Our Library System Is In Danger of Closing: We Must Pass Measure "N" Palo Alto Issues, posted by love our libraries, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2008 at 5:12 pm
There are really only a few opponents to Measure N; they come to these forums and make it seem as if they are many in number.
It's well known that many opponents to Measure N want to close our library system.
PLease vote Yes on Measure N, to keep our public libraries open!
Posted by andy, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2008 at 6:34 pm
The Palo Alto libraries will close if N doesn't pass? What nonsense. With over $5 million allocated yearly to the system, there is plenty of money to keep one or two open. Recently several million was poured into the College Terrace library. With minimum maintenance it wouldn't close for many years. The art of scare tactics is not dead.
Posted by Not this N, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2008 at 6:52 pm
"We will lose our branches," "Libraries will close"
Says who? Cite just ONE reliable source. This is a bunch of nonsense that was started by some overzealous Yes on N supporter. More zealots jumped on the rumor mill, knowing it was false but also knowing that there are gullible people out there who don't think. The sky is not falling. The libraries are not closing.
Posted by NO on N, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2008 at 6:59 pm
"Did you know?
1. Palo Alto spends twice as much as other local libraries in a survey by the city auditor.
Palo Alto library budget at $97.01 per capita already far exceeds those of our neighboring cities. The closest is Menlo Park at $61.68 with Sunnyvale only needing to spend $49.97 per capita to offer a superior service.
2. Palo Alto libraries require nearly twice as many staff per 1000 card holders as other local libraries in a survey by the city auditor.
Palo Alto library system needs 0.95 full time employees (FTE) per 1000 card holders. The maximum required by our neighboring cities is 0.59 by Santa Clara with the lowest being Mountain View at 0.55. All neighboring cities require less than 0.60 FTEs per 1000 card holders. Since the audit, the number of Palo Alto libraries employees has increased from 104 to 109.
3. Your cost will be far higher than the $139 per household per year that Beter Libraries for Palo Alto site quotes.
The better libraries for Palo Alto site continues to say that $139 per homeowner as a reasonable average annual cost estimate. This is *not* a parcel tax and the actual cost of the bond is $28.74 per $100,000 of assessed value. There may be a lot of people who will be paying only $20 a year but there will be also be an awful lot of people paying over $400 a year to make up for that.
4. Pro-bond council members wanted to use to city's contingency fund to futher increase the library budget.
Even though Palo Alto requires far more employees and has a far higher budget than those of other local libraries, pro-bond Councilman Greg Schmid wanted to dip into the council's $175,000 contingency fund for general support for libraries. He had to be reminded that the contingency fund is usually needed for unexpected projects or needs that come up during the year.
5. The 2008 bond plan is the result of a special interest group pushing its own objectives.
When the last branch library closed, the Friends of Palo Alto libraries (FOPAL) threatened, in an open letter to councli, to reduce funding to offset any saving made by the closure. This is at odds with the most recent survey showing 58% of Palo Altans agreed that focusing our resources on one or two full-service libraries instead of spending money to upgrade 5 different libraries was a convincing argument. FOPAL failed in its attempt to force the branch to remain open. In a recent PA Weekly article Senior Staff Writer Dan Kazac stated, incorrectly, that Palo Alto had a decades old 5-branch library policy completely forgetting that Palo Alto had only recently closed a branch without any issues.
6. If the bond passes the library budget and annual costs will only further increase.
Diane Jennings stated she would examine staffing but said it would be challenging to staff a larger facility for additional hours with the same number of people."
Posted by sheesh!, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2008 at 7:13 pm
The average annual cost of the bond for a Palo Alto homeowner will be $139, which means that the net annual cost for the majority of taxpayers who get an income tax deduction is less than $100. That's less than a "Latte" a week - a small investment with a big return.
Posted by ohlonemom, a member of the Ohlone School community, on Sep 30, 2008 at 7:18 pm
We do not need 5 branches
We need 2, a north and a south or a super library with 21 century features, not to difficult in this area you would imagine.
I would advise any one even thinking about this issue to visit a branch and see who uses the branch and what they check out.
You will see too many indigents,many sleeping, too many kids and adults playing games or watching porno and many, many people checking out hollywood dvds
Libraries are for research and knowledge, not child care, entertainment and porno!
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Sheesh
You may say less than a latte a week. Many people can't afford to indulge in a latte a week, particularly if they have kids. Do you know how much PIE expects for each PAUSD student?
It all adds up. The old proverb, look after the pennies and the pounds take care of themselves, is worth remembering. Palo Altans do not have bottomless pockets. Most families have to choose between one good cause and another, we can't do it all.
Don't force families to have to choose between the library Bond and say PIE, because that is what it means.
Posted by No to Bush style tactics, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2008 at 7:40 pm
This kind of threat is Bush style fear mongering... Akin to the urgency of going to war in Iraq.
Say no to this kind of tactic.
FYI, there was another flawed library bond measure on the ballot a number of years ago. It was voted down (rightly so) and the libraries survived just fine, thank you.
Posted by No to Bush style tactics, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2008 at 7:42 pm
BTW, I can't afford a latte a week. I don't buy lattes. Maybe those who think buying a latte a week is not big deal should mount a private financing effort of the libraries, together with their latte buying friends.
Posted by A Shame, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Editors, you really should delete this thread. It represents reprehensible manipulation of your Forums. Do you really think it is appropriate to allow this kind of fear mongering, multiple posting, and just plain lies?
Posted by library facts, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2008 at 9:53 pm
"Did you know?
1. Palo Alto library staff is 2.5 times more efficient than neighboring libraries, based on staff cost and cumulative hours open?
2. Your cost will be less than the $139 per household per year that Beter Libraries for Palo Alto site quotes.
3. City Council members decided on a bond only after several polls and surveys said that Palo Altans wanted it.
4. PAUSD's value is greatly increased by our public library.
5) Unlike neighboring cities, most of our students can walk or bike to a library after school.
When the last branch library closed, the Friends of Palo Alto libraries (FOPAL) threatened, in an open letter to councli, to reduce funding to offset any saving made by the closure. This is at odds with the most recent survey showing 58% of Palo Altans agreed that focusing our res
6. If the bond passes the library budget and annual costs will DECREASE due to the implementation of labor-saving technology.
7. If Measure N fails, our public library stands a good chance of being closed. This includes Children's Library.
Posted by Seniors for Measure N, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Many times, as I saunter over to the Downtown library, I'm so grateful for all the senior programs that our library has created for us seniors. I am on a fixed income and the other day I ran some numbers. I concluded that all the newspapers and other things that I read would cost me a lot more than the little bit the new library bond is asking for. I also have been mentoring some kids at the library. I'm voting yes on Measure N.
Posted by Kids love OUR libraries, a resident of the Greater Miranda neighborhood, on Sep 30, 2008 at 10:31 pm
These Measure N opponents seem to forget that children's programming is a large part of library service. How can anyone seriously think that libraries are only for adults?
Posted by JLS student, a member of the JLS Middle School community, on Oct 1, 2008 at 7:47 am
My parents won't let me on the computer at home unless it's for school work. The library is the only place I can access my facebook pages and communicate with my friends. Why shouldn't I hang out there? It's better than trying to access my pages at the Apple store.
Posted by Don't Be Snookered!, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 7:53 am
I have watched for 18 months while one person posts on multiple threads under different identities and claims the sky will fall if the Library Bond is not passed. This is just the latest of probably 20 threads on TownSquare Forums to do so.
Palo Altans prefer thoughtful, not alarmist debate. It is unfortunate, because whatever her motives, I suspect people on this Forum are often turned off by the tone and strident nature of her pro-bond posts. I know I have been.
Maybe this person feels it is an attempt at humour. Maybe they feel that Libraries should be our only priority - misguided, but of course an explanation.
It is kind of like saying that if we didn't vote for Measure A - the recent school bond measure - the entire Palo Alto School District would shut down. In a tough and uncertain economy, where PIE asks for over $1,000 per student, and where we personally pay another $500+ per year for Measure A - asking for another $700 a year for a library (that is what I would pay) is a non-starter for me.
If the City can not tighten its belt and rationalize libraries, I don't feel compelled to support this effort. Maybe someday, someone will come back with a rational proposal. Until then, just say no!
Posted by MTL, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 7:54 am
I really wish I had spoken up when this proposal was being formulated. Can someone in favor of "N" explain why it is fair that the bond measure is based on assessed value of the property? This unjustifiably hurts people that bought their homes recently. Keep in mind that just because your neighbors house is assessed at over a million dollars does not mean they have any more money than you have! Salaries have not kept pace with the increased price in homes. Many people in million dollar homes are stretched to the limit. Mid-town certainly has neighborhoods where 2 fifties tract homes could be assessed quite differently! There are mostly likely cases where one neighbor's house bought in 1997 woulc be assessed at 300k, and their neighbor's same basic house bought in 2006 is a million.
The pro-N literature claims that it will cost the average person less than a "latte a day." Many of us gave up drinking a "latte a day" so we can live in Palo Alto.
Vote NO on N, and come up with a proposal that impacts all residents equally.
Or, vote NO on N and come up with the funding through private fundraising.
Posted by Morris, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 7:54 am
It would be a real shame to find out that this thread, and the numerous other similar postings, were the work of someone on the Palo Alto Library Advisory Commission.
Posted by No on library bond, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 7:56 am
I wouldn't doubt that it is a member of FOPAL. They drove the previous director out of town and I am sure are behind the rigged and biased surveys that claim that we want 5 branches.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 9:50 am
JLS student
You mention that you are not allowed to use the computer at home unless it is for school work. According to my computer, it is 9.48 and your post was 1 hour ago, by the sign off on your thread. This means that you should be in school, in class, not at the library (which is not open this early). You are therefore able to manage to use the internet without getting to the library or using the computer at home.
Therefore, I do not see any reason for you to think you need the library for internet access.
Posted by forum watcher, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 10:13 am
Resident, the timestamps round up after the first hour. So "1 hour ago" is anywhere between 60 minutes and 119 minutes. It's 10:10 on my computer and JLS's sign-off is now 2 hours ago. I'm guessing s/he got on the home computer before going to school. No libraries are open at that time of day.
Then I'm assuming it's not the same troll but probably is.
Posted by No on library bond, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 10:15 am
I think what is clear is that "JLS student" is not really a JLS student, but the person (probably a FOPAL member) who has been posting on all of these threads using multiple identities to lobby for th bond. this person uses the "cumulative hours" and "libraries will be shut down" red herringsto try to scare us into voting for the bond.
Vote no on N. Even Alison Cormack and Bern Beecham admit we do not need 5 libraries.
Posted by jls, a member of the JLS Middle School community, on Oct 1, 2008 at 12:28 pm
someone is posting with my sig. Why? why? I'm "jls" student, not "JLS". My parents let me use the computer at home - they do... so it's really, really weird to see you bite at false poster story and thing he's right. some people here really don't understand how much my friends and I use libraries for study and homework, even on weekends. This is really insulting. what i see here is some people who don't think students should use the library. boy, is that dumb.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 1:12 pm
"library facts" posts: #4 PAUSD's value is greatly increased by our public library. What is the basis of this??
I have to disagree. Our kids used their school libraries, these are pretty good by my assessment (I am a librarian, incidentally).
I doubt many people looked at the public library as an important factor in their home purchase here; PAUSD likely was a significant factor.
There is a place for one or two well-managed public libraries in a city our size and these should serve all ages. The idea that we "require" a bunch of branch libraries is inaccurate.
Posted by Wayne Martin, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 1:38 pm
> PAUSD's value is greatly increased by our public library.
The PAUSD has a 17-branch library system which is capitalized at somewhere around $100M (cost-to-replace). This system has about 240,000 books. The PAUSD also has provided many online resources for its students, which are available to them 7/24/365.
Additionally, Google/Books, the Internet Archive, and many universities and colleges are now digitizing their works--which are available to everyone, including PAUSD students.
Within five years, it is expected that 10M books will be online, and one of these days--the Library of Congress will also be online, as it can be shown that it is about a $1B problem to digitize this national treasury of knowledge.
It is difficult to understand how anyone living in the Silicon Valley can not be aware of these online assets available to everyone--including PAUSD students.
Posted by paly parent, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Wayne - how does the Palo Alto library bring value to PAUSD? All the online resources you mentioned are totally independent from the PA library system.
3) Main and Mitchell Park have basic textbooks for middle and high school student to use
4) That some of our librarians are available to speak and/or tell stories in PAUSD classes
5) That library use has been shown to increase the academic performance of local schools
6) That there are HUNDREDS of programs devoted to children's educational, social , and cultural development through our library - all this supplements what our schools do.
7) That real estate agents regularly tout our branch library system, making the accurate case that our neighborhoods are more walkable because of it.
Posted by Wayne Martin, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 3:41 pm
> All the online resources you mentioned are totally independent
> from the PA library system.
Yes, that is true. And the point being made here is that the PAUSD (whose total-funds budget last year was over $160M) has more than enough taxpayer resources to provide for its students' library needs.
Where are the PAUSD "studies" that indicate that they can not provide adequate library resources (particularly with Google/Books, the Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, and thousands of other online information sources available to them) with the financial resources at their disposal? (It will only be a couple of years before the PAUSD cost-to-educate number will be over $20,000 per student.)
The point being made here is that online resources are replacing paper-based resources at all levels of education. While the PAUSD might be behind other school systems in terms of technology-based education delivery, they are not unaware of it:
However, as the world of books, documents, music and video ultimately all is digitized and is available online, it will be up to the teachers--and parents--to become aware of this fact. All of the classics of English literature are all online these days. All you have to do is "google" this, or that, and see what's at your fingertips. Additionally, Link+ makes up to 8M books available to member libraries. While Mountain View is the closest Link+ member library, the Palo Alto Library claims it will be joining in 2009:
With millions of books online, and 8M available via an online source, just how much can a small, local library, add to an already excellent public school district?
Posted by but seriously, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Is it or is it not the case that sutdents can go to their school libraries before and after school and use computers there? If it is the case, at least in the middle and high schools, I am curious why we need to make computers available at 5 libraries too. Not that it is a bad thing -- my kids love to go to the library -- but I am just wondering why that falls under "need" instead of "want."
Posted by want vs. need, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Seriously,
The whole bond comes under the heading of "want" rather than "need". Even the proponents of the bond have agreed that we don't "need" 5 branches. They claim, falsely according to the latest survey, that Palo Altans "want" 5 branches.
That's what this whole bond is about.
On one side you have a group of people who want to spend $76,000,000 putting lipstick on a pig. They've already spent $1,500,000 in designs and are doing up CT with another $5,000,000 without asking you - funny that, putting CT before Main or Mitchell.
On the other side there are those who want to have the system rationalized into what we actually need and can run at a huge discount compared to our current out-dated system.
Filling it out, you have those that just want to do something/anything because they are frustrated with the state of our libraries. Then you have those that don't want to spend anything regardless of the benefit.
Posted by fact checker, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 3:52 pm
"Google/Books, the Internet Archive, and many universities and colleges are now digitizing their works--which are available to everyone, including PAUSD students."
Martin's claims about technology are so naive that it's hard to know where to start.
Please tell me how many universities make their archives free to outsiders, and further explain how you can guarantee that these "free" resources will remain so as the "cloud" (otherwise known as web 2.0-3.0-4.- etc. develops?
I wonder if Wayne martin has taken the time to look into research about why people vastly prefer the written word?
I wonder if Wayne martin has taken the time to actually count the number of books that are borrowed from high school libraries - not just here, but anywhere. For a numbers man who makes special inside claims to technology, and the future of technology, I see little more than cribbing from Google when it comes to issues like this
I wonder how much Mr. Martin really knows about the variable some call "social habit", and how that variable inter-plays with both technology development and adoption.
Is Mr. Martin going to buy Kindle 10.0 for all the people who want access to these free materials, as they already have, now, in our public library system?
Altogether, it's so, so tiring listening it someone pontificate about technology who doesn't have the least idea about the social life of technology, and how it *doesn't* go in a straight, linear, developmental line.
What we have from Mr. Martin is linear thinking on this issue; that, and cherry-picked statistics that are spattered willy-nilly, our-of-context, to prove his nonsense. Anyone can make outsized claims about technology; it's an easy way to draw people in who want to believe that technology will somehow completely disintermediate institutions that they pay taxes to support.
Mr. Martin has made himself into a public figure by prominently opposing every bond that has come up in Palo Alto during his tenure as a public citizen here, yet the press has never called him on his outsized claims. Why is that?
It's one thing to be a contrarian, but when a contrarian is given voice in a public forum like a newspaper, one would think that fact-checking would be in order.
Public Libraries are FREE, to ALL. I wonder if that will be the case for the cloud, not only in terms of access to simple digitized content, but in terms of access to the technology that access that content.
If we want to keep our community whole, increase its value to all sectors of the demographic (including those few who _don't_ use the library), we will pass Measure N.
I agree with those who say that we need to pass measure N to keep our libraries open. This is about making the whole better than the sum of its parts, instead of stripping away the parts to satisfy weak technology prognostications that don't hold water.
Posted by fact checker, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 4:01 pm
want vs. need. "Even the proponents of the bond have agreed that we don't "need" 5 branches. "
We don't need pools, and gymnasiums, and theatres in our schools, either.
We don't need community centers.
We don't need parks.
We don't need the Lucy Stern Center.
We don't need Foothill Park.
We don't _need_ lots of things, but we choose to support them because over time we've learned that they create instrinsic and other kinds of value that give our community far more than they cost.
I find it revealing that those who raiil against public infrastructure constantly tout themselves as "number crunchers" and "financial watchdogs" - yet when they present their positions, they never measure their claims about "savings" to the community against the loss of public benefits that accrues when unsupported public infrastructure disappears due to failure to fund at the polls. In other words, they're only arguing one side of the balance sheet. And these people want to be taken seriously??
Posted by Anonymous, a member of the Jordan Middle School community, on Oct 1, 2008 at 4:08 pm
To all YES on N -
You must all have an infinite amount of money. Are any of you considering just how expensive life is really about to become once the "rescue" plan is approved? Seems to me that now is not the best time to be spending money we don't have -
Posted by want vs. need, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Fact Checker,
No one said we didn't need libraries. They said we didn't need FIVE libraries.
Please do check your facts but that would be asking too much. You've lost this argument a number of times on the forums over the years and you've just been reduced to trolling. That is very telling.
Posted by Katie, a resident of the Fairmeadow neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 4:24 pm
One measure after another, the super-rich Palo Alten have to pay everything extrally. Otherwise, the libraries, the schools would be closed. Why is palo alto city so poor? Where does the money go? I guess next to be closed is our city goverment.
Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Yes on N: Regarding your #7 - I have never heard a real estate agent tout the PA library branches as a reason to buy into PA. I sure have heard them (and seen written in advertisements) that the excellent PAUSD school system is the reason to "buy here."
Posted by No on library bond, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 1, 2008 at 6:42 pm
There he goes again, this time under the name "keep our libraries open"-claiming thatthe libraries will close if the bond does not pass--no evidence of that--just plain sacre tactics.
Read the text of the bond measure and the arguments for it. take note of whose name is at the bottom (two have been quoted as admitting we do not need 5 branches, one has stated in this forum that no voters have two votes for every yes vote etc). Note that the rebuttal for the argument against the bond is not even a rebuttal--just a regugitation of the "fuzzy math" ($128 per household, cost of a latte for a year etc). Also note that the council has already funded repairs atthe College Terrace branch behind our backs.
this bond is a joke and needs to be defeated. the city council needs to come back with a viable bond for a single main library. they need to satnd up to the bullies that comprise FOPAL and do waht is best for the city.
Posted by R.Patrick Carpenter, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Jun 19, 2009 at 11:22 pm
For those of you that care about libraries! Imperial County, California has closed five of its seven county libraries due to financial stresses in their budget process.
The two libraries that do remain open are staffed by only 1 full time employee and one part time employee respectively. The same can happen to any other community if times get any tougher..
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
