For those of you who have been reading, you’ve noticed I’m not too fond of the Library Authority. The biggest reason isn’t that it will inevitably flex some muscle to build a new library in South Side, or even that it will incur debt doing so. The biggest problem I have is that half of the Authority members are not from Scranton.
No non-city resident should have the power to incur debt for a city authority that we, Scrantonians, are ultimately responsible for. It is not right, nor is it fair.
As for the debt issue, the only way I could possibly get behind this authority, after they dump all of the appointed outsiders, is if they have a revenue stream capable of paying any debt acquired for the building of a new library.
A library is South Side is a great idea. The area is very depressed and has a large immigrant and lower income population, both groups would benefit greatly from a library and would be very likely to use it. Computer access for kids, learning tools for non-English speakers, and, of course, books are all going to be beneficial to the area, not to mention the creation of a destination in South Side.
I do not like the idea of it being the main city library, however, as that is poor city planning. The downtown needs a library.
Janet Evans has opposed the Library Authority mostly for financial reasons, and maybe just because it’s something the Mayor wants and she can flex her muscle, who knows. In the Times today, she was quoted as saying she’s open but she won’t be changing her mind on this. Hmm… Contradiction much?
Here is what I think could be acceptable:
The Albright gets leased by Lackawanna College, under the condition that the Library remains open to the public. This would provide a guaranteed revenue stream for the Authority.
The Library Authority holds fundraisers and solicits donations for the new library, so that wealthy people can get their name on a big plaque near the entrance. Hey, universities do that stuff all the time and it works for them.
The new library leases space for a café in the library itself, which would also generate revenue. I do not like the idea of a bank going there, but that would also provide a revenue stream.
All of this would be conditional upon the removal of the non-residents of the Authority, since they have no right to determine the governance of anything Scranton-related.
Those are my personal conditions for support. A library would be beneficial and would spur development in an area that badly needs it.
I also think a new library would be a good idea either in South Side or elsewhere. However, I do not like the idea of an authority being the deciding body. I like elected officials who have direct accountability making big, expensive decisions. Is it harder? Sure.
In terms of revenue stream to pay for a new Library, why would anyone lease the Albright, keep it open as a library to the public, and pay enough to generate any money much beyond upkeep? It won’t and can’t happen – given those conditions (public access and staying a library) it has limited economic utility to any college. As an old, energy inefficient building, I would guess it is very expensive to operate and would be very expensive to rework the infrastructure to accommodate the kind of modern technology that a college library would need. Just how much do you think anyone would pay? A quick calculation of a 4% bond for 30 years requires a monthly payback of $80K or about a million a year. Not happening.
Makes good sense. I don’t necessarily mind the idea of an Authority, as long as it answers to electeds, but your point is well taken.
I do think that Lackawanna leasing the library wouldn’t be problematic, because it needs a library and the resources it would focus on would be beneficial to the public. I’m sure the building can be upgraded, just look at what they did with Central.
As for money, leasing, late fees (minimal, sure), the rent on the North Scranton property, fundraising and maybe even federal or state funding might help jumpstart the project.
Why don’t we just forego the whole democratic process altogether, you know the one that involves the actual ELECTED officals. Let’s just let authorities run everthing. Let them keep giving city owned properties to non-profits. Let them keep consuming properties at a record tax free pace under the guise that this will be GOOD FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY (insert swinging stop watch here). Please, please stop buying into this Bulls&#t !! Put it on a referendum and let the people decide.
As long as they don’t tax us or cause the city a burden, and are appointed by electeds (like the Housing Authority, for example), then it doesn’t have to be a bad idea. But they have righteously screwed this up, particularly by appointing non-Scranton residents.
I wonder if a referendum on the Authority would be legally binding. I don’t see why it wouldn’t. Good call.