voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Lots of (Closed) Libraries

Almost exactly five years ago, former Mayor Dick Murphy and City Councilwoman Donna Frye -- not always the best of friends -- held a joint celebration of sorts at the newly opened Mission Valley Library. Murphy, who was named Politician of the Year in 2004 by Library Journal, and Frye, were joyous about the opening of the new branch in Mission Valley.

And it is a nice place -- worthy of celebration. For a branch library, it's enormous. At 19,000 square feet, the library can hold 70,000 books and any number of events for the community. I've only been there once and I'm no fan of Mission Valley, but this is a jewel within that nauseating neighborhood.

When it's open.

It was supposed to be open a lot.

Murphy and Councilman Jim Madaffer -- the council's library enthusiast -- thought the Mission Valley library should be something special. And Murphy's press people made sure to note how:

This year, it's open 45 hours a week -- not quite "almost always open."

Vladimir "The Force" Kogan, helped me illustrate what this means day by day for potential visitors to the library. Below you'll see each day of the week and how much of those days were open to visitors to the Mission Valley branch in 2002 compared to 2007.

Madaffer and Murphy put together a plan to build a world-class library system in 2002 (and passed it the very same day they approved the notorious 2002 pension benefits/underfunding deal).

The plan is to build several new branch libraries and, of course, the star of Library Fortnight, the $185 million +++ new main library downtown.

In fact, things have been so bad for the local branches that Mayor Jerry Sanders actually was able to proudly trumpet the fact that he wasn't reducing their hours this year.

So let's review: At the same time we're holding at least $80 million in reserve for the new main library downtown (and we know it's going to be more than that) we're "precipitously" reducing the hours at the other branches in the city.

I know, downtown boosters argue that the funds set aside for the new main library are redevelopment monies that can't be used for things like maintenance and operations of the buildings in the city -- especially those outside of downtown. I dealt with this here to some extent, but I'll do it again. The funds must be used for brick-and-mortar construction projects downtown. I agree, but the city's general fund, which can certainly be used to pay for library operations, is drawn down every year to pay for construction and infrastructure downtown. We pay millions, for example, each year to retire the debt we incurred to build the new ballpark (downtown).

The $80 million can be used to pay that debt and other obligations of the city and the money freed up in the general fund can be used to increase library hours and other services.

It's very simple.

"I don't think people realize that we're sacrificing our ongoing quality of life across the city so that downtown can have all these great projects," Frye told me.

Mayor Sanders thinks of it differently -- as an investment in downtown that you just have to hold onto through thick and thin.

Sanders compared it to an IRA to me one day. No way would he cash out his IRA in order to live a little better now, he said.

What do you think? Are we sacrificing now for a safe retirement, or for a yacht that we can hardly afford to staff?

-- SCOTT LEWIS

It's a no brainer....no new downtown library until all other libraries can be maintained, stocked with books and computers and open. Put a downtown library issue on the next election and see if the people of San Diego believe it's a good idea.

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
July 16, 2007 6:15 pm

Mission Valley is also supposed to be a "green" building but has anyone asked the real cost of running the building? Has its greenness really saved any money, or is this just another case of lip service to a trendy cause by the City? The City librarian has backed the expansion of the Kensington Library, noting proudly that it would need NO increased parking because it will serve NO addition public. Why expand it? Because the mayor lives in Kensington and the monied reading room people want a bigger building. What about the chldren of Normal Heights who have no library service? Oh, maybe library books can be distributed from a recreation center. Why would they need more, being poor? If the library system is evolving into art galleries for the wealthy and reading rooms for the privileged few, maybe we don't need additional hours.

Posted by Leanne | reply to this comment
July 16, 2007 8:05 pm

"No way would he cash out his IRA in order to live a little better now, he said." Maybe he could have said "No way would I buy $200,000 worth of petunias when I can barely scrape enough money together to keep the car running." I wouldn't want Sanders running my household and I hate him running my town. I watched Sanders on KPBS recently answer Penner's questions about cutting staff at libraries; he glibly proclaimed that no services have been or ever would be cut. In the same breath, he posited paying for studies on using electronic check-out machines, so that humans wouldn't even be necessary. Of course Penner asked no questions about study costs, operational costs, maintenance contracts, business contracts for Sanders' business buddies, etc. I discussed this with a librarian, and she mentioned that some branches already have check-out machines with lots of problems. Surprise.

Posted by Checked-out | reply to this comment
July 16, 2007 8:40 pm

Way to go Scott. I love the Mission Valley Branch Library, but not when it's closed, Murphy and Madaffer were (and one still is) the Promise Boys. We promise this; we promise that; just give us the money, although we'll spend it our way, not the way we promised. Now we have the current mayor promising no service level cuts. That's easy to do because the next service level down is CLOSED. Thank goodness he didn't start with "Read my Lips" prior to the promise. It's interesting to note that the library system vote occurred the same day as the infamous, blame it on staff, underfunding of the pension system. BTW, is the staff still working for the City?

Posted by Buddy in Mission Valley | reply to this comment
July 16, 2007 9:10 pm

I agree with Norman:No new downtown library until.... The population of San Diego is not centered on downtown. We need neighborhood libraries, just as we need neighborhood schools. Would we build one big school downtown? Of course not. We don't need a monument downtown that we can't afford. A book repository in, say, Kearney Mesa, that could send books to branch libraries on request, and a system that permitted an exchange of books between branches makes much more sense. I read on this website last year that that system works well in the County. Let's make that happen in the City and forget the new Main Library.

Posted by Ed | reply to this comment
July 16, 2007 9:15 pm

We have a nice little branch in the college area. Only open in the afternoons mon, wed, fri, closes early on sat, and isn't open at all on sunday. Why do we need a big new central library that we can't staff properly? Take the money, locate cheap warehouse space in a central location, and deliver books to the branches. With the money saved from not building an edifice to government incompetency, we can better staff the branches.

Posted by Ray | reply to this comment
July 16, 2007 9:19 pm

I agree with Ray, above. Books are commodity, and can be warehoused for distribution to branches THAT ARE OPEN TO SERVE THE PUBLIC. The proposed downtown library is nothing more than a manifestation of the "edifice complex" which seems to strike most politicians. Oh, ahd when the Pads are playing downtown, the proposed library will be functionally closed to anybody trying to get to it. It's a no-brainer: New branch (ala Mission Valley)libraries with a central warehouse.

Posted by Bert G | reply to this comment
July 16, 2007 10:32 pm

It is all about budget choices, and this city makes some strange ones. Trash collection paid from the General Fund for some home owners costs about $60 million a year. How about everyone pays for trash collection and $60 million can go towards police or fire or parks or libraries or potholes or beaches or pools or....

Posted by Tigershark | reply to this comment
July 16, 2007 10:47 pm

"I'm no fan of Mission Valley." What, you're not fond of cramped condos squeezed in amongst shopping malls, traffic jams, biz hubs and car lots in a flood zone? Nothing a WalMart Supercenter couldn't cure, right U-T?

Posted by TY | reply to this comment
July 16, 2007 11:04 pm

This downtown library thing is nothing but a total farce. As I've said before, take $25 million (that's 12.5% of the cost of the new downtown joke) and put it into upgrading the branches -- keeping them open a decent amount of time and keeping them staffed. Take the other $175 million and use it as a downpayment to buy back the financial stability of this grossly mismanaged city. Don't the people who run things in this city have any common sense? It has to be a matter of corruption, a la NTC and Petco. No one can be THAT stupid.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 16, 2007 11:30 pm

Scott, another excellent piece. Thank you! It is outrageous that we're still even talking about Susan Golding's boondoggle downtown library. People go downtown to have dinner, not to go to the library. My family uses our branch library on Governor Drive at least once a week, it's a vibrant place. The other branch libraries I've visited are just as busy. Automated checkout machines can never replace a trained librarian. I'll bet Sanders has never been to his branch library. Libraries are important community resources which should be staffed, open, and available to meet each community's needs. They should never be items on a budget line that are expendable because the developer-bought politicians have sold their souls as have so many decades of their predecessors. We are long past the time when we can afford to bankroll pet projects like a downtown library.

Posted by Julia in UC | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 12:59 am

First, how come there's a tough-looking cigar-smoking book logo for "Library Fortnight?" ( Even developers are not allowed to smoke in our libraries, though maybe we could give John Moores a pass if he'd ante-up for a new one downtown. ) Second, it's a shame that branch library hours are shorter than they used to be and it's a crime that branch library hours vary irregularly from one day to the next and from one neighborhood to another. The latter fact alone diminishes library patronage. How come this is? Third, a reminder: main libraries in the middle of real cities have a grander intellectual, social and artistic purpose than their limited suburban branches. And no central library in the middle of a real city can be equated with a big book warehouse distribution center in a no-man's-land of business parks. That would be Costco.

Posted by Francine Foraday | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 1:04 am

Tigershark is obviously another government welfare queen...you can always tell them, they want to raise every tax under the sun and then funnel all the cash into the police and fire fighter pensions funds......see what Tigershark said? """lets raise trash fees""" so we can PAY PD and FD MORE money.....listen Tigerguppie we are NOT raising taxes so you and your croonies can retire at age 45 and live the high life.....if you clowsn were put into Social Securtiy like the rest fo America w would have boat loads of cash for library hours, beaches, potholes, you name it.....

Posted by Billy! Bob!! Henry!!! | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 1:09 am

Scott, You may want to look at Riverside County and how they have partnered with the private sector (http://www.lssi.com/) to increase service and decrease costs.

Posted by CMR | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 1:36 am

Branch libraries are great for many things, but they are not great for resarch. They cannot provide a comprehensive set of materials all at once the way a main library with adequate stacks could. If I really need to research something I drive to the main library. Until we get our new main library I recommend the on-line catalog; it lets me locate books at all branches and have them delivered to my local branch. For more urgent needs I must now drive to the other branches. (I never would have had the pleasure of visiting the City Heights Branch without the urgent need for a book there.) San Diego needs an adequate main library in addition to its branch libraries. They serve different purposes.

Posted by Gordon in Clairemont | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 1:45 am

BBH, such hostility, you really should see someone about that. For the record, I am not a government employee or retiree. Self employed and hold down two jobs. But I believe people should pay for services received, and not be trash welfare queens, to use your words. And I didn't say anything about paying police or fire more, but if we want more police and fire, we are going to need more money. And that goes for library and park hours too.

Posted by Tigershark | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 2:45 am

"Third, a reminder: main libraries in the middle of real cities have a grander intellectual, social and artistic purpose than their limited suburban branches." Yeah, the downtown library certainly has a grander purpose. It's a rest stop for the homeless.

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 2:57 am

I'm on the fence about this library thing. On one hand, I think it would make a great addition to downtown, and speak to the civic pride present here in San Diego. On the other hand, many of the branch libraries are inadequate, the screwy hours are very annoying, and the city has many fiscal issues that need to be addressed. I can't quantify the economic return on a new main library. I think we should hold off on the library, and work on reducing outstanding debt. I want a newer car, but the '94 Accord I drive runs fine. Since I have no car note, I'm paying off my high interest loans. I would expect the city to apply the same analysis. Sanders is a really sucky mayor. He's so busy trying to please everyone that he can't be honest or prudent.

Posted by Jason | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 3:22 am

Gordon in Clairemont: $200 million PLUS so your kid can finish his civics class term paper in one spot? GET REAL. He can do that with the Internet -- that's why Al Gore invented the damned thing, isn't it? Everybody's got a pet project they want promoted -- sea monkeys (aka fairy shrimp), native saw grass, a hideous monstrosity drawn directly from the remains of the Hiroshima atom bomb explosion and designed mainly to serve the needs of drugged out homeless with nowhere else to go during the day (make those sofas nice and comfy for them), i.e., the new downtown library. WE CAN'T AFFORD THE ESOTERIC PREDILECTIONS OF A SMALL BUT VOCAL EFFETE MINORITY WHO WANT TO PUSH THEIR VALUES ON AND AT THE COST OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF TAXPAYERS. Save it for another time -- or go out and find a Daddy Warbucks to pay for it.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 5:41 am

Putting the credulity-straining library financing plan aside for a moment, I'd like to point out a small but important hypocrisy evident throughout the debate. The Mayor says he wants a library but he's not willing to commit general fund money--that is, public money--to pay for it. It is not an investment, despite the IRA analogy, that he's willing to make. It seems like many citizens are interested in a main libary but they too are not willing to pay, in the form of taxes, to have one. Yet somehow, we believe that wealthy citizens should be willing to bear a huge financial burden that we, as City, reject. If this is important, we should all be willing to share the burden. Unfortunately, like most things in San Diego, it's not important enough for us to actually spend money on it.

Posted by Brant | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 5:43 am

I am a resident of downtown, so the Central Library is my branch library. No, I am not homeless! The population down here has grown tremendously. Why do all you people think that only homeless people live downtown and that they go out to the branches for their books? Who do you think live in the new condos? Illiterates?

Posted by Sue | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 7:07 am

Sue: good point -- except for one thing. You already have your downtown branch library -- the current central library and it is far, far larger than anyone else's branch library. Better hours, too. And that's about all it is -- a branch library, I mean. Pity the poor citizens who live in San Pasqual, Rancho Bernardo, Rancho Penasquitos, Carmel Valley, Del Mar Heights, etc. Because their branch libaries are habitually closed, are they supposed to spend $30 in gas to go downtown, find a $10 parking lot and check out a copy of Wuthering Heights? What angers me most about this is the blithering HYPOCRISY of the central library crowd. They want it to support their own nose-in-air idea of what is culturally valuable -- just like they'd support the idea of a chunk of concrete with a carrot stuck in it as modern art -- at taxpayers expense!!

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 10:23 am

Edgar, compared to $450 million for Petco Park and $850 million projected for a new football stadium, $200 million for a new main library is inexpensive. This is less than $4 per San Diego resident per year over a 50 year useful life (and a VERY small fraction of what I pay annually for an internet connection). Although I look up much on the internet, books are still indispensible. One of the benefits of the internet is that it leads me to books with useful information. Although a main library could be built less expensively elsewhere, the downtown location appears valuable as a cultural center for the growing downtown population. Perhaps it should be viewed as half library and half cultural center, thus halving the cost of the library itself. Unfortunately, I do not see sufficient money available.

Posted by Gordon in Clairemont | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 12:47 pm

If we don't need a new downtown library, then why does Seattle have a magnificent new library. And why does San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Antonio, etc. Are all these cities misguided? I use several libraries in SD 2-3 times per week. I never go to a baseball game, and when I had some free tickets for a game last summer I called about 20 people and no one wanted them either. They went in the trash. Lastly, the Mission Valley library was beautiful when it opened. Now it is a disgrace. Dirty carpets, beat up walls, the art display area sits empty, the bathrooms are filthy and falling apart. But I'll bet the Petco Park facility looks good.

Posted by Sandy in Hillcrest | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 9:47 pm

I think most of us would like to have a new main library, but not at the expense of adequate staffing and facilities at other branches. I usually have materials sent to my local branch anyway. Why there is no automated method of doing this, I know not. I have to ask the librarian to do it. Even backwater Fresno had automated holds at the branch of your choosing through the web. Anyway, I think most of us would like to see the city 1) be honest about the cost and 2) get its financial house in order before spending anymore money that we really don't have.

Posted by Jason | reply to this comment
July 17, 2007 11:23 pm

Nice non sequitur, Gordon in Clairemont (and, while I'm at it, you, too, Sandy in Hillcrest). Gordon, it might be a good idea for you to go visit the Clairemont branch library (during the two or three hours a week it is open) and if they have any books on logic, read one. And thanks for proving my point about pushing off cultural values on other people with the waning sentences of your comment.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
July 18, 2007 12:14 am

Where's the light in Library Fortnight? Show us the facts-- and then explore ways to build a new Central Library -- not selected facts in service to No Way in Hell. Many people, myself included, believe that serious major cities have adequate central libraries for research, reliable public information, reading, literacy classes, internet access, exhibitions and an auditorium for films and public forums. Many people, myself included, know that central libraries are always downtown and have access to public transportation and adequate parking. Many people, myself included, believe a central library is one hallmark of a major city as much as any professional baseball or football team. Many people, myself included, think the residents of this politically exhausted town need a positive communal focus -- such as a new Main Library -- to counter San Diego's hip-deep negativity, municipal corruption, lame elected officials, public apathy and knee-jerk libertarianism.

Posted by Francine Foraday | reply to this comment
July 18, 2007 1:35 am

If we are going to build a Central Book Museum, them maybe we should move it to Balboa Park with the other Museums. The ugly dome would fit in with the botanical gardens. They could build it on the location of the parking lot next to the organ pavillion. If they dug down a little further the location would have even more underground parking for the park when the library was closed. The location is essentially downtown so it may still qualify for redevelopment dollars. Then they could sell off the land next to the ballpark to help pay for it.

Posted by John Q. | reply to this comment
July 18, 2007 8:02 am

Another problem with our library system is that they're still using archaic logistics systems: branch libraries. It's cheaper in the long run to have a single large logistical center with all of the goods centrally located and simply ship out the products to consumers. Even if the enterprise adds on the overhead of shipment, the total cost of this operation is always far less than the cost of development of localized branches plus maintenance and staffing of such. Examples of this are NetFlix, Blockbuster Online, and the text-book example, Japan as a whole. As far as location is concerned, downtown is not the best place for this location. Lack of parking creates problems with easy access. It should be centrally located within the city, with easy access to both the trolly, bus, and free private parking.

Posted by Roy | reply to this comment
July 19, 2007 12:48 am

Lots of (Closed) Libraries

Published: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:55 AM PDT

-- SCOTT LEWIS

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.

twitter.com/vosdscott

Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed

Subscribe to this RSS Feed