Comments on: Ann Arbor Library Bond Proposal Defeated

By: JK

JK — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:18:08 +0000

Sorry that should say “browse media returned to the machine.” Hyperactive autocorrection.

By: JK

JK — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:16:30 +0000

Kindles and iPads are not short term. The next digital revolution that replaces these devices will only encompass their function and more. Many public libraries already offer digital content through Amazon, why doesn’t our five star library offer it?

Seeing the Redbox digital media vending machine at the local CVS reminded me that for some portion of Library use, something similar could serve books, DVDs, and CDs by request and people could browsecredit returned to the machine until it was picked up or deemed a highly popular item. A public computer kiosk plus such a machine could serve as a mini branch in more remote areas with minimal staffing, cost, and infrastructure. It’s a different more decentralized model that better fits granting access to outlying communities.

By: Eric Boyd

Eric Boyd — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 22:18:33 +0000

I ended up voting for the millage, but with deep reservations. I suspect some of my concerns were held by others. I would really, really like to see the library board address these issues as they make plans going forward.

1) NO PLAN
I get that the board didn’t want to spend money on a plan without a funding source, but the voters didn’t really want to commit money without a plan.

2) CLOSING THE LIBRARY
I get that there are problems with the land ownership, but the library board really didn’t seem to put much effort into working with AAPS to figure out how to keep the library open while building a new building. One would think some sort of land swap between the library, city, and school district could have been figured out that didn’t involve closing down the library while 2 empty parking lots sit literally across the street. Some common sense would go a long way here.

3) ROLE OF LIBRARIES
I get the importance of libraries as a great equalizer in our society. I get the fact that usage is (currently) increasing. But, I can’t tell if that’s a short-term blip as we move to a Kindle-only world or a long-term increasing need. In other words, if we’re going to have to pay for the building for 30 years, where’s the analysis of the role of the library (as a physical building) for 30 years. We can all see that physical bookstores are vanishing and that marginal cost of copying an electronic document is $0. How do libraries fit in that changing environment?

By: Fred Zimmerman

Fred Zimmerman — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 22:10:41 +0000

Sheila is spot on. I am an ardent LOLer but not sold that it is the library that should provide large meeting space and media production services for downtown.

By: sheila rice

sheila rice — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:45:16 +0000

Had the library board asked for a modest (say, .25mil) sinking bond/infrastructure millage for a period of ten years, it would have won in a heartbeat. Many people who voted NO agree that there are library infrastructure improvements that are needed.

The bond issue as proposed, however, morphed into a referendum for concepts that are not popular–400 seat auditorium, media production facilities, child play area, i.e. ‘community center’ elements. More traditional library programs are highly valued still.

Hopefully, this rejection will give the library board pause about how to proceed next. Many NO voters like myself “LOL – Love Our Library”