Forum and Classifieds

My Ballard Forum » Open Forum

Really torn about Library Levy

(70 posts)

Started 10 months ago by Mondoman
Latest reply from onederfullone

Mondoman

offline
Member

Just got my ballot in the mail (along with my first big batch of election junk mail!) and was reading through the Library Levy more carefully than usual because of some controversy I had heard about it (I think the Times even endorsed a NO vote to get the Mayor/Council to come back with a fixed levy).

In general, I figure library operating costs should be part of the general City budget (so "No"), but these are tough times and I believe free public libraries are really important to our society (so "Yes") but Seattle's library management has been out of touch with reality as shown by the library porn and druggies (so "No") but would the City Council and Mayor really change anything if we voted down this one (so "Yes"???)?

Anyway, I actually read the whole Levy Ordinance actual text and my understanding of that text is that:

1) The text talks about using the Levy money for extended hours, new books, new technology and so forth, but then clarifies that these are ALL NON-BINDING examples, even the general categories! NONE of the money has to be used for ANY of that! ALL of the money can be used for whatever the administration wants, even for non-library activities! For example, it could all be diverted to road diets and bicycle greenways! **

2) The text says that while "...it is the intent..." of the Mayor and City Council to keep funding the Library with the same proportion of General Fund and Real Estate Excise Tax money as today, there's no written requirement for that and the Mayor and Council could just take the current money away from the Library if this Levy is passed, leaving the Library with less money and transferring it to other City departments.

So, bottom line for the next 8 years if this Library Levy is passed: (a) any/all of the new Levy money can be used for anything the City wants to -- it doesn't have to be library-related and (b) the Mayor/Council can take away any or all of the current General Fund library money and spend on other things, like the Seawall Replacement or fiscal "emergency" du jour.

I'm bummed out enough by this that I'm going to vote against the Library Levy. If the City Council doesn't come up with a more transparent and accountable Levy, I'll just donate cash to the Library.

Anyway, check out the "complete text" for yourself at http://www2.seattle.gov/ethics/votersguide.asp

** - not that those are bad things on their own, but not for this Levy money!

Posted 10 months ago #
Cougar Bob

offline
Member

Has it always been that way or is that a new change for this levy?

Posted 10 months ago #
phinneynotballard

offline
Member

I had much of the same internal dialogue last night too. I'm concerned that this sets a precedence for the city to move funds away from services like this and then come back later and ask for new levies (TAXES) to make up for it. This levy isn't paying extra for libraries, we're paying for whatever they siphoned money away from libraries for in the first place.

Posted 10 months ago #
Apple

offline
Member

I am voting no because I would rather not raise my property taxes so the library can provide free porn to people. Got nothing against porn, just think people can pay for it on their own and I don't need to provide it. When someone objected to users viewing porn in the libraries, they said they could not do anything to stop it because it was a free speech issue. This is a red herring argument as other libraries have imposed limits on what internet users can view, i.e. no porn in the public library, and those limits have withstood court challenges under the free speech issue.

Posted 10 months ago #
Sunset Hill David

offline
Member

After reading these posts I have decided to vote for it.

Posted 10 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

+ 1 SHD

do you guys really think the libray is all about smut?

probably 2% of the patrons are looking at porn, max.

Posted 10 months ago #
Apple

offline
Member

I don't think it is all about smut. But, if given the option, I tend to not fund things I don't support. Probably only about 2% of the Boy Scouts are about discrimination. I don't support them either.

Posted 10 months ago #
dsomers

online
Member

Apple,

In this instance, If it is just the porn issue that is making you vote no I might suggest you support the libraries, but push hard through other means to get them to change their policies regarding the porn.

If you would not vote yes porn issue or otherwise then that is another matter.

I have to admit I am not too fond of the loosey goosey funding process Mondoman described above. I am torn as well. If we vote yes they will get the funding, maybe, though we may not know for how long. But if we vote no they certainly won't get the funding at all. I definately support libraries. I have real heart ache with how this is being done.

The Loosey Goosey nature of this is interesting to see in print though. The mechanism for this is in place regardless of what we approve at the ballot. I am surprised they spelled it out. There is always a way to remove money from an office through one mechanism to balance out an increase in funding to that same office from another source. I wonder why they spelled it out this time?

Posted 10 months ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

ds - see, that's the thing, and why I'm torn. If we vote no, maybe the Council will say "fine, no proper funding for libraries". However, MAYBE they will say "wow, we didn't pay enough attention to detail on how we crafted the levy; we'll put in some transparency and accountability and come back to the voters in the fall with a better library levy."

Posted 10 months ago #
RichY

offline
Member

I feel that the libraries will be funded no matter how the vote goes, parents with kids will scream loudly (even if they don't vote)if the libraries get cut.

My take of this is the city wants more money to do "stuff" with but can/will not ask the voters for it specifically (we most likely would not understand the full need/value of the "stuff").

As far as 'porn' in the libraries - it most likely is not, but what most consider poor taste, librarians on the whole are against censorship - if it is illegal, they will probably not allow it in the library- On the other hand Issaquah banned some books in the past, that were proudly available in the libraries (Catcher in the Rye, Huck Finn), because censorship is bad.

Posted 10 months ago #
boatgeek

offline
Member

If we vote no, the new levy won't be on the ballot for another year at least. In the fall, we have the seawall plus a few other items. In February, schools levies totaling in the neighborhood of a billion dollars. They aren't going to want to put a previously failed levy out with that much other levy money on the ballot. Plus, the Eyman crowd would wail about the waste of money to put the item on the ballot when the voters rejected it already.

I'm voting yes because if we vote no, the Council will (IMHO rightly) figure that library funding isn't all that important to us after all.

Posted 10 months ago #
RichY

offline
Member

Another point to think about:
Just how important are libraries now – books are electronically published and read on e-readers, text books in many post-secondary schools are electronic, children’s books are of value , the size and colors as well as children’s skill grow rapidly.

So I see a lot of folks getting out of the heat, rain, cold, using the restrooms and so on.

Do we need more and bigger libraries, and the staff that goes with them, or smaller libraries that cater to children and young readers.

Posted 10 months ago #
Walt

offline
Member

For $122,630,099 we could buy everyone a Kindle and convert a few libraries into bathrooms for the homeless.

Posted 10 months ago #
crownhiller

offline
Member

Well, speaking as a former librarian, I will be voting yes. What people forget is, libraries are truly one of the last places where everyone is treated equally in terms of service - young, old, rich, poor, sweet smelling or stinky. The "porn" issue has been around for a very very long time - there are filtering softwares that allow a system to control access to certain types of sites - never worked for Seattle, so don't know what their philosophy on that type of restriction is - and they are far from foolproof (or hack proof). Sure, you could reduce the size, but there's more to libraries than just books (and/or kindles) - it's about knowledge and curiousity and creating a society that values information and those who provide access to it. Librarians were among the first to embrace the "internet" as a public access tool - I remember sitting in meetings with my co-workers and arguing for hours about whether it would help or hinder our jobs and clients.

The Levy wording is stinky but I do agree that saying no means you can probably kiss a great deal of library services goodbye - the powers that be WILL interpret that as "no one cares a flying fig about libraries enough to vote yes" - I say this from personal experience, because budget cuts like this are why I'm no longer a librarian ;o)

Posted 10 months ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

Well, did some calling and more research and it turns out things are worse than I thought. Here are the headline points:
1) About 30% of the Library Levy is being DIVERTED to the General Fund from Day 1 of the Levy.
2) The language of the Levy Ordinance implies the "intent" of the Mayor and the Council is to reduce General Fund support for OTHER ("comparable") City departments by 10% for 2013!
3) Unlike the 1998 "Libraries for All" measure and other more recent levies, this proposed Library Levy will have NO independent oversight panel to ensure that the Levy money is spent on what is promised today.

Regarding (1): The Library has a 50+-page promo pamphlet on the Levy at http://www.spl.org/Documents/about/LFA2/2012-proposed-levy-book.pdf
Way at the end, on page 50, the text says:

The Library levy financial model relies on continuing General Fund and Real
Estate Excise Tax (REET) support from the city at the 2012 level, adjusted for an
anticipated $5 million 2013 General Fund cut to the Library’s operating budget that
would carry through the life of the levy.

Paraphrase/traslation: During the Library Levy, the City will keep funding the Library from the General Fund at the 2012 level ($50 million), EXCEPT each year it will reduce that amount by $5 million (10%) and replace that money with property tax Levy funds (30% of the Levy will go to this).

Regarding (2): the same Library PDF, and the Ordinance itself, say:

it is the intent of the City Council and Mayor to continue to provide General Fund and REET support to the Library at 2012 service levels, adjusted proportionately based on increases or decreases to such support for comparable City departments;

Paraphrase/translation: The City INTENDS to keep funding the Library with money from the General Fund at 2012 levels, except for general City-wide increases or decreases that affect all comparable City departments. Since the City is already reducing Library General Fund support by $5 million (10%) in 2013, other comparable City departments will also face 10% funding reductions in 2013.

Wow, you would think that a 10% cut to funding for most City departments would have made the news. Of course, "intent" is not legally binding, so they may just have changed their minds on that. Of course, if they change their minds within 6 months of passing the ordinance, other non-binding parts of the Levy (i.e. not using more of the Levy money for the General Fund instead of the libraries) don't inspire much confidence.

Regarding (3): Since the City Council and Mayor included independent community-based oversight panels in the Libraries for All Levy and other similar levies during the past 10 years, why did they leave out this oversight for the proposed 2012 Library Levy?

Posted 10 months ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

ch - you make some good points, and I salute you for your early support for making internet access widely available!

Posted 10 months ago #
phinneynotballard

offline
Member

But crownhiller, this is exactly the kind of blackmail tactic I'm talking about: if you don't vote yes, then you must not care about it. That's BS.

I'm absolutely pro-library, and my family uses the library every week. Our city council has stripped the library of funding so that they can't stay open as many hours and force staff to take furlough days (or let them go).

They do this because they know that they can come back later and create new taxes to bring the library system up whole. They can't do that with other things they waste money on, so they pick on something that has value to the most of the community. This is why they cut education funding and we see school levies on the ballot year after year. They strip library funding out of the budget and then come back and tell us we need to fund the libraries more. This isn't money for one-time improvements, this is operating money!

Posted 10 months ago #
Walt

offline
Member

I have used and loved libraries and am sure they are a great resource for many. Most of us would hate to lose them and the expertise within.

However, we should look at this proposition as it stands. No one says it is a perfect or even a good example of levy-craft. Should we reward an inept, stop gap measure?

It's also a financial hit. From the voter's guide:
"In 2013, total City taxes collected would not exceed $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value."

If your house or condo is valued at $200,000, that's $720 for 2013.

Of course, these are not deal breakers. The libraries seem pretty busy the few times I visit one, so there must be quite a demand. Still, I think I need more convincing before voting yes.

Posted 10 months ago #
crownhiller

offline
Member

@phinney - I don't disagree with your points in the slightest - I have in fact, made that same agrument myself many many many times over the course of my 25+ years in libraries. They are often seen as the dangling shiny thingie that will get people riled up enough to vote yes on something.

I am only expressing my own personal reasons for voting yes - Mondo is giving good information on the...well, backroom dealing is the only thing that comes to mind...

But me, personally, can't in good conscience vote no against a library proposal - I'm willing to pay for something that's important to me, however imperfect the mechanisms. I fully support others taking a different stand based on their own personal reasons.

Ok - this will sound totally and completely dorky but it's really how I feel so here goes - that's the magic of this weird country of ours - we don't have to agree - we don't even have to like what someone else says - we just have to respect their right to have a differing opinion ;o)

Posted 10 months ago #
dsomers

online
Member

Crownhiller,

Cheers to you!!

D

Posted 10 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

not dorky at all!

libraries are the last bastion of democacy.

vote si!

Posted 10 months ago #
Norge

offline
Member

GI - I wish I had the kind of money you do so I could vote yes on levies without looking at my bottom line. Are there any taxes you don't like or are you against any increase in utility fees? I have been a life-long democrat but I'm beginning to look at the fiscal sides of how government is spending my money. I don't agree with the 16% increase in City light half of which will be used to build a substation in Paul Allen's SLU neighborhood. This cost should be borne by the developers.

Mondoman -- thank you for taking the time to read the levy -- I will vote no. I do not agree with voting on a levy that will not fund the purpose of the levy. This is where the City is bolstering its general fund so they have the $200 million for an Arena that taxpayers don't want. They won't put the Arena for a vote because we don't know what's good for us and it would be voted down. On top of that they want to come back to the taxpayers for a seawall levy -- the last figures I heard were around $270 million -- well that $200 million they want to give to the Arena fiasco is almost the seawall replacement. Part of that levy is to start building the grandiose waterfront park for tourists and to make it pretty for the people that will move into the redeveloped Pioneer Square.

There have been lots of projects voted down by the public (the Mercer Mess for Paul Allen's new neighborhood) but it's being funded through the general fund and the "pothole levy" -- and this was not supposed to happen. That takes away money from the libraries and the parks and money to fix roads outside of SLU. Wake up -- if you think the city has your best interests at heart you're kidding yourself.

I also have an issue with viewing porn in the public libraries -- it should not be viewed on any city computer (an employee would get fired). If I were to see it I would raise a big stink and I would probably be kicked out -- but let me tell you one thing, the whole library would be aware of it. If its allowed in the libraries why do we have age limits on peep shows or x-rated movies? Call it what you want GI but it's porn -- you say only 2% view it on library computers -- how do you know? Are you checking out the computers while in use so you don't have to log on at home?

Posted 10 months ago #
cd6

offline
Member

"I'm voting no because of people viewing porn" What's that? Some dude might be looking at some pictures? Counterpoint: who gives a shit?

We're supposed to be a friggin modern society, in the "best" country in the world. We should have libraries

jesus

Posted 10 months ago #
Walt

offline
Member

It has nothing to do with whether or not we should have libraries. The question is, is this levy wise and affordable?

Everyone would vote for it if it cost taxpayers next to nothing, no one would if it cost 20 thousand a head. Each individual has a comfort zone somewhere in the middle; a sort of Laffer curve applied to elections.

There is a similar calculation regarding the use and direction of the raised monies.

Draw your lines, stick your pins at the margins and decide the merits of this particular levy. Yea or nay, you can still love libraries.

Posted 10 months ago #
Ernie

offline
Member

Just how important are libraries now – books are electronically published and read on e-readers

Even if paper books go the way of the buggy whip I think we still need libraries, albeit in a different format. Do we really want to have to buy every e-book we might have a passing interest In? What about when you might want to read just a passage or chapter out of several books on the same topic?

What if you're on a budget and can't afford to buy e-books? Like CH said, libraries are one of the few public services that are utilized by all kinds of people. As someone pointed out up thread, what kind of a country are we if we don't put a value on everyone having access to knowledge and information.

I hear the arguments against the way the levy is written, but I come down on the side that a loss at the ballot box could be interpreted as lack of public support for libraries. I will be canceling out Apple's vote and voting yes.

Posted 10 months ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

So it looks like it will come down to Bert's vote!

Posted 10 months ago #
Ernie

offline
Member

No doubt, and you know that he votes early and often....

Posted 10 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

"No doubt, and you know that he votes early and often...."

Quick! Call the Count!

ONE Voter Fraud hahahaha...TWO Voter Fraud...

Posted 10 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

But seriously, is this gaping loophole something new? Or common language we're just noticing? Because if the other levys have been worded this way too, I'm far less alarmed, since I'm not aware of a lot of untoward diverting of funds.

Hmmm....wonder if they could have gotten out of throwing all that money at those expensive RapidRide stops after all? That was also earmarked General Fund money, right?

Posted 10 months ago #
Ernie

offline
Member

Don't the rapid ride stops align the platform with the bus so they don't have to use the wheelchair lift? That's worth it right there.

Posted 10 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

Yes, realigning the curbs serves a practical purpose. They could have saved some coin and dropped standard issue shelters on the new curbs.

Posted 10 months ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

I haven't looked at the new RR shelters closely, but I thought one new feature was supposed to be digital signboards that would let you know in real time how long until the next bus.

GAM - yes, the lack of accountability is new for this Library Levy, and different from previous levies. The two main "innovations" are lack of any *binding* specifics on what the money will be spent on, and lack of an independent oversight panel/body to monitor what is done with the money each year. The previous Libraries for All Levy had both. I'd feel a lot more confident about this Levy if the Levy had binding language along the lines of "$X million to maintain current library branch hours" or even "20% of yearly income to be used for branch technology upgrades". Probably more importantly, I would have liked to see a binding minimum for the amount of General Fund money the City will contribute in future years. Sadly, the Levy has nothing like that and leaves it all up to the current Library Board, Council, and Mayor. The current plan reported by the Library is for the City to use 30% of the new Levy money for non-Library General Fund stuff in 2013 and onward, but that could be increased in future years.

Posted 10 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

I remember when my kid's school had a fundraiser a few years ago--buy a latte or something like that to contribute money to the classroom.

One parent was so flabbergasted that it 'had come to this.' the same argument essentially that improper funding measures shouldn't be rewarded with any participation whatsoever.
this parent was outspoken about his/her stance against this fundraiser and would give you the 'evil eye' if you were seen walking about with one of these coffee cups.

I don't buy that argument. we've already swept our libraries under the rug by cutting back hours and closing them for a week in august. lack of support will only further degrade their services.
the city is being fairly transparent about this, which I also appreciate.

and norge, I don't have limitless income, but I have lived in other states where the taxes were much higher and generally support taxes if they improve the quality of life for my neighborhood.
and after further thought, I bet the porn-users constitute less than 1% of library users.
one seattle times article blew that entire phenomena out of proportion.

Posted 10 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

One of the things I hate about the oversimplification of politics, is when something loses the talking heads come out the next day and proclaim one reason why the whole thing failed. The monorail is a good example. People run around saying Seattle wouldn't support transit, when a whole mess of folks like the idea but voted against the questionable financing.

Same thing here. If I vote against this poorly written initiative, I have to be afraid it will be interpreted as a vote against libraries, when in fact, I can see voting against this initiative as a vote FOR libraries, as in "I'll wait until you give me an initiative that GUARANTEES it's for libraries". But since we've "voted against libraries" there won't be any new and better initiatives floated.

That fear, that I'll never get a chance to vote for a better initiative, may make me vote for this one. I'm torn.

Posted 10 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

Mondo: Yeah, there will be new digital signboards in the new shelters. Setting aside for the moment that most folks can get that same information on their phones, they've already put similar signs in existing shelters. They don't need to build the whole shelter.

Don't get me wrong, They're nice and all. I'd just rather they weren't building them at the same time they're reducing routes.

I miss the days when Metro was private. Too bad someone decided that was illegal.

Posted 10 months ago #
RichY

offline
Member

GAM, As I recall STA (Seattle Transit Authority)was public since early 1900- funding was iffy most of the time, METRO transit was rejected, but sewer treatment was approved around 1952 (?) then in the 60s Metro tried again under the Forward thrust bond issue and won transit authority - This in essence created a government entity with no oversight or accountability other than to itself (the area transportation system was in essence dismantled) and replaced with diesel buses and fewer routes in Seattle, Metro was finally dismantled as a stand-alone pseudo -government and adsorbed my King County by public vote in the early 90's - which brought back more routes and better busses.

Posted 10 months ago #
GAM

offline
Member

RichY-

Good to know - thanks!

Posted 10 months ago #
boatgeek

offline
Member

The value of the library isn't the books (although a Kindle is no substitute for paper). It's the expertise the librarians bring. A good (or even halfway decent) librarian will keep you from wasting a lot of time. Google won't help you make sure you're asking the right question, and Amazon certainly won't give you a copy of The Hunger Games for free.

The last library levy had capital improvement money to rebuild every library in the city, but nothing for operations. That's why we ended up in the position of having great library buildings, but not as many open hours or new books as we'd like. I believe that was because operations and capital levies have different rules, and you can't put capital money into operations.

It is pretty sad that the state funds five periods of high school, so if a local district wants any of their kids to be able to go to college (even community college), they have to come up with local levy money. That's a different side of the tax and public funding argument, though.

Posted 10 months ago #
Boris

offline
Member

You vote for tax increase. City take money you approve for account A and move to account B. Your vote not matter. Better just join book club and leave library to homeless who want porn. Is how award winning building become seedy peepshow.

Posted 10 months ago #
Oly

offline
Member

No. This is a bait and switch maneuver cooked up by the city. The library should be funded in the general budget. In 1999 we voted for the Parks levy, when it passed, the city cut operating expenses from the general budget and used levy money to cover those cut costs, when the levy expired the city didn't replace those funds they cut hours or closed closed community centers, pools, park maintenance and etc.

Posted 10 months ago #
9

offline
Member

I use it often. I'll vote yes

Posted 10 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

if you think the library should be funded otherwise (which I understand and agree with), what makes you so sure a 'no' vote sends that message rather than a 'screw you old man carnegie' message?

if there was some way of writing in that disclaimer, I'd consider a 'no' vote.

Posted 10 months ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

gi, as someone pointed out, the rejection of the City's proposed "bonus" car tab fee last fall didn't kill the idea or mean we didn't want roads fixed and so forth. Similarly, the voter rejection of the really badly crafted original plastic shopping bag ban didn't kill the idea; in fact, we ended up with a new, modified ban that most agree is a big improvement.

Posted 10 months ago #
phoo

offline
Member

GAM: I didn't know metro had been private at one time, but I agree with you. In Portland, tri-met is closely coupled with govt, but is technically private. I am not saying it is inherently superior, there are some things metro does better, like I could technically take public transit all the way to tacoma if I needed to. Also, Seattle has kept the night owl buses (that I never take now I am old ;) which Portland got rid of a million years ago. However, tri-met generally runs more on time and most importantly is less at the whim of govt cut backs. They can suffer also as they get a good chunk of funding from the govt, but I think it's allocated to them, and not so much the general fund (not totally sure, I just know that it is not in constant danger like metro routes are).

Interestingly, with tri-met being private you'd think there would be less coordination with the govt than metro has, yet when it is snowy out, bus routes are the first cleared and EVERYONE in Portland takes the bus (so much so that you may have trouble getting on the bus if you board just before downtown) because it does run so well. Yes, they have hills there too and get snow as infrequently as us.

I am not one of those folks who is for privatization of everything, but I think it may be an improvement for metro if done right. Of course, it will never happen, but it's interesting that at one time it was private. I wonder what the issues were at that time.

Posted 10 months ago #
SeaSpider

offline
Member

I voted no on this one. Honestly, the libraries seem to be in pretty decent shape when compared to many other city services. The libraries (at least the ones I've been in) are well stocked and clean. It's one of the few things Seattle seems to do well. If there's going to be an increase in taxes I'd rather see the money spent on road repairs and mass transit improvements both of which are horrible in Seattle.

Posted 10 months ago #
jenott

offline
Member

I agree with several of the supportive posts above. I use the libraries all the time and am endlessly impressed by the expertise of the librarians. They help one and all who come to the libraries find what they need. One librarian at the Ballard branch got my son hooked on a book series at the beginning of the summer. The Seattle Room collection is invaluable for research and enjoyment. The role the individual buildings play in our communities is vital. I often use the central library and the Ballard library and I love that they are places people from all walks of life come together.

I think we should support the funding they need to fully staff all the wonderful buildings we have and keep those buildings open enough hours to serve the community. The budget woes facing the state and the city are epic, but this levy provides a chance to protect one of our most important community assets while we muddle through these tough times.

Posted 10 months ago #
racerX

offline
Member

Oly +1

Posted 10 months ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

jenott, I pretty much agree with your sentiments; the problem is that the way this Levy is worded, it doesn't actually guarantee ANY new funding will end up with the libraries. In fact, the Council/Mayor have already said their plan is to divert 30% ($5 million) of the new Levy money away from the Library and into the City's General Fund starting with the first year of the Levy (2013, if it passes).

Posted 10 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

there are no guarantees in life. the libraries might extend their hours, but then again they might not.

however, I doubt they will increase/improve any services if this levy fails.

also I don't have faith that a new bill will be constructed to provide dedicated library funding. the comparison to the plastic bag ban does not seem to be the same in this situation (in terms of lawmakers going back to the drawing board).

the 30% they take would go into general services--right? possibly they would fix a road with my library money which doesn't exactly tick me off.

Posted 10 months ago #
David Jensen

offline
Member

Hello, Ballard, from exotic Greenwood.

I have taken the time to register on this blog in order to comment on this thread. Seattle libraries are a city wide issue and treasure and there appears to be some confusion and misinformation regarding the upcoming Proposition One vote. In urging you to vote yes, I will attempt to clear up the confusion.

First, let's just get over this silly obsession with the idea that a yes vote somehow endorses pornography and toilet facilities for people who don't look like us. That is just pathetic. Walt, you completely misunderstood the amount of money that passage of this levy would cost you. When the levy passes it will add 1/24th of the $700+ figure you quoted to your tax bill. $3.60 per $1000 is the combined total of all levy assessments;$.15 per $1000 is the library portion that would be added. I for one am quite happy to pay the approximately $50 dollars a year extra that would entail.

Mondoman, you began this thread and seem to have the biggest ax to grind. This has led you to seriously misinterpret the levy, particularly where you refer to page 50 of the Library Proposal pdf, which you so kindly provided a link to. Your shorter version is wrong. The city <i> will not </i> be cutting the library budget by an additional amount each year of the levy. They have committed to continuing at the 2012 level. Indeed, your entire case against the levy assumes that the mayor, the city council, the library administration and the library board are acting in bad faith. I reject this assumption.

When this levy passes, it will be used for the stated purposes not to cover any forthcoming reduced funding. It will in fact help make up for the last several years of funding cuts that have affected staffing, collection, library hours and maintainance. I see nothing objectionable in that. We can and will hold the library to its stated purpose.

It is all very well to wish for an entirely different funding mechanism to be baked into the city budget process but that is not the city we live in. It is an entirely different issue and should not be used as a reason for a no vote and hope for the best in some nebulous future. Cut your nose off to spite your face but please not everyone else's.

Help preserve this gem of a library system. Vote yes.

Posted 9 months ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

David, thanks for your post! One of the great things about Seattle is the gusto with which citizens engage each other here. Thanks for clarifying that the Levy amount would be $50-60 per year for a $400kish home rather than hundreds per year!

I think that in the rest of your effort to clear up the "confusion", you've unfortunately muddied the waters a bit.

You claim the Council/Mayor do NOT plan to cut the City's General Fund support for the Library from the 2012 level. Respectfully, I believe you're misinformed on this. Regarding the planned $5 million cut to the Library's General Fund funding from the 2012 level (30% of the yearly Levy income) for 2013 and onward, it's written in black and white on page 50 of the Library's own Levy booklet, was confirmed to me by Council President Sally Clark's staff on Monday the 23rd of July, and appeared in news stories about the Levy this spring. If you have breaking news that this cut has now been removed from the Council/Mayor's plans, please let us know the source of your information, and also pass on the news tip to MyBallard and Times!

You also claim that "When this levy passes, it will be used for the stated purposes not to cover any forthcoming reduced funding." Unfortunately, that's not what the text of the proposed Levy actually says. Nothing in the Levy prevents the Council/Mayor from further reducing General Fund funding to the Library by more than the $5 million per year already planned. In addition, no legally binding wording in the Levy specifies what the Levy money is to be used for. Again, perhaps I am not aware of a recent change to the legal wording of the Levy -- if so, please let me know promptly! If you think I have misinterpreted the Levy text, I would welcome you posting the text along with the correct interpretation.

I hope you'll take the time to read the actual Levy text and clarify these misunderstandings.

Our previous Libraries for All Levy and other recent levies have all had legally binding wording in them specifying what those Levy monies could be spent on. They also had oversight boards independent of the body spending the Levy money to ensure that the money was spent appropriately. Many neighborhood associations and other organizations wrote the City Council this spring to ask that such typical legal protections be added to this Library Levy, but the City Council declined to do so. The neighborhood associations didn't assume bad faith; neither do I. However, the common protections they asked for in the wording can prevent poorly chosen acts of expediency as well as of bad faith. I hope the next Levy proposal will include them.

Posted 9 months ago #
David Jensen

offline
Member

As I said, protestations to the contrary, you are starting from an assumption of bad faith on the part of all the actors and interpreting from there. I am more than willing to take a chance.

Posted 9 months ago #
Walt

offline
Member

Seattle has a lot of yellow dog levy supporters. If a levy has library or school in the title they automatically vote yes and never bother with the fine print.

Posted 9 months ago #
Norge

offline
Member

David Jensen -- have you ever had any negative repercussions from wearing those rose colored glasses when dealing with government? If not, good for you. You are free to vote for the levy if you choose. Like Walt said -- yellow dog supporters will vote for anything for the schools or libraries. I voted no and I will continue to vote no where there is no oversight of the funds.

Posted 9 months ago #
onederfullone

offline
Member

you are starting from an assumption of bad faith on the part of all the actors and interpreting from there.

...actually, we started with good faith.

They decided to take advantage, many times. Forgive us if we've become more intelligent over time. Maybe They should as well?

Posted 9 months ago #
ballardpilot

offline
Member

I'm an old guy. I've been voting for waaaay longer than most of you newcomers have even been alive. I'm a Democrat. A Progressive. I believe deeply in the government as a force for good, as a tool to improve all our lives.

Throughout my long life, I've always voted for every public funding measure, without exception, even when it was obviously a "mixed bag". I've never voted against a single tax increase or a levy EVER, not once in over 50 years of voting.

That's about to change.

I'll be voting against this levy, and every other proposal floated by the dishonest bastards that run this city.

They can not be trusted. They treat the voters with utter contempt, and that's what the voters ought to be showing them.

I'll be voting Hell No.

Posted 9 months ago #
phinneynotballard

offline
Member

I rarely agree with Joel Connelly, but wanted to post a link to his commentary today about the library levy:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/We-need-libraries-but-city-doesn-t-get-it-3741839.php#photo-901814

Posted 9 months ago #
Edog

offline
Member

Thanks for sharing that link by Connelly. It really helped me rationalize my competing feelings. In end, even though I am an avid library user, I voted against the levy. Its really hard for me to say that, but this is a good example of bad public finance. The continued and growing reliance of levies is an abuse of the electorate by city hall. Finance of core civic functions should not be pieced together and cobbled with a string of levies.

Posted 9 months ago #
great idea

offline
Member

so far I've got 11-10 in favor:

for:
SHD
GI
DSomers
boatgeek
crownhiller
cd6
ernie
gam
9
jenott
david jensen

against:
mondo
pnb
apple
walt
norge
oly
racerx
seaspider
ballardpilot
edog

is that right? looks like we win!

Posted 9 months ago #
onederfullone

offline
Member

Bank on it. lol

Posted 9 months ago #

Daily news for Seattle's Ballard neighborhood

My Ballard Forum » Open Forum

Really torn about Library Levy

Reply »