Comments on the "Palo Alto Library Plan"

I am opposed to the closure of the Downtown Library.  I highly value this neighborhood resource and want it to remain a library, open to the public.  I am disappointed in the Library Advisory Commission's recommendation to close this much used branch library.  The commission falsely claims that Downtown Library is the least popular branch.  However, since it is now open only four days a week, it may become less popular.  The use is judged by how many people visit daily.  It's hard to use a closed facility.

I appreciate the reductions in budget the city faces, and that cuts need to be made citywide.  However, closing the library to the public is not a benefit to the public.

Closing the library on Saturday does not benefit those residents who can't get to the library during the few hours a week it is currently open.  Certainly, people who work downtown want to use the library during their lunch hours.  But those who work elsewhere often don't return home in time to visit before the 6 p.m. closing.  Those of us who live in the downtown area appreciate being able to walk to the library, especially on the weekends.  If this branch must be closed three days a week, I'd rather see one more weekday closure and have it reopened on Saturday.  The less used College Terrace branch is open five days a week, thanks to community support for keeping it open.

Many others in the community have expressed similar opinions, and addressed the issues more eloquently and in more detail than I have.  I simply want to add my voice to those who have already spoken out in favor of keeping all remaining Palo Alto branch libraries open.

I sympathize with residents living near the recently closed Terman branch, who are now forced to drive to other branches.  Please don't add Downtown Library users to the list of the disenfranchised.

I attended two Library Commission meetings at which the commissioners were preparing for this Monday's Study Session with the Council.  I have attended countless meetings of boards and commissions in our city, but these were unique experiences.

The Commissioners appear to be serving some greater, perhaps more abstract goal to improve the libraries.  Perhaps their goal is to create a library that they would like, notwithstanding the opinions of the thousands of Palo Altans and others who use them.  There was just a hint that they would even support closing Mitchell too if they could, and have just one big library at Main.

They are openly disdainful of the public, even when a room full of us were sitting there. At a second meeting when only a very few of the public were present they openly discussed what a problem we are.  They believe that keeping the Downtown Library open is a parochial wish on the part of a neighborhood, and they hope we won't be as self-centered as College Terrace, which succeeded in keeping its library open, at least for now.

With the exception of Commissioner Tom Wyman who submitted a Minority report, the remaining Commissioners are united.  They propose to move Technical Services to fully occupy the downtown building to free up space at Main.  Although there will be no public library in the downtown building, they do not consider this "closing" the Downtown Library.  They are mystified by these people who, it seems, came out of the woodwork.  Double think is alive and well in Palo Alto.  Oddly, there is no note of sadness in the proposal, or in their reaction to the Friends of the Library, or to the rest of us, as if to say, we are sorry but we feel we have to recommend this.  The public is simply irrelevant. 

The Monday meeting plan is as follows: At 6 pm the Commissioners will give their report to the Council and discuss it among themselves. The public will be able to speak from 8 to 9 pm at which time the meeting will end. This is a Study Session and no decisions will be made by the Council this eve.

PLEASE COME, THIS IS IMPORTANT. Numbers count. If ever there was a time that citizens need to show just by their presence that they are paying attention, this is it. (meeting is at the Arts Center, not City Hall).

It is appalling to suggest closing the Downtown Library and keep the public out when last year it was used by an estimated 100,000 patrons including seniors without cars.

It is fiscally irresponsible to propose spending already scarce resources to remodel it for "other library functions."

Given the institutional memory of the members of the LAC, and based on fact, this is an incredibly naive proposal that lacks merit on any count. For example:

The Downtown Library supports the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. It is close to transit hubs and near high density housing. Without a Downtown neighborhood branch library, the mandate to provide “walkability” to public services is virtually eliminated.

Its current location contributes to reducing auto trips when "traffic calming" is one the community's highest priorities. Closing Downtown would produce unwelcomed traffic by shifting the burden of increased usage to other branches and would only further strain current intolerable overuse at Children's, Mitchell and Main.

Considering that Terman was recently eliminated, closing Downtown ominously appears as the next step in abandoning the library branch system, in which case, why have a Palo Alto library system at all?

Why not propose that Palo Altans who want to use a good library drive to Menlo Park or Mountain View instead? With the loss of Terman and Downtown, accessing a library would be the same distance for those living at either end of the city limits!

And where's the public input? An essential requirement of the LAC is to solicit and convey to City Council, input from the public. Why didn't this occur prior to hatching this ill-conceived proposal? Why did the LAC place the public's legitimate participation in this unnecessary adversarial role?

Cannibalizing the library system is detrimental for the entire city. Numerous Palo Altans lack accessible library services as it is. Closing Downtown only makes it worse.

The LAC exists to advocate for libraries, not expedite their closure, especially when no benefit has been decently articulated!

I would have welcomed, were it even in jest, some attempt to point out a benefit, like saying for instance, at least, that Downtown's bunker-like architecture externally complies with the spirit of the Patriot Act while leaving its contents unfiltered, intact, accessible and free.

The following examples of eloquent remarks by some of the over 40 members of the public at a recent LAC meeting say it better:

"The LAC is going entirely in the wrong direction!" 
"Get a fresh piece of paper and start over!" 
"I decry its [closing] -- democracy itself is being weakened." 
"The Downtown Library is the cultural heart of this community."
"You cannot have a public joining place without the Downtown Library."

Despite any case for how dire things might be today, Palo Alto has been through worse.  We are NOT worse off today than we were on numerous occasions in the past - 2 World Wars and the Great Depression come easily to mind. Decent leadership in the past has always found the ability for Palo Alto to adequately care for its libraries which is why, before you would try to take it away, we are able to say today:

"Palo Alto has had a Downtown Library for 110 years."

I have seen many cities in the world, and Palo Alto stands out in my mind as one where education and knowledge drives the people. We should try to keep the library open, and try to modernise it with some local funds. Maybe we can do a survey of what kind of new facilities people are expecting from this library, and see if some of them can be provided.

Many of the people who use the downtown branch may be senior citizens who would find it very difficult to get to a more distant library, as they rely on walking to do their errands close to where they live.

THANKS for the info.  I have written to some members of the library commission that I do not want the downtown library closed.  It makes no sense.  This library was built as a replacement for the Carnegie Library that was torn down to build the present city hall.  The design was the result of request for architects to submit proposals for design for a new library and Bill Busse won.  It is the most elegant of our libraries and has served the downtown population, both residents and merchants since the city hall was built.  It is an historical building and should be protected.

I continue to believe that the most important point to be made is that to close the Downtown Library is to eliminate a vital service for people that have no means to access our other library branches.  I believe that the closure of the Downtown Library will bring shame on what has become the new City of Palo Alto.  I have lived in Palo Alto since February 1969.  I used to love and admire this city.  As the days go on, I find Palo Alto a much less desirable place in which to live.  I thought that I'd spend the rest of my days here.  Now, I'm not so certain.

The Downtown Library

The plan's first specific recommendation (page 10) is to close the Downtown Library.  Surprisingly, the plan mentions not a single adverse consequence of this.  For instance, it does not answer:

1. How will the closure impact parking at the Main Library?  Presumably, the Commission expects that library usage will not decrease and may actually increase, so Main Library visits will increase by 40% annually, based on the current usage of the Downtown branch!  The parking lot at the Main Library is already frequently full and certainly cannot hold 40% more cars.  Moreover, patrons from the downtown area would be more likely to drive than the current Main Library users, so the impact is likely to be greater than 40%. 
2. What is the impact on traffic and pollution caused by these extra trips?  Palo Alto is already experiencing enormous traffic problems.  100,000 more trips a year is significant.
3. Where will an additional 40% patrons sit in the Main Library?  Although the plan anticipates creating a new space for teenagers and rearranging some desks and drawers  (page 12), this can hardly create 40% more seating area for the mostly adults who would come from the Downtown library.  A detailed space utilization projection is clearly needed.
4. Where will the Main Library hold the extra volumes from the Downtown Library?  Or will these 16,000 volumes be discarded?
5. What is the immediate impact on the tight City budget?  Office, furniture, collection, and staff relocation require money, as does creating new public spaces in areas formerly occupied by staff.  The plan meekly notes "one-time costs" but does not even project what these will be.
6. What are the long-term costs?  Many assume that closing a branch will save money, but if staff is simply moved around and total square footage in use is the same, will there be any savings?  The plan simply doesn't say.  Ironically, it recommends (page 13) that the library "appoint a senior-level communications officer [] to increase the appreciation of the community for the Palo Alto Library services."  In other words, we should pay extra for someone to tell us how good the libraries are while they are actually being shut down! 
7. How will the closure of the Downtown Library affect downtown users?  Will they simply cease to use the libraries because they no longer have any facility within walking distance?  This would be catastrophic in terms of equity, especially as Downtown Library is a highly-valued resource for many seniors who live nearby.  The plan contains no survey, no projections, and no community input as to the impact of so major a change.  Not one resident of Palo Alto is quoted in the plan.
8. How is the plan consistent with the expressed community desire for branch libraries?  The plan emphasizes (page 9) that "[l]ibraries were ranked right after emergency services in a recent residents' survey" and cities this again in the summary on page 15.  A more precise reading of the survey finds that "Neighborhood Branch Libraries" were rated as Essential or More Important by 54% of respondents.  If the plan wishes to cite the survey to support its recommendations, it surely ought to then provide what the survey's majority asked for, namely branch libraries, instead of closing them.

The entire justification to close the Downtown Library consists of a few sentences (page 10), hardly the depth of analysis that such a huge decision demands.  These scant arguments include a claim that the closure "will make it possible to increase hours and services at the Resource Libraries."  But if all the visits and checkouts from the Downtown Library simply are added to the present load at the Main Library, how will the staff be able to provide more hours or services, especially as the plan points out that the staff is already overworked (pages 6 and 8).  At any rate, the "increase" turns out to be just two extra hours a week (page 11) at the Main Library, which is an inconsequential benefit for the loss of an entire library.

Another claim (page 10) is that closing the Downtown Library will allow for improved collections and expanded purchasing at the Main and Mitchell Park Libraries.  But with the shift of users, will there be room or budget to do this?  The plan does not explain whether these improvements will be substantial and worth losing an entire branch for. 

These few sentences of justification cite that College Terrace is "the most heavily used neighborhood library."  However, this is factually incorrect.  For the most recent year that statistics are available (July 2001 to June 2002), the Downtown Library had almost double the number of visits as College Terrace.

Although the City Council has endorsed the New Library Plan of May 2000, the proposed closure is completely at odds with that plan.  Indeed, the Commission itself notes (page 11) that "neighborhood libraries constituted an integral part of the New Library Plan, providing neighborhood-based reading libraries Downtown, in College Terrace and in the southwest area of Palo Alto."

The plan also cites the need for budget cuts (page 9) but then immediately assumes that this must translate into service hours cuts.  No alternatives are discussed.  Furthermore, there is no consideration of how to distribute budget cuts equitably.  Given Palo Alto's preference for branch libraries, why should the cuts be borne exclusively by the residents near the branch libraries?  A fairer approach would be to distribute the cuts citywide, especially as services and hours can then be easily restored when the budget situation improves.  The plan does not even contemplate reopening the Downtown Branch in that event.

The College Terrace Library

The plan's second recommendation (page 10) is to close the College Terrace Library "if the Library operating budget is to be further reduced."  At this time, community outcry has probably nullified this recommendation.  If it were revived, note that the plan contains no justification for this closure either or consideration of any alternative.

Resource Libraries

The plan promotes the concept that maximizing hours and services at the Main, Children's, and Mitchell Park libraries will "improve library service" (page 10).  An unanswered question is how is "library service" defined?  It is entirely appropriate for the plan to establish some criteria, based on community input, and then apply these to various alternatives.  But there are absolutely no criteria in the plan.  If "library service" means visits, circulation, or accessibility, then closing branches will obviously reduce library service.  At its heart, the plan fails to specify any credible way to evaluate the libraries, and is thus inadequate to serve as the basis for any city action.

Teen Programs Space

If the Downtown Library is closed, the plan recommends it be filled by the administration offices currently in the rear of the Main Library, in turn freeing up that space for teen programs (page 12).  The library plan contains no projected usage, hours, staffing, layout, budget, or benefits for this proposal.  Moreover, the plan should explain how this teen program will overlap with others already funded by the city and with the recently-passed Proposition 49, which provides more monies to local schools for after-hours programs.  If additional teen space is indeed needed, data to support this should have been easy to include.  If providing teen space is a major reason to close the Downtown Library, these two uses need to be quantified, evaluated, and weighed against each other.

Summary