Can’t We Just have a Polite, Public Conversation?

The City’s Pulse is my weekly opinion column in this paper.  My goal is to ask questions and present information on issues of importance in our community in order to foster public discussion. For too many years, people asking questions in this town have been shut down, and it’s time for that kind of intimidation to stop.

I’m a regular person and have lived in this community for over 20 years. If I have questions about something in the city, then there’s a good chance other people have similar questions too. In fact many of them have asked me such questions about the new library. My column last week brought up several points about the library and asked questions that are on people’s minds.

Those of you on the Library Foundation obviously did not agree. The Guest Editorial you wrote on 7/25 would have been a great opportunity to give your point of view and the information you wanted to share that was different from mine. That’s the give and take of public conversation.  But instead you chose to go on the attack, calling childish names, comparing my column to animal excrement and insulting both my intentions and my volunteer service to the city. That was unfortunate. It shows people that things have not changed; the intimidation goes on.

Let me refresh everyone’s memory on key points of this library deal:

--Before 2001, the library board, including City Council members Dixie Reid and Ron Edinger, voted unanimously to keep the library at the Harrison Avenue location and fix it up. The cost estimate of just over $1 million dollars was a concern.

-- John Stone wanted the library in Riverstone and offered a land deal in 1999.

--The Parks and Rec. Commission advised against the library at the McEuen location.  Two other local developer groups wrote letters disagreeing with the now current site as well. Consultants recommended the library be located outside of downtown.

--  The price paid for the current library site was $1.15 million dollars, even though the county appraisal on the land was $634,000.

--In August of 2001, a Library Foundation leader testified before city council that “We will build the city a state-of-the-art, beautiful building at no cost to the taxpayers.”  No cost to the taxpayers: That was the first promise.

--LCDC, our urban renewal agency, stepped in and agreed to use tax dollars for half the $1.15 million dollar price for the new land. There was no opportunity for public comment.  Councilwoman and LCDC member Deanna Goodlander said at the time: ''I don't think it was our intent to keep people out of the process," she said. ''We just didn't want to mess up the deal." (Spokesman Review, 4/24/01)

--The same Spokesman Review article sited concerns about the downtown location for the library: “ The problem is the agency never asked the public, city Councilman Ron Edinger said. Edinger pointed out that the city had promised to hold a public hearing before going forward with any part of a master plan …” But there was no public hearing.  ''If you took a vote of the people, I'd say a majority don't want (the library) downtown," Edinger said …”

--The Library Foundation had trouble raising donations.  So, in January 2005 the city agreed to float a $3 million dollar public bond. The library bond campaign was designed by then paid consultant and now city councilman Mike Kennedy.  The campaign’s big promise was that if the bond passed the taxpayers would never be asked for more money to complete the library.  That was the second promise. The bond was very narrowly approved by the voters.

--The May 16, 2006 city council meeting minutes show: "Councilman Edinger noted that the Library Foundation has stated that they have raised $3,000,000 for the Library, yet the report states only $2,000,000. Ruth Pratt explained $1,000,000 difference was used for the Foundation's expenses."

--In 2006 the city council broke the second promise and gave $300,000 to start construction rather than scale back the plans.  More money was given and now the total is $600,000 over and above the original bond.  An additional $100,000 is needed right now for construction overages and the mayor says we’ll probably have to pay an extra $1million because the old library may not sell.

So, as you can see, there has been a colorful history to this library project; many changes with very little real public information. That is why concerned citizens have questions. And that’s why my opinion column in this paper last week, 7/19, was on the library topic. I love libraries, but I want responsible, transparent, public use of taxpayer money.  And I hope we can have polite, public conversations about matters of importance to us all.

Mary Souza
The City’s Pulse