Downtown Library Proposal/The other details and numbers to call

[Doug Tooley]

Hi all-

Following is a forward from Kent Kammerer regarding the Seattle Library
Bond Issue. Kent has been a neighborhood activist in the City for 30
years and is, in an arena filled with burnout, probably the most senior
and experienced neighborhood activist in the City.  He hosts a monthly
breakfast attended by quite a diverse group of active voices in this City
and has developed for himself a singular voice that is respected by both
the City's strongest critics and the City itself.

Although it might be tempting for a growth management activist to jump on
board the Library band wagon for many of the same reasons as the Seattle
Commons, or for a computer activist to support the bond because of its
technology elements.  I would urge you to consider Kent's points and ask
yourself just what do we need to do to do things **right** in Seattle.

What follows is a summary of a 20 page document, which reads as a better
analysis of the issue than any consultant or bureaucratic report I've read
in quite a while.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:24:18 -0800
From: Kent Kammerer <kammerer at aa.net>
Subject: Library

Dear Neighbor,

	I have just completed a nearly two month involvement as a member
of the city library advisory committee.  Our mission was to advise the
Library Board on the adequacy of the facilities plan for the construction
of a new downtown library and remodeling of branch libraries.  Also
included was a technology plan.  The Library Board which operates
independently of the City of Seattle, must still obtain City Council
approval, to place a bond issue on the ballot.  Though a ballot amount has
not been determined, the estimated cost of the downtown library is
approximately $168 million. 
	The advisory committee, accepted the downtown library plan, except
for the amount of parking.  They, however, questioned the plans' over-all
balance between downtown and branch libraries. They also raised issue with
the proposal for placing the bond issue on the fall "97 ballot. 
	I filed a personal report to the board which took an even stronger
view of how branch libraries are being shortchanged in relation to the
central library.  When it appeared the Federal Government was ready to
select the current library site for a new building, there was pressure to
plan a new central library.  Now that the federal government has indicated
they are looking at other sites, the need for abandoning the current
central library and constructing a new one, has been severely weakened. 
	The timing of a library bond issue is of critical importance. 
Some have suggested that we may get only one chance in a generation, to
pass a library bond issue. Having the best possible plan and the
opportunity for our neighborhood planning process to participate in the
planning of branch libraries, is essential.  In addition, it seems
sensible for us to have our new city librarian hired and be given an
opportunity to be involved in the planning of the system they are expected
to manage.  A real public planning process, and our public needing to feel
ownership of a plan, simply cannot be done well between now, and the fall
97 ballot. 
	I am a library advocate, and will support at some later date a
library facilities plan that serves all of Seattle's residents,
particularly its young people.  I don't feel the existing library
facilities plan does that.  Based on actual usage (not visitors),
population served, books checked out, and children served, branches are
the backbone of the system.  They do most of the work.  N.E. branch, in
one week, checks out nearly half as many books as the central library, in
a fraction of the space.  In the proposed plan all of our branches
together, would receive 6 times less money than a new showcase central
library. 
	Under the current management style, a central library is needed to
support the branch system, though some libraries, like the King County
System, do not use a large central library to manage it's branches.  It is
my personal view that a new central library should serve library users and
not be build as a administrative center, urban renewal project, tourist
attraction to augment the downtown core, or as a monument to Seattle's
literacy.  We already buy and read more books than any city of comparable
size in the US.  We must build libraries to serve our educational needs
and our children, not service the egos of those who want something to brag
about. 
	You may, or may not, take my position on the size or grandeur of a
downtown central library. But I hope you will carry the message to the
City Council and library board, that the branch plans are functionally
inadequate for the population they serve.  Public involvement and
ownership is essential in the planning process so that we can pass a bond
issue. 
	There are branch libraries in this city where school age children
must wait to get a seat so they can do their homework or use a computer. 
I think they need our help.  We spend three times more money on housing
our criminals than we do on the children who will inherit the bond debt. 
I think we own them more.  Call Today! 

Kent Kammerer  Call if you wish a full report.  784-7217
Library Board  386-4636
City Council 684-8888






* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
END