Scott, none of your links seem to point anywhere.

Posted by web editor | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 11:44 pm

Thanks, Scott, for showing how stupid some San Diegans can be. Our branch libraries just sit there, mostly closed, doing no good for anyone. But that doesn't faze the downtown library/monstrosity proponents. "Build it and they will come." I love San Diego, but I am embarrassed to live among so many idiots (a distinct minority, to be sure, but nevertheless too many to feel comfortable about). Keep spreading the word, Scott.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 18, 2007 12:05 am

They should be up now

Posted by Vlad | reply to this comment
July 18, 2007 12:07 am

Boy Scott, didn't the Mayor say there was going to be no cut in services? Even more sad is the statistics concerning the shinking staff that directly serve the public at these facilities. Maybe that could be your next article?

Posted by Joe | reply to this comment
July 18, 2007 1:28 am

Scott, would it be possible to find the library hours from say, 20-30 years ago? I would be interested in seeing how that stacks up against today. I would venture that libraries are open about as much today as they were when I was a kid. A library open on a sunday when I was a kid? Who wanted to go to the library on a sunday? I think San Diegans are used to increased services without having to pay for it. Now they are going back down and people are complaining. Are there any stats on library hours from the past? Just curious.

Posted by Andy | reply to this comment
July 18, 2007 9:40 am

It really disturbs me that the city allows some branches to receive private donations to offer better services. If the better-educated and better-connected people in the city feel no pain from inadequate budgets, we progress further towards a two-class society. Poorer neighborhoods get poorly-funded schools, and now libraries that are not open as long as in La Jolla. So much for equal opportunity!

Posted by Carrie | reply to this comment
July 18, 2007 8:27 pm

Hey Carrie, "Let them read books."

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
July 18, 2007 10:18 pm

Carrie, You're right about La Jolla, but Councilman Young shamed the other council people by using his office budget to keep his area libraries open longer hours (District 4 probably has the lowest per capita income in the city). Mr. Young not only made a great politcal move, but I believe he understands the amount of latch-key kids who are baby sat by this public service. Can I explain the lack of support by the other council offices? Sorry, I can't.

Posted by Joe | reply to this comment
July 18, 2007 10:47 pm

It is not true that private donations always go to wealthy communities....the Weingart City Heights Branch Library, for example, benefitted from private donations, I believe. The fact is services will always go toward monied areas because that is the bread and butter of a politicians life. Poor neighborhoods, especially those with transient populations, don't have the money to put in the honey pot and are less likely to vote and much less likely to be vocal in council meetings. Thus some northern communities, La Jolla, and Kensington get more benefits than some of their neighbors. Many people prefer to give money within their own community (makes sense, doesn't it?) rather than donate for a global cause, unless that cause is meaningful to them. The politicians should be more active equalizing things, but district only elections killed the big vision a great city should have.

Posted by Leanne | reply to this comment
July 18, 2007 10:55 pm

Leanne: I agree with your statement regarding district only elections. I think there should be a couple of city wide slots to ensure someone is looking out for the best interests of the entire community, and not just a specific subsection. Why aren't there any city-wide seats on council?

Posted by Jason | reply to this comment
July 19, 2007 4:16 am

Jason: We did have a city-wide seat....it was called the mayor. The public voted out the citywide seat when they voted it 'strong mayor'.

Posted by How soon we do forget... | reply to this comment
July 19, 2007 4:58 am

Leanne, Jason: Finally, someone who offers a glimmer of hope regarding district-wide elections!! For those who do not know, it used to be that city council members were elected first by a district-only primary. The two top vote getters then ran in a general election in which all city voters participated. This did two things: it ensured that someone the voters of the district felt good about had an opportunity to run for the office and, most important, it ensured that the candidates and later council member would have to take into account the interest of all areas of the city and the desires of the residents of all the city -- or otherwise risk being thrown out on his keester. Now, we have nincompoops who only worry about the effects of an issue within their own districts. The rest of the city can go to hell.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 19, 2007 5:39 am

I don't believe the mayor, who does not sit on the City Council, represents the community at large in Council meetings. He sweeps in at the beginning or end of meetings, pronounces, and sweeps back out again. His representatives may hang around to respond to questions, but they are not part of the Council (nor should they be, having not been elected). District only elections have resulted in short-sightedness and territorialism on the Council. It is too bad we are stuck with two bad idea: distrct only elections, and the faux "strong" mayor idea. Neither have produced impressive results. At least not to me. (No one has to worry...I'm only one, poor voter so nothing will change on the basis of my opinion.)

Posted by Leanne | reply to this comment
July 19, 2007 6:04 am

Had there been no district election reform the downtown business community/city developers, chamber of commerce ilk who held even greater sway over city elections and policy than they do now, if possible, might have built the downtown library. We'll never know. We do know that district elections are popular because they force elected officials to protect local neighborhoods whose interests were otherwise being neglected and run roughshod over. Councilmembers elected by district are a counter balance to the otherwise unchecked financial influence of the real estate, development interests. They still elect the Mayor and have tremendous influence on the policies of this city wide elected official. The improvement to the branch library system that were made before retrenchment can be interpreted as a success of district elections. The loss of district elections would be a giant step backwards and return government to even greater back room control by the

Posted by el.tee.dblu | reply to this comment
July 19, 2007 8:01 am

Edgar: Actually, the old system gave a veto to the folks who could afford to fund citywide campaigns (developers, chamber of commerce, hoteliers). The district in the primary could be defeated city wide. Thus it allowed someone the district felt good about winning the primary, as you point out, but allowed folks outside the district with different interests to override the district preference. It is easy to see that someone could lose in the district and win city wide and thus be beholden to a different set of non district constituents. I don't think this is democratic or a good basis for public policy making. Had there been a level playing field this reform would never have been needed or been implemented by a vote of the city wide electorate. The people were fed up with a narrow elite running government and this reform changed the dynamic.

Posted by el.tee.dblu | reply to this comment
July 19, 2007 8:19 am

L.T. D'Blue: for whom do you work. Someone has put you up to this crock of nonsense you are espousing. Sure council members "protect local neighborhoods" as you say because they don't have to worry about the effect of an issue on any sector of San Diego other than their own district, nor do they worry about what the citizens of those other areas think about said issue. When did you ever see Madaffer care about the effect of any particular vote on Point Loma, La Jolla, North Park or Mission Hills? Never. That's when. All he does is espouse disdain for whatever the other sectors think. It isn't much different with the other council buffoons. The movtive: GET ME RE-ELECTED (or, in the case of those being termed out: GET ME ANOTHER CUSHY JOB SOMEWHERE IN THE CITY, COUNTY OR STATE).

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 19, 2007 8:36 am

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.