Dear Council Members,
I wanted to share my thoughts on the proposed new main library, which I oppose for the following reasons:
* Our current library seems more than adequate. In fact, I distinctly remember how pleasantly surprised I was with the facility
when I first moved to MP 2 years ago. This seems to be a matter of perspective – this library compares very favorably to those
I frequented in NM, TX, and NYC, but if the baseline is the new Palo Alto library I can see where some are coming from. A more
reasonable and cost-effective approach (after addressing Belle Haven) would be to remodel and reconfigure the current space to
create more supply of the oversubscribed services.
* While exploring taking Mr. Arrillaga’s very generous offer is the prudent thing to do, even a heavily discounted new main
library potentially takes resources from more pressing needs such as local infrastructure, affordable housing stock, childcare
services etc. Moving forward feels like buying something we don’t need just because it is on sale.
* The options being presented to the council were developed from a seemingly faulty process. Every report I’ve seen either relied
on a skewed sample or problematic question framing. The needs assessment that has been used as an input and justification for
each site mockup is particularly flimsy.
With that said, my sense is that you will decide to move forward in some manner on May 22nd (and that is certainly
understandable). In that case I have the following suggestions:
* Take a close look at the site alternatives and the notes from the siting meetings. Staff seems to be recommending the Laurel
site primarily to avoid short-term cost and disruption. The case for the Alma site seems stronger if you take a long-term view
(preserve trees and current park character, less traffic on Laurel, no need to make up a compelling use for the legacy site)
and aligns with the bulk of community feedback.
* Put the issue before voters. Perhaps this is going to happen anyway (I’ve heard conflicting views on whether a bond measure is
a given) but a vote would be clearest way to get explicit community support (or put the issue to rest). I suspect a bond
measure would fail based on the data points we have so far, but I would be happy to be wrong if there is clear support from the
community.
* For future projects task a neutral 3rdparty with developing needs studies and characterizing public input (when feasible).
Thanks for considering my views and for your continued service.
Casey Estes
297 Waverley, MP
979-204-8545
--
Casey Estes
979-204-8545
