See part 2 at http://cspgs.blogspot.com/2014/02/joint-school-public-libraries-2.html
Related post at: http://cspgs.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-model-for-library-expansion.html
Related post at: http://cspgs.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-model-for-library-expansion.html
The suggestion of the sale of part of the Civic Center (where the public library and city hall are) was a source of dismay so Deborah Marks and I worked to present alternatives.
One of the alternatives we have suggested is the sharing ("joint use") of public school libraries with the Sunnyvale City Library. Costs would be shared so the schools would have lower costs and the libraries would get much more use by the public (mostly kids). Here is a presentation before the Sunnyvale City Council on March 5th, 2013 on some of the aspects of joint use of public school libraries with the city library (slight pause before I start talking - sorry). It is also available on YouTube at:
(Slides used are shown below)
Links to references to the proposal to sale/lease the civic center and related issues are collected here:
http://cspgs.blogspot.com/2012/10/links-to-information-on-salelease-of.html
Slide 1 continued an argument that the amount of money involved is roughly that of the entire city budget and should not be taken with a simple city council vote. The voters of the city should decide such a momentous issue. Since only 50%+1 need to approve a non-tax issue, propositiopn 13 doesn't come into it. The $100M library bond proposal that got 59% of the vote was only for a library, not selling off major parts of the civic center.
Slide 2 was excerpted from the city document showing the proposed sale of various parts of the Civic Center showing what would be sold and retained.
http://cspgs.blogspot.com/2012/10/links-to-information-on-salelease-of.html
Slide 1 continued an argument that the amount of money involved is roughly that of the entire city budget and should not be taken with a simple city council vote. The voters of the city should decide such a momentous issue. Since only 50%+1 need to approve a non-tax issue, propositiopn 13 doesn't come into it. The $100M library bond proposal that got 59% of the vote was only for a library, not selling off major parts of the civic center.
Slide two showed the area within 2 miles of the current library (red) and two proposed libraries. The existing library would be demolished.
Slide 4 showed the proposal for joint use libraries with a smaller radius of "use area" since the thought is that it would be more for kids than adults who would be more likely to walk to the library.
Shared use libraries seem like a good idea. Libraries should be walkable, neighborhood institutions.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what do the various schools think of this? They seem to be getting more paranoid about allowing anyone on their campuses these days. If the libraries are only open outside of school hours, you cut off the community from daytime access. (This is when libraries are frequently accessed by young children and their parents.)
Selling (or even leasing) the civic center land facing El Camino also seems like a good idea. This is prime commercial real estate that is occupied by sprawling, way-past-their-prime city buildings. It would be great to get developers to spruce up the area of El Camino and give the city a quick hit of revenue and an ongoing revenue stream. As part of it, the city offices could also be replaced with a more dense building, opening up more open space for park land.
Jeremy's argument can and should be made in the context of a binding city-wide vote on the issue so that all sides can air their views and the majority can decide. We elect our representatives to make sure public safety is provided, streets are paved, and various other day-to-day things. Selling off a major piece of public land like this is far, FAR outside the day-to-day work of a city council.
ReplyDeleteIf the city council sells off public land like this it will set a terrible precedent. Any time the city runs a little short of cash for salaries, or new amenities for city staff, it will have a precedent for selling off some more real estate without any chance for voters to have a say short of a law suit.
In addition, this project, the sale of land and building of new public buildings was proposed as a non-competitive bid so that the purchaser/builder will take care of the entire project. It is hard to see how this would be fair to the citizens who expect to get the best value for their money. It woudl also smeell of secial favors to large campaign contributors.
Oops! previous should read "special favors"
ReplyDelete