Ron Granger

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 2:02 p.m.

One big concern is they are asking for too much money, and that this will be a luxurious glass palace, rather than a very functional taxpayer funded facility. They have not been honest or transparent about that. This is not the time to build a glass palace on the backs of taxpayers. They want to spend $334 per square foot. Seattle's gorgeous glass palace library was only $273/sqft in 2004: http://seattletimes.com/news/local/library/stories/seattlesnewlibrary.html FACT: they do not have a plan or budget that is based on specific minimum need, or requirements. They just want a "pie in the sky" amount of $65 million. Read it for yourself on the library "info" site, copied in part below. Generally you must do more pre-planning and have some mock up models before asking for a specific amount on a project like this. The public should know what they are buying, whether austere box, or glass palace. DonBee points out that the cost is 3X more per square foot than the midwest average. From the library "info" site: "The Board is asking the community to first decide if it is willing to invest $65 million. 2. What will the new library look like? The Library Board has not commissioned any specifiplans at this time. .. In 2008, we estimated spending $334 per square foot on a new downtown facility. In the library's experience managing construction projects, that cost per square foot is sufficient to deliver an outstanding facility."

xmo

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 1:39 p.m.

This is Ann Arbor! and what do we want to do? Throw money at a "NEW" Library? Seems to me with the brains and creativeness in the area we could come up with a better idea for a Digital Library than a Brick & Mortar building! The economy stills sucks, so money is short, so let's come up with a less expensive idea for a library system unless of course Mr. Richard Dougherty and all of his friends and followers are going to pay for the new library.

Tanzor

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 1:37 p.m.

"Failure of library bond would be turning point for community" This headline couldn't be any more accurate. Failure of this bond proposal would indicate that people are wakening up the reality that there is not an infinite amount of money for projects that are not necessary. Sure, a new multimillion dollar library would be nice, so would a new Mercedes sitting in my driveway, but I can't afford it. Our current library functions well and does not need to be replaced, there are much higher priorities. Families can't afford food and the cost of shelter, our roads and bridges are in desperate need of repair. Our national debt has exceeded 16,000,000,000,000 dollars. We must stop the madness, I am ashamed of the example we are setting for our young people, look at the legacy we are creating for our children, a lifetime of debt. VOTE NO on the library proposal.

PhillyCheeseSteak

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 1:16 p.m.

DonBee - I share your concerns outlined here, as well as being alarmed at the final price tag - after the financing is accounted for. $65 million borrowed today but what is the real cost when the bonds are paid out? Additionally, will we need another 'new' library before this project is paid for? The last large renovation to this library has lasted about 20 years and the length of this bond, as I understand it, is 30 years.

vivian

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 12:43 p.m.

Apologies if someone's already done what I'm requesting--if so, I haven't seen it. I'd like to see a list of very specific deficiencies of the present building, ranked in order of priority, so that we could identify the features that proponents of the new building consider to be absolute necessities. Then I'd like to see some projected costs for renovating or retrofitting the existing building to correct those deficiencies (and a convincing argument that retrofitting is impossible in any cases where the proponents believe that it is). If the items at the top of the list seem truly necessary to those of us who will pay for them, and if the costs of adapting the present building are reasonably expected to be comparable to the costs of demolishing it and replacing it, the latter might make sense--with the proviso that the design of the new building be scaled back so that it meets those needs but eliminates costly non-essentials. Handicapped-patron access, yes; 400-seat auditorium, no, and so on...I think that many of us are troubled at the prospect of seeing $65 million spent to provide unnecessary desiderata when we're short on funds for basic services. I love our library system, but I strongly suspect that we patrons can manage without a new downtown building until better economic times return. If changes are truly essential, I think they can probably be made at lower cost. Figures, anyone?

towncryer

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 12:43 p.m.

Come on guys, it's more fun to work in a brand new building! That's who this is really for!

DonBee

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 12:20 p.m.

As I have stated in prior threads here: 1) The 1990s library was built with personal computers in mind. I personally know several people who were consulted on that part of the discussion. 2) There are legal (to code) renovation technics that will solve the wiring problems cited 3) The proposed cost per square foot is almost 3 times what the Midwest average price should be based on the largest construction cost database available 4) The idea that the library needs a 400 seat auditorium is absurd 5) The fact that it will further disrupt the businesses in the area after years of disruption by the underground parking is also detrimental to local businesses 6) Tearing down a perfectly good 20 year old structure is environmentally unsound from a sustainability point of view 7) The prior millage for the 1990s version of the library promised that the building would support the community for many decades to come (I have trouble with two = many) 8) There are several other millage proposals on the ballot this time, last time or next time (over an 18-24 month period) all asking for additional funds, and claiming "I only want a little bit and I am independent" without realizing that taxpayers don't have separate wallets for each independent cause. 9) The AADL did not look at a pure renovation option, keeping all of the existing building and redoing the heating, cooling and electrical – they looked first at tearing down at least some of the building, so there is no renovation only option to look at the cost of in doing comparisons. In 2 or 3 years, maybe a yes – right now a "NO"

Bcar

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 11:32 a.m.

...and I WANT a Cadillac CTS-V Wagon too! Oh wait, but I have to pay the mortgage, HIGH property taxes and energy bills too...guess I'll be keeping the Escort because it STILL WORKS and gets the job done. We DO NOT NEED a new library, sure it's a nice to have, but not when this city and country keep on loving deficit spending. VOTE NO!

brimble

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 11:13 a.m.

"The greenest building is the building that's standing now." Absolutely! How can it possibly not be a better solution to make the best use possible of the current building, and then continue to add space, maybe at a 'Downtown North' branch on the north side of the Broadway Bridge, then at an additional permanent branch in the northwest corner of town. Those three elements are possible for far less money, and would offer better real use to more people. Why, then, this expensive demolition solution?

Nosy V

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 7 a.m.

Also, Dick, you mention you've been out of the loop of information for a few weeks, what exactly do you mean? How much do you know about this major infrastructure project? Have you reviewed any of the proposals plans, or have you participated in any need studies? Are we are supposed to hold your opinion on information sciences as institutionally backed in the case of this Downtown demolish and build project?

Nosy V

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 6:36 a.m.

Richard, please provide clarity on library issues. Which of the opposition points do you strongly disagree with and what is your reasoning? -A cost of $65,000,000, which after financing is expected to cost $100,000,000 to $130,000,000 over the span of 30 years is a tax burden too enormous for the taxpayers of 125-square mile Ann Arbor Public School District which includes Pittsfield, Scio, Ann Arbor, Lodi, Webster, Salem and Superior townships, many of whom will never visit the new Downtown branch. -The greenest building is the building already standing. The Ann Arbor District Library is a national leader in library services with a very high satisfaction rating among patrons. There is absolutely no economic reason to terminate a high satisfaction library system that attracts 600,000 visits annually to downtown Ann Arbor. -The absence of a fully operational downtown branch for a minimum of 3 years or possibly more with construction or funding delays will stalls a stream of 1,800,000 visits to downtown during an economic time when the downtown need movement and vibrancy. -There is no environmental reason to tear down a well functioning building rated high in the nation and among patrons and which serves 600,000 visitors annually without little or no disruption. -The project proposal is too vague. How do we calculate the Return on Investment of $130,000,000, of what library services and as compared to what investment. There are mentions of a cafeteria, a media production lab, a 400 seat auditorium, a catering kitchen. -How will these additional services be funded under the existing library budget? Will the library continue building satellite branches that the community desire? Richard, as a library scholar, could you detail the economic plan you envision and the returns you see from such a large taxpayer funded demolition and construction in an economic climate that has high unemployment, underfunded schools, degrading roads and bridges and other fiscal problems.

Jack Campbell

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 6:07 a.m.

Vote NO. How about fixing the roads, hiring more police/firefighters before we decide to abandon a very large 20 year old building.

Stephen Landes

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 4:22 a.m.

Gee, Richard. I guess that means that all the libraries you used to manage at U of M need to be torn down and replaced because a) they are much older than the downtown public library, and b) can't possibly be sufficient for the 21st century. Let's see you tear down the Hatcher library before you tell the rest of us we have to tear down a perfectly good building to build a monument to the AADL board members vanity.

Robert Katz

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 4:22 a.m.

Lets hope this fails and is indeed a turning point. A turning point away from the new courthouse, the green land we need to purchase to make certain we are not invaded and the endless speed bump money.

Ryan Burns

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 3:32 a.m.

What is a library if not a place that anyone in the community can go to acquire knowledge and culture? The ways we can do this are growing. We read books, magazines, newspapers and yes comics. We listen to musical performances. We learn to solder electronics or knit through personal tutelage. Our children learn about the world through language and song and about how to interact as human beings through storytelling and play. And we use the internet and electronic technology in all of these fields. We have a downtown library that, aside from it's inefficiencies and lack of natural light, is designed for one of these media: the book. And books are important and will still have the major place. But we also need spaces more suited to these other aspects of the library's function which, through sheer determination, the staff of the AADL have been doing their best to provide in a building that is not well suited for them. We're talking about a dollar a week here for a typical home, and that's a value you can get back many times over. Whether it's taking out picture books for your kids, learning how to program your first microcontroller, gasping at your first view of Saturn through a telescope you've taken out from the library, or attending the free talk from a speaker that gives you a different perspective on things: AADL provides incredible value in the present and with a new facility it will be even more valuable to us into the future.

Angry Moderate

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 3:06 a.m.

I like how he says "late 20th century" as if that was a long time ago. I would vote no just because I'm offended that this guy thinks we're dumb enough to be fooled by that.

owlnight

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 2:29 a.m.

If the library is that important, from the time doors at the library are closed and the new library are opened does anyone have any clue how long it will take? If some think they can do without a library they don't need it. I vote no.

Ron Granger

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 2:19 a.m.

This pieces makes it sound like the choice is a new library or tearing the existing main branch down. Or, that the sky will fall this year if we do not immediately begin construction of a new library. That isn't the case. Nor would anything stop them from asking again next year, with a new proposal.

Linda Peck

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 1:45 a.m.

I have read comments that refer to information from newspapers and books being available on line and that is the reason the Ann Arbor Library does not store them. That makes sense to me. What does not make sense is the lack of creativity to utilize a large building in a creative way, to use the most space in the most intelligent and conservative way. I see a lot of wasted space in our downtown library. When I walk into it, I walk around in lots of space that could be shelves for books. I just don't get it. Sometimes people seem blinded by their own professions and think the world revolves around them. It is a form of greed. I will vote no on the library and I don't think it will be a huge change for this community when I do that. I hope people involved in making our libraries great will get with the program and learn to use what they have and more importantly respect what they have.

BernieP

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 12:45 a.m.

Dr. Dougherty - Other than to state that every dollar invested in the library brings economic benefits, there is no discussion in your letter to the figures being bandied on the proposal... some say $65million, some say its really $130 million when you figure in long term expense vehicles being used. From what I have read, the opposition is largely due to the exorbitant responsibility being placed on the property owners in this city. Secondarily the argument is that there is not enough transparency into the planning or that the planning hasn't matured enough yet to put before the voters. I ask, at what figure would even you, a staunch proponent of libraries, consider to be too high to place on the backs of the property tax payers in this city? I ask, do you feel the planning in place is sufficient to even establish the ballpark the expected cost? Personally, I use the downtown library. I find its misuse appalling each time I visit. I would support improvements in services at the libraries in terms of improved lending practices... like MEL availability for media such as CDs, DVDs, etc. I don't support tearing down a "good" building, to make work in making a new building that may not outlive the life of its financing. As many have stated, this isn't a conservation of resources approach, its a growth at any cost approach. Good day sir.

Donald Harrison

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 12:42 a.m.

I agree with Mr. Dougherty's view and believe it echoes the perspective of many in this community. The AADL's one of the most respected civic & cultural organizations in our area. They provide tremendous services, programming and engagement to diverse segments of our community. Their leadership has delivered a high degree of value for our tax dollars and they have a strong track record of fiscal responsibility. But this bond proposal is about the main library downtown, a facility that's no longer adequate to properly meet the needs of our community. Five years ago the AADL had the facility thoroughly assessed and detailed its many fundamental deficiencies and capacity limitations (https://ournewlibrary.com/current). They recognized, as pointed our by Mr. Dougherty, the current building is not a good framework and foundation for yet another major renovation effort. An investment in the rebuilding of the downtown library would fix the current facility's many deficiencies, but just as importantly, would provide our community with the opportunity to create the great main library it needs and deserves. I believe a "yes" vote is a good investment of our tax dollars and for the future of our community.

Klayton

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 12:33 a.m.

Most people use digital libraries and reserve books online (and download online). Why don't we just purchase a computer for each family/person and have city-wide WiFi...it might be cheaper than the 65 mil? This would also give Internet access to lower income families.

Emily Puckett Rodgers

Fri, Oct 12, 2012 : 12:24 a.m.

I appreciate Dr. Dougherty's thoughtful response to this issue. Citizens of Ann Arbor, we are very lucky to have this option of investing in the future of our community. Across the country, public libraries are being shut down due to lack of funds. Detroit just shut down four branches (http://www.publiclibraries.com/blog/four-detroit-public-libraries-closing-permanently-today/). We have a public service building that is hemorrhaging our tax dollars through inefficiencies. In order to KEEP our world class library, sometimes we need to invest in it. I'm voting YES.

Unusual Suspect

Thu, Oct 11, 2012 : 11:45 p.m.

There are some very nice libraries in this country that are housed in buildings more than 100 years old.

mczacharias

Thu, Oct 11, 2012 : 11:43 p.m.

- existing library: 110,000 square feet of embodied energy - $65 million library: disposal of 110,000 square feet of embodied energy Please just vote NO.

a2grateful

Thu, Oct 11, 2012 : 11:32 p.m.

The "turning point" could be for the better if this fails. The public cash cow of the 1950s and 1960s has long passed. Let's move forward to the digital age without so much brick and mortar. Conserve and be smart with what we already have. Let's not be so wasteful toward our precious current and future resources! Not maintaining and utilizing our current space to its greatest potential is characteristic of great arrogance and stupidity.

Ross

Thu, Oct 11, 2012 : 11:19 p.m.

I am opposed to the bond issue as we have better things to spend our precious tax revenue on to sustain this town, but people, please stop citing the graffiti lesson program during art fair as a fundamental reason why we shouldn't support our libraries. That was one, misguided idea, and does not define the great work our local library system does. Plus, it probably just produced more nice pieces of art during it's own sessions that it produced illegal graffiti around town. That is not the issue, Ann Arbor has a very mild graffiti problem. Not dire, by any means. The real issue is that our spending priorities are very out of balance. We have many horrible roads, aging water and sewer systems, and are continuously cutting police and fire protection as well as our school and park system operating budgets. Yes, a quality library system should be paramount in any respected, civilized society. But we already have that now. Our libraries are great! We just built some brand new ones to expand the system! The current main library is not even that old! And when I walk in there, I am always impressed with the layout and services provided. Sorry that to a minority crowd of library enthusiasts, it seems "obsolete", but we put a lot of time, energy, money, and natural resources into the existing building, and we simply have to live with it a while longer, especially right now when our budget has no room for this crazy idea. I know that a new main library would be funded by this new bond/millage. But we simply need to prioritize elsewhere right now, and I think that I share the majority view. We'll see in November though, eh? Most people in this town do not even use the libraries. That might seem sad, but it's true. I know I certainly don't have time to go down there and lounge around. But we all use the roads, water/sewer, schools, police and fire protection. Let's keep those solvent FIRST.

a2citizen

Thu, Oct 11, 2012 : 10:54 p.m.

"...We in Ann Arbor are blessed to enjoy the services of a nationally recognized library. ..." We are also blessed to enjoy the services of the graffiti artists the library trains. Are the artists also "nationally" recognized?

Macabre Sunset

Thu, Oct 11, 2012 : 10:52 p.m.

Last year, I called the library to ask where I could view a relatively recent copy of The New York Times, since it apparently had an article I would be very interested in reading. I was told they don't even archive newspapers any more. The clerk wanted to be helpful, but it was clear she didn't know much about information storage, and couldn't even offer suggestions. I have no idea what a $65 million library does that our existing library cannot, but it seems we're going backward rather than forward. Perhaps, instead of figuring out ways to spend more taxpayer money, these people should work on restoring what libraries used to provide in a smaller space. Remember when you could call the library and ask anything? They used to take pride in their work.

Hot Sam

Thu, Oct 11, 2012 : 10:51 p.m.

Upon reading in another article that the library sponsors a "teen graffiti art" contest, my vote was lost...

drewk

Thu, Oct 11, 2012 : 10:47 p.m.

I just don't understand architecturally obsolete for a library. What's up with that?

Alpha Alpha

Thu, Oct 11, 2012 : 10:34 p.m.

Mr. Dougherty, Where are your 'several recent ROI studies'? Who paid for them?

A2Onward

Thu, Oct 11, 2012 : 10:32 p.m.

"As a former Director of Libraries at the University, president of the American Library Association, and a member of the Ann Arbor District Library's board for almost five years..." Yeah, but what do you know about libraries?