Vote No on Issue 4 (Library) of $25 million

This information comes from the letters in the UA News, April 22

If a school levy fails, people lose jobs, children's education is strained and communities suffer. But the library levy is not one of those. It is an overpriced, ballooned request upon citizens in a challenging economic climate.

This is the third time the library tax has increased since 2001, and should it pass, UA taxpayers will be paying nearly five times what they paid to the library just 8 years ago.

Of the 3 plans presented to the library board, the most expesive was chosen, and added to.

Operating costs are not included in this request. Therefore, we can expect more down the road.

No library employees will lose their jobs if this levy fails.

Over half the UA library patrons live outside the city of UA and do not pay UA property tax.

One letter writer counted 18 chairs in the atrium, 4 in the video area, 3 being used. Saw children using study cubicles for coloring books. [Actually, I applaud the parent for bringing something to keep the children busy, rather than letting them run loose disturbing others.]

A $25 million dollar levy is over the top for unnecessary expansion. Most seats are vacant. There are a dozen DVD copies of the movie Elf. [And 15 copies of anti-Bush books, and every movie Michael Moore ever made.] Proponents arguments are not for literary or educational need, but for more free entertainment.

People are losing their jobs. Why gold plate the library? Does it really need a cafe, a gathering place, fireplaces--after an outcry these perks were removed, but do they think the taxpayers have forgotten? A $25 million levy goes far beyond "improvements" and is empire building.

If issue 4 passes, UA tax payments to the Library will rise from $996,000 in 2001 to almost $4.7 million annually.

Of the proposed 35,000 sq. ft. Tremont (main) expansion more than 1/3, 14,000 sq. ft. is for the library's staff/mechanical storage space, and the entire lower level will be off limits for patrons.

Two of the library's trustees voted against the levy, citing the bad economy.

Critical repairs are needed: the library has $3 million+ on hand for that.

Other details at changeinua.org.

The recent Miller Park (south of Lane Ave.) branch totaled about $1 million--administrators said no public funds would be used, but records show otherwise.

Residents opposed the "cafe" originally proposed; now it's called a vending area.

Advice from a resident: rein in tax increases, budget for necessary maintenance, prioritize services, heed board members Magill and Perera; be accountable to voters.

Why I won't be supporting the Upper Arlington Library levy

The signs are popping up in yards like daffodils. Can you imagine a worse time to ask people to raise their real estate taxes for a non-essential service? This town is getting grayer and grayer; retired people have lost bundles in collapsing retirement accounts. Our city can't figure out what to do with the little taxable property we do have (like Kingsdale) which only leaves our homes. And it approved a terrible housing experiment for Tremont Road which stands empty.

I'm not at all saying that public libraries are non-essential (although they become less so in an internet world). But this increase is definitely not needed. They just came to us. . . when? Three or four years ago so they could build a drive through book drop and then didn't get it the correct height. And although they want us to voluntarily increase our taxes, when we came to them with our concerns (pornographic and gay sex materials in the lobby) they let the gay activists who don't even live here tell us we have no right to decide what the children see because the library gets money from the county. No concerned parent told the library director that there should be no purchased and cataloged gay material in the library collection. No, the parents of UA said don't leave the free circ trashy newspapers and magazines in the lobby. Let the distributors put them in bars and clubs. This was solved by bringing the objectionable material inside, spending money on special height shelving, and leaving the lobby empty. Great use of resources and input, wasn't it?

No, this library board and director don/t listen to the people, don't buy what we want if we're conservatives, but love to pass the collection plate (oops, can't say that--they don't want church groups to meet in library space if they pray). Sorry. I'm saying NO to this one. I'd say YES to the zoo or the MRDD (or whatever the current acceptable term is) or the schools, but this librarian is saying NO to more money for the public library.

Update: I was wrong. I just checked my blog and the last levy was two years ago. All the reasons I listed then, still exist. That blog content went to the local paper but was never published.