’s words from the AADL Director’s Blog “If the bond passes, the AADL will not layoff any library staff for the construction period.”

2. Although I’m not a child of Depression-era parents, I too highly value efforts for reuse/recycling (I was actually featured for my packaging reduction efforts in The Chronicle in 2009: [link]). In the case of the downtown building, however, I agree with AADL that rebuilding is our most ecologically wise approach. The fact that rebuilding the downtown facility is supported by environmental/preservationist leaders in our community, including Mike Garfield, J.D. Lindeberg & Ray Detter (full list here: [link]), says a lot about the ecological merits of this approach. The alternative you propose would require a major renovation and shutting down of the building for as long, costing nearly as much, and leaving us with an inferior facility.

3. I see the cost of the library bond proposal as a significant, prudent investment in a critical resource for our community. A YES vote amounts to roughly a dollar a week to the majority of homeowners. A great downtown library will increase the long-term property value of tax payers and increase the AADL’s ability to provide value to area citizens, whether young, old, those with disabilities, low income or seeking knowledge, training, high speed internet or inspiration from art & culture. If you think a dollar week is too high, consider borrowing instead of buying a couple of books at the library, or replacing a magazine subscription or Netflix account with the library materials or attending one of the AADL’s many free lectures and events. A better library means more opportunities for everyone in our community to learn, share and save money.

I believe a YES vote for the library bond proposal is a fiscally smart vote and a progressive vote for a more vital future of this community.

What is compelling is the price tag for this project and the hardship on many taxpayers who don’t need any of the specious enhancements proposed.

The price tag of over $65,000,000 is too high in this period when many people are struggling with employment and with their budgets. Only a 1.7% increase is scheduled for those whose primary income in Social Security. For them and others this plan is too expensive

Among the items on the capability side that are not possible in the current building: a youth area that can simultaneously accommodate open play and story times, a large quiet reading room, access to the local history collection (currently offsite), an auditorium for free lectures, film, performance and discussion, spaces that can handle messy hands-on programs like electronics workshops, a cafe, and more computing resources.

Which of these things can be accomplished through renovation? It is clear from the 2008 process that the footprint of the current building cannot be expanded, and additional floors can’t be built on top. I have yet to mention that the current building has a number of fundamental problems aside from being unable to support the above capabilities – poor lighting, outdated HVAC, elevators and roof at end of life, and a fundamental design that is not accessible to those with disabilities (the elevator opens onto a descending staircase, for example).

The only way even some of these capabilities could be added through a simple renovation is if you were planning to get rid of books. And that is something that I would never support. I’m a techie, but I’m with Vivienne: the books are essential now, and I think they will continue to be essential far into the future. The only way to have both the books and the above capabilities is with a new building.

I’ve heard people say the greenest building is the one already standing. This is clearly not always the case. What if that building is inefficiently climate controlled and it isn’t adequate to a community’s needs? It’s not as though the current building is going to end up en masse in a landfill, as I sometimes hear. Rather it seems they plan to encourage as much reuse of those materials as possible. I would certainly think the bricks and cinder-blocks (most of the construction as far as I can tell) would be extremely reusable.

I hear almost everyone say they love the library system, it’s services, and how it’s run. Why wouldn’t you trust the people who built that system into what it is, when they view a new building as the best way forward? The recently constructed branch libraries are beautiful, green, and built within schedule and budget. Interest rates have never been lower in my lifetime; now is the cheapest time to rebuild.

This city is a university town. Our prosperity is based on education, and on attracting intelligent and creative people here to build businesses and families. We should be doing everything we can to accomplish that, and a downtown library people are excited about visiting is essential. I know I’m excited about it.

There is a serendipitous aspect to stacks that simply will not be duplicated by digital access (though that has its own serendipitous character). One can find books in a related subject that might not be found simply by reading lists of citations. And the satisfaction of sitting in a monastic carrel within the stacks to plow through piles of volumes is hard to convey.

I acknowledge that this nostalgia does not justify any particular configuration for a modern library. But my childhood Carnegie library (complete with many cats and a witchy old-maid resident librarian) was a place that I made many discoveries I would not have made without books on shelves, by categories. It revealed wonders.