Grand Forks Library

[UNDershirt]

Trying to get actual information is getting tougher all the time. These websites were offered on here to educate voters:

speakupforyourlibrary.com

or

http://sayanythingbl.../tag/gflibrary/

Both are terrible sources of information. Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow. All opinion. To get any information, you need to read between the lines. I guess this is why teachers were so disapproving of internet sources.

[luckynodak]

Trying to get actual information is getting tougher all the time. These websites were offered on here to educate voters:

speakupforyourlibrary.com

or

http://sayanythingbl.../tag/gflibrary/

Both are terrible sources of information. Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow. All opinion. To get any information, you need to read between the lines. I guess this is why teachers were so disapproving of internet sources.

I would have voted for a 1/4% tax over 10-12 years to pay for a community asset; not a 1% tax making GF higher than any other City in state. I did not pay off my house in 2.5 years and the library likewise will probably last longer than that? It amazes me that the same City leaders proposed this, but maybe they were not for the library either. One of them said the idea to enlarge the leaver site footprint by vacating 12th "couldn't be done". They still have that perceived credibility problem with statements like that. The list is endless of things they do that fall into the undoable category. People did not trust that this tax would in fact sunset, but instead would turn into another source of funds to pay for street reconstruction.

Just do your job, fellows, transparently. This City has proven time and time again it will do what is best for the community. Just do your job.

[Mick1]

I would have voted for a 1/4% tax over 10-12 years to pay for a community asset; not a 1% tax making GF higher than any other City in state. I did not pay off my house in 2.5 years and the library likewise will probably last longer than that? It amazes me that the same City leaders proposed this, but maybe they were not for the library either. One of them said the idea to enlarge the leaver site footprint by vacating 12th "couldn't be done". They still have that perceived credibility problem with statements like that. The list is endless of things they do that fall into the undoable category. People did not trust that this tax would in fact sunset, but instead would turn into another source of funds to pay for street reconstruction.

Just do your job, fellows, transparently. This City has proven time and time again it will do what is best for the community. Just do your job.

You obviouslly didn't read the print under (Forum) which says 'No politics'...

[The Whistler]

Trying to get actual information is getting tougher all the time. These websites were offered on here to educate voters:

speakupforyourlibrary.com

or

http://sayanythingbl.../tag/gflibrary/

Both are terrible sources of information. Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow. All opinion. To get any information, you need to read between the lines. I guess this is why teachers were so disapproving of internet sources.

Ouch.

[luckynodak]

You obviouslly didn't read the print under (Forum) which says 'No politics'...

You obviously didn't notice that this thread is still alive and is about politics as most people define it; other than that do you have a point?

[Cratter]

You obviously didn't notice that this thread is still alive and is about politics as most people define it; other than that do you have a point?

He's just mad the library vote failed.

[The Whistler]

He's just mad the library vote failed.

Can't he still use the old library?

[siouxkid12]

Can't he still use the old library?

no its too small

[The Whistler]

no its too small

Maybe we could book the Alerus for him.

[Goon]

1 No!

Make that 2 NO!!!

[UNDBIZ]

Should a decision on the library location be put to a public vote?

YesNoI don't care

VoteView Results

Previous Polls

Poll on the GFHerald.  Shouldn't the question be "Should Grand Forks build a new public library?"

I was under the impression nobody wants to pay for it.

[Cratter]

31 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

Should a decision on the library location be put to a public vote?

YesNoI don't care

VoteView Results

Previous Polls

Poll on the GFHerald.  Shouldn't the question be "Should Grand Forks build a new public library?"

I was under the impression nobody wants to pay for it.

They got smarter and changed the narrative, making it sound like it's a foregone conclusion. "Where should we put our new library?" "Here's what it'll look like." "Ohh that's nice." "Just vote yes on August 38th and it'll be all yours."

IIRC any sales tax increase has to be voted on by the public so that part is inevitable. And will keep getting voted upon til finally approved.

[jdub27]

1 hour ago, UNDBIZ said:

Poll on the GFHerald.  Shouldn't the question be "Should Grand Forks build a new public library?"

I was under the impression nobody wants to pay for it.'

Cratter is correct, there would need to be a referendum to fund it. The newest idea is to put both the referendum and location to a vote. The first question is a Yes/No on whether it should be built. The second question is whether it should be at midtown (in front of the Grand Cities Mall) or downtown, with the caveat being that you only get to vote on the second question if you voted Yes on the first one. I see there being some issues in shutting those against the library out on the location decision if it did get the needed support.

My observation is that I'm not sure the library and library board could have mismanaged this thing whole thing more from the start if they tried. It has been one constant misstep after another and they've ruined any goodwill and/or trust they have built up to the point that even though there is probably a need for a new structure, no one really trusts their recommendations.

[Goon]

6 hours ago, jdub27 said:

Cratter is correct, there would need to be a referendum to fund it. The newest idea is to put both the referendum and location to a vote. The first question is a Yes/No on whether it should be built. The second question is whether it should be at midtown (in front of the Grand Cities Mall) or downtown, with the caveat being that you only get to vote on the second question if you voted Yes on the first one. I see there being some issues in shutting those against the library out on the location decision if it did get the needed support.

My observation is that I'm not sure the library and library board could have mismanaged this thing whole thing more from the start if they tried. It has been one constant misstep after another and they've ruined any goodwill and/or trust they have built up to the point that even though there is probably a need for a new structure, no one really trusts their recommendations.

 

If I am not mistaken, the people voted not to build a new library not too long ago. Yet, some still think the city is going to build a new one. As a matter of fact, we did. 

[jdub27]

12 hours ago, Goon said:

If I am not mistaken, the people voted not to build a new library not too long ago. Yet, some still think the city is going to build a new one. As a matter of fact, we did. 

Goes back to my comment that they have mismanaged it from the start. The first time it when to a vote, they wanted $21 million with no real plan to speak of. They've done their best to fix that since then, but they continue to be very guarded in a lot of details and costs, not to mention they still can't agree on a site.

[Goon]

2 hours ago, jdub27 said:

Goes back to my comment that they have mismanaged it from the start. The first time it when to a vote, they wanted $21 million with no real plan to speak of. They've done their best to fix that since then, but they continue to be very guarded in a lot of details and costs, not to mention they still can't agree on a site.

 

This has been horribly mismanaged. 

[fightingsioux4life]

14 hours ago, Goon said:

If I am not mistaken, the people voted not to build a new library not too long ago. Yet, some still think the city is going to build a new one. As a matter of fact, we did. 

The first proposal back in 2011 was sunk by two major things: 1) Uncertainty over location and 2) A horrible marketing campaign (If I EVER hear about "The Hobbit" ever again, I will scream). At least this time, they are doing a thorough study on where to build it. And they are having public meetings where you can give your input or ask questions.

[Goon]

Just now, fightingsioux4life said:

The first proposal back in 2011 was sunk by two major things: 1) Uncertainty over location and 2) A horrible marketing campaign (If I EVER hear about "The Hobbit" ever again, I will scream). At least this time, they are doing a thorough study on where to build it. And they are having public meetings where you can give your input or ask questions.

 

They're still going to need to have a vote on it. 

[fightingsioux4life]

1 minute ago, Goon said:

They're still going to need to have a vote on it. 

Nobody has disputed that and that is what should happen. Polls last time showed people were supportive of a new library, but all the confusion over where it should be built is what clouded the issue and made people reluctant to vote yes. This time, they are actually vetting locations. I think the midtown location near the Grand Cities Mall is the best place (plenty of parking, room to build). The current library site could then be sold to private interests.

[Fetch]

Back in the 60's 70's 80's & most of 90's 

I went to libraries a lot I loved to read magazines but was to tight to subscribe 

Then I got a computer in 97 & then a smart phone when they came out 

Before the smart phone my computer once quit working & I went to the Library to use one - that was the only time since then that I have been there 

I can honestly say I have never been really bored since the smartphone  came out

I'd almost rather see $ used to assist people be able to get online than spent on a expensive Library that have turned into Internet cafes without the coffee

 

[fightingsioux4life]

1 hour ago, Fetch said:

Back in the 60's 70's 80's & most of 90's 

I went to libraries a lot I loved to read magazines but was to tight to subscribe 

Then I got a computer in 97 & then a smart phone when they came out 

Before the smart phone my computer once quit working & I went to the Library to use one - that was the only time since then that I have been there 

I can honestly say I have never been really bored since the smartphone  came out

I'd almost rather see $ used to assist people be able to get online than spent on a expensive Library that have turned into Internet cafes without the coffee

You would be surprised at the number of people that use the library for their internet access. Not everyone has high-speed internet or a smartphone. Go into the G.F. Public Library sometime; the computers are usually packed with people. That is what a new library would focus on; online and electronic resources. And those things are lacking at the current library and would be expensive to put in vs. building a new facility. Even the Harley E. French Health Sciences Library on campus is going to get rid of most of their paper copies and make digital access to journals available 24/7.

The future of libraries will look much different from what it was even 10 years ago.

[jdub27]

56 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

You would be surprised at the number of people that use the library for their internet access. Not everyone has high-speed internet or a smartphone. Go into the G.F. Public Library sometime; the computers are usually packed with people. That is what a new library would focus on; online and electronic resources. And those things are lacking at the current library and would be expensive to put in vs. building a new facility. Even the Harley E. French Health Sciences Library on campus is going to get rid of most of their paper copies and make digital access to journals available 24/7.

The future of libraries will look much different from what it was even 10 years ago.

While I agree with you, it becomes confusing why they are proposing a 58,000 square feet facility, which is over 50% bigger than the currently one.

[fightingsioux4life]

57 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

While I agree with you, it becomes confusing why they are proposing a 58,000 square feet facility, which is over 50% bigger than the currently one.

The overall number of people that use it has grown and grown. You can't find parking half the time and when it is busy, it is quite crowded in there. There is a false perception that nobody uses the library anymore; it simply isn't true.

[Cratter]

Hey UNDBIZ it's about that time....

[jdub27]

20 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

The overall number of people that use it has grown and grown. You can't find parking half the time and when it is busy, it is quite crowded in there. There is a false perception that nobody uses the library anymore; it simply isn't true.

I've never stated the library isn't used, I don't think that has really been an argument that has come up any time in the last few years. And I'd agree that the people using it aren't necessarily using it for traditional library uses, but if the new library is focused on online and electronic resources, as you stated and I agree with, there should be less room required for physical books. So why the need for over 50% more space? I also agree on the parking issue, which is why the downtown option doesn't make much sense. The proposes solution has been some underground parking but I can't imagine that would be real cheap, especially with the proximity to the Red River.

Just for comparison, Fargo's library that was built in 2009 was just under 53,000 square feet.