Posted by hypocrisy at work, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Sep 9, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Susie Thom, what no mention that you're on the Campaign Steering Committee for "Better Libraries for Palo Alot"? How disingenuous. Even mentioning College Terrace even though it's not part of the bond.

Posted by No on the library bond, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 9, 2008 at 3:35 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Sep 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm

You have all seen my offer to design, for free, the electrical and mechanical upgrades to air condition the libraries if the city pays for the installation out of their boodle funds. Now if I offered to paint the town red or some such...

Posted by I don't trust the library campaign, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 10, 2008 at 9:54 am

"And if you think libraries are going out of style because of the Internet you need to know that Palo Altans are checking out more materials than ever"

Considering that Susie Thom, author of this piece, is on the campaign steering committee, this is additional disingenuousness. She doesn't mention that the increase in "materials" is actually non-book items, a detail which completely undermines her point.

Posted by No on the library bond, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 10, 2008 at 9:57 am

Thanks for the information. These are just more reasons for me to vote against this bond.

Posted by To: I don't trust the library, a resident of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, on Sep 10, 2008 at 10:02 am

Just curious how you know what the increased materials use are comprised of?

Posted by I don't trust the library campaign, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Sep 10, 2008 at 10:47 am

Borrowing someone else's words from another thread Web Link, here's your answer.

Using the Library's own performance numbers (reported to the State Library), we see:

40% of the Circulation is attributed to "non-books" (Videos and Audios).

The yearly growth rate for this kind of circulation is just under 2% a year. Given the historical trends, then the Library would expect to see circulation of videos/audios (non-books) of about 50% by 2012, 60% by 2018, and 70% by 2025. The claims about needing "more space" seem to be justified by pushing "increased circulation" numbers at the voters--without telling them about the HUGE/GROWING component of videos/audios in the circulation numbers.

Not at all clear how investing upwards of $200M for "free" videos is a good use of the public's money.

Posted by Still don't get it, a resident of the Esther Clark Park neighborhood, on Sep 10, 2008 at 1:45 pm

For all this digital audio/video media, why not have the library pay for the right-to-use for its patrons. That won't take any space at all, and will allow patrons more convenient access.