I’m no expert, but I did my own assessment, which includes votes Dave didn’t assess.
Live voters on 11/6, in the city of ann arbor, rejected the library bond 52% to 48%.
Absentee voters in the city of Ann Arbor, and all voters in the townships (as separate categories but with the same result) rejected the library bond 59% to 41%.

A significant percentage of voters did not vote on the library bond. I want to compare that “dropoff” to the art millage and park renewal but haven’t done so yet. Within the city of Ann Arbor, 12% of those who cast ballots did not vote on the library bond. District wide the dropoff was 11%. However even if all of those people had voted “yes”, the bond would have passed by only a few votes.

One of the keys to Bridget McCormack’s success running for the MI Supreme Court was her focus throughout the campaign, and especially on 11/6, on showing voters how to vote for her, and that checking the Dem. box would not do it.

Donna (#5), I agree. I tried to pop in to the Pittsfield branch library late morning yesterday, and could not find parking. This was during the middle of the day on a weekday! So although Steve (#7) does not approve of speculating, here goes: I believe that the Pittsfield branch was overflowing with neighborhood folks going to their neighborhood library, and had the proposal been to fund *their* library, they would have wholeheartedly supported it.

In my opinion, the AADL (unintentionally?) doomed the downtown library by investing in attractive full-service branches. Anyone who remembers the former Northeast branch, and compares it to the new Traverwood branch knows that NE was no destination, whereas Traverwood is a welcoming community resource. Despite what we’d like to believe, Ann Arbor may not be big enough to support the full-services branches as well as a downtown temple. The other important dynamics are the transition to digital information, and the suburbanization of Ann Arbor.

In the central city there are far more renters than elsewhere. Renters don’t pay property tax directly, while property owners do. So when the renters went to the polls they saw only the benefits (art and a new library). They didn’t see the costs as applying to them. So they voted more heavily in favor of these two proposals.

My analysis is far from perfect. There are precincts that don’t fit. But the relationship between high renter percentage and high vote percentage is significant.

Scio Township, Precinct 2 where 75% voted for the library bond out of a total of 4 voters. This is a small area north of Jackson and west of Zeeb in AADL area.

Pittsfield Township, Precinct 2 where 51.78 voted for the library bond out of a total of 1149 voters. Mostly middle class single-family homes in the area bounded by US 23, Washtenaw, Golfside, and Packard.

Pittsfield Township, Precinct 4 where 57.08 voted for the library bond out of a total of 1109 voters. Many apartment complexes, including Glencoe Hills, are in the area bounded by US 23, Washtenaw, Golfside, and Clark.

Does anyone have an explanation for the positive vote in Pittsfield, Precinct 2?

Already noted in the caption to Map 8. Outside Ann Arbor, the library bond proposal had 41.2% yes votes. Inside the city yes votes were 46.4%.