I'm still voting NO on N.
Just 'cause more people are using them doesn't mean I should pay for it.

The very informative statistic is that remote catalog searches are significantly up and that the number of holds are up also. These figures alone show that we do not need fully stocked library shelves at downtown and CT. People put holds on books and when they are available that is when they go the library. Therefore, checkout and pickup desks at community centers in dt and ct are all that are needed.

Can't anyone see this?

And it climbs in neighboring cities where they pay far less for their library service. This is not a reason to vote yes on this bond.

From another thread:

Here's some info comparing city budgets & population. Population figures are from the 2000 census, budget is for the 2008 - 2009 fiscal year:

Los Altos budget - $28,478,684, pop. - 27,693, $/person - $1,029

Menlo Park budget- $36,678,597, pop. - 30,785, $/person - $1,191

Mt View budget - $86,205,161, pop. - 70,708, $/person - $1,219

Palo Alto budget - $146,571,000, pop. - 58,598, $/person - $2,501


We're now up to 2.5x that of neighboring cities. This bond will only make it worse.

here's some ACCURATE data, instead of what another poster rightfully called "cherry-picked" data. Why are so many of these anti-bond posters using numbers to distort the picture? You can tell they have an axe to grind about spending money on anything.

here's some good data showing Palo Alto libraries run MORE efficiently than neighboring libraries. We need library repair. The library buildings haven't been touched in 45 years!!

Please vote YES! on N! It's for our kids, our schools, our seniors, and our community!

Spending per capita Library Spending Per Capita FY 2005-06, with per capita efficiency ratings for each city based on cumulative library hour service return for per capita investment (i.e. per capita spend[PCS]] **divided by**cumulative service hour [CSH]. PLease note that *the lower the number, the higher the library staff efficiency in terms of total amount of service hour delivery accomplished*)

Palo Alto's $97.01 per capita spend results in 238 cumulative service hours at 5 branches per week PCS/CSH = .41

Santa Clara $57.70 per capita results in 73 hours of cumulative service hours at one branch per week PCS/CSH = .78

Mountain View's $55.19 results in 56 cumulative service hours of library services at one branch per week PCS/CSH = .98

Menlo Park $61.68 per capita results in 57 cumulative service hours of library services at one branch per week PCS/CSH = .92

Sunnyvale $49.97 per capita results in 57 cumulative service hours of library services at one branch per week. PCS/CSH = .88

By this reckoning, Palo Alto library staff is 2-2.5 times *more* efficient than its municipal neighbors.

ATM books...

Web Link

"The very informative statistic is that remote catalog searches are significantly up and that the number of holds are up also. These figures alone show that we do not need fully stocked library shelves at downtown and CT."

Here's another example of someone taking data to distort our library situation.

Circulation is UP in all libraries. How does this poster know that's due to remote searches? Please cite your source for this conclusion.

So here we have citizens - kids, seniors, parents, businesspersons, using the library MORE, and some people want to shut most of it down. Does that make sense?

YES, on N!

lsal, anyone can re-print posts:

Did you know?

1. Palo Alto spends twice as much as other local libraries in a survey by the city auditor.

Palo Alto library budget at $97.01 per capita already far exceeds those of our neighboring cities. The closest is Menlo Park at $61.68 with Sunnyvale only needing to spend $49.97 per capita to offer a superior service.

2. Palo Alto libraries require nearly twice as many staff per 1000 card holders as other local libraries in a survey by the city auditor.

Palo Alto library system needs 0.95 full time employees (FTE) per 1000 card holders. The maximum required by our neighboring cities is 0.59 by Santa Clara with the lowest being Mountain View at 0.55. All neighboring cities require less than 0.60 FTEs per 1000 card holders. Since the audit, the number of Palo Alto libraries employees has increased from 104 to 109.

3. Your cost will be far higher than the $139 per household per year that Beter Libraries for Palo Alto site quotes.

The better libraries for Palo Alto site continues to say that $139 per homeowner as a reasonable average annual cost estimate. This is *not* a parcel tax and the actual cost of the bond is $28.74 per $100,000 of assessed value. There may be a lot of people who will be paying only $20 a year but there will be also be an awful lot of people paying over $400 a year to make up for that.

4. Pro-bond council members wanted to use to city's contingency fund to futher increase the library budget.

Even though Palo Alto requires far more employees and has a far higher budget than those of other local libraries, pro-bond Councilman Greg Schmid wanted to dip into the council's $175,000 contingency fund for general support for libraries. He had to be reminded that the contingency fund is usually needed for unexpected projects or needs that come up during the year.

5. The 2008 bond plan is the result of a special interest group pushing its own objectives.

When the last branch library closed, the Friends of Palo Alto libraries (FOPAL) threatened, in an open letter to councli, to reduce funding to offset any saving made by the closure. This is at odds with the most recent survey showing 58% of Palo Altans agreed that focusing our resources on one or two full-service libraries instead of spending money to upgrade 5 different libraries was a convincing argument. FOPAL failed in its attempt to force the branch to remain open. In a recent PA Weekly article Senior Staff Writer Dan Kazac stated, incorrectly, that Palo Alto had a decades old 5-branch library policy completely forgetting that Palo Alto had only recently closed a branch without any issues.

6. If the bond passes the library budget and annual costs will only further increase.

Diane Jennings stated she would examine staffing but said it would be challenging to staff a larger facility for additional hours with the same number of people.

Here we go again with the 238 cumulative service hours. That is a red herring--you can only be at one branch at a time--so cumultaive hours do not matter. The above numbers have been posted before and they have been discredited as fuzzy math.
Vote No on the bond. Let's have the city council come up with a fiscally responsible bond for a single main library. This will send a message to the council, Ms Cormack and FOPAL that they do not represent and/or choose not to listen to what the people really want

It's interesting to see you calling these numbers fuzzy math, because they show the REAL picture! Palo Alto is 2.5 more efficient in library service than neighboring communities.

And, thanks for the lesson in physics, but it doesn't apply in this case. Having branches means that more kids can attend libraries after school, by walking. More seniors can walk to their library. Palo Alto becomes safer because of this walkability. more kids can get help with homework. Most residents can walk or bike to a library. That would NOT be true if we didn't have branches, and way more cumulative hours than neighboring libraries.

Vote YES on N, so we can repair outworn infrastructure that our own auditor said was in worse shape than any library system on the Peninsula!

YES on N!

Loves

You asked where I took my data. I took my data from the initial post, I am not sure where this came from.

Technology continues to impact the library. Remote catalog searches rose 27% to approximately 1.3 million, or almost one per item checked out. Patrons placed about 209,000 holds, up 15% from the year before. Online database logins climbed 24%, while Internet sessions in the library increased by 4%. Higher Internet usage may explain the 6% drop in reference and where-do-I-find questions from patrons to about 116,000 annually.

I don't feel that this is slanting anything. What it shows me is that people are using libraries differently than they used to. Instead of going to the library and looking at the shelves to find a book to check out, they are using their computer at home to browse the catalog then place a hold. When they receive the email saying that the book is in the library of their choice, they take a trip to the library.

I myself do this slightly differently. When I have books to return I take them enroute to other errands and call in the library to drop them off. While I am there I check and see if what I want is on the shelves (it usually isn't) and then place a hold. I then return to the library after I get the email telling me it is there once again enroute to another errand. I often find the library closed due to hot weather, but that is another problem.

So, if people are using the library like me, then the need for stocked shelved at all branches is not there. QED.

Mountain View Library
---------------------

Square footage: 60,000
Circulation: 1.4 million
Patrons: 810,589
Hours open: 64

Palo Alto Libraries
-------------------

Total Square footage: 51,435
Circulation: 1,414,509
Patrons: 862,081
Hours open: 62

Mountain view is open more hours, has more square feet, provides for the same circulation and patrons and does it all with half the staff and at half the per capita cost as Palo Alto.

Numbers, you are not churning the numbers properly, according to loves schools and libraries and person2000a, palo alto has 200+ cumulative hours--which means, according to them, you can spend 200+ hours a week in the Palo Alto libraries and only 64 hours at the Mountain View library.
As I said before--there postings are full of fuzzy math

Did you know?

1. Palo Alto libraries are run 2.5 times more efficiently than neighboring libraries, according to audited analysis?

here are the numbers:
Spending per capita Library Spending Per Capita FY 2005-06, with per capita efficiency ratings for each city based on cumulative library hour service return for per capita investment (i.e. per capita spend[PCS]] **divided by**cumulative service hour [CSH]. PLease note that *the lower the number, the higher the library staff efficiency in terms of total amount of service hour delivery accomplished*)

Palo Alto's $97.01 per capita spend results in 238 cumulative service hours at 5 branches per week PCS/CSH = .41

Santa Clara $57.70 per capita results in 73 hours of cumulative service hours at one branch per week PCS/CSH = .78

Mountain View's $55.19 results in 56 cumulative service hours of library services at one branch per week PCS/CSH = .98

Menlo Park $61.68 per capita results in 57 cumulative service hours of library services at one branch per week PCS/CSH = .92

Sunnyvale $49.97 per capita results in 57 cumulative service hours of library services at one branch per week. PCS/CSH = .88

By this reckoning, Palo Alto library staff is 2-2.5 times *more* efficient than its municipal neighbors.

2. Palo Alto libraries staff runs - as stated above - 2.5 times more efficiently by serving Palo Alto card holders for almost THREE TIMES the service hours provided by neighboring libraries?

3. Your taxpayer dollar, spent for the library, will return between $1.30 and $4.60 to the community in REAL DOLLARS according to TWENTY-FIVE municipal studies that looked into this matter. Those studies were conducted by econometricians and demographers in cities like St. Louis, San Francisco, and 23 other cities - many the size of Palo Alto.

So, the DOLLAR BENEFITS of library service costs EXCEED the cost! there is no better municipal service deal than public libraries.

4. City Council members have funded several polls that clearly show the VAST majority of Palo Altans support Measure N, support our branch system, and want our libraries brought into the 21st century.

5. That is Measure N fails, it will be YEARS before we approach another bond, and that that bond, even if for a single central library, will cost MORE than Measure N, which supports an entire branch system?

Can you imagine living with the current system; it's overcrowding; lacking room for increasing collections; having to close in the summer when it gets too hot. Palo Altans don't want this!

6. The 2008 bond plan is the result of more than three polls and two years of diligence that clearly shows Palo Altans, by a large margin, want to fix their library system for the sake of their kids, seniors, and the future of our community!

7. If the bond passes the library budget will become even MORE efficient, and FoPAL and the Foundation will be able to raise even more private money to help our library.

Diane Jennings has addressed every single item in the audit, further increasing efficiencies in an already highly efficient staff - and, she has also stated that Palo Alto library infrastructure is in bad need of repair. She also said that although staffing would be a challenge, that our very efficient library staff (2.5 times more efficient than neighboring libraries - see above) is up to the task.

YES! on Measure N.

For our kids, our schools, our seniors, our environment (yes, branches cut down on car trips, and help the environment in other ways!), and for the future of our community!!

Marvin, having 236 cumulative hours in our library system, instead of a measly 64 hours in Mountain View, means yo can have three story times on a weekend that parents and kids can WALK to. You can't do that in Mountain View.

It means that seniors downtown (there are LOTS of them there) can walk to a library - many otherwise would not be able to drive to a library.

It means that less people have to get into their cars to drive to a library.

It means that most PAUSD students can walk or bike to a library after school. Just look at all the kids from Escondido and Nixon who use College Terrace library!

Yes! on Measure N

Person 2000a

I don't live within 1/2 mile of a library. I don't go to a library as a special trip. I go the library enroute with other errands.

For this supposedly walkable community, I have to use my car to go grocery shopping, to buy clothes for my kids, to buy a fastfood lunch, to go to the library, to go to the post office to use a park with a bathroom, and to buy gas, I have to make a detour out of my way since the local gas station became a derelict site.

Most of my neighbors do the same.

"I don't live within 1/2 mile of a library. I don't go to a library as a special trip."

I do, and so do many of my neighbors....and, they're all voting YES!!

Yes, on N!

oops! I got my neighborhood wrong, sorry!

YES! on N

Persona

I can't walk to a story time at any library, and I wouldn't want to go to 3 each weekend. In fact, I can't picture any family walking to 3 storytimes, one after the other.

Story times can take place in a community center, they don't have to be at a fully stocked library and anyone can read books to kids, they don't have to be librarians. If a family wants a story time as a priority, regardless of how many and where they may be happening, if it doesn't fit in with their schedule they can't walk there at the one time in their own neighborhood. If they choose to go to one that fits in with their schedule, it may be the other side of time.

I think you feel we must all be gullible. Look at the nonsense you are talking about and see how it fits into real people's lives.

Seniors can walk to a checkout desk in a community center. Seniors tend to be less busy than the rest of us and if a bookmobile turned up at their local community center once a week, they would be able to schedule that into their weekly agenda. Seniors do not need to have fully fledged stocked libraries available 60 hours per week within walking distance.

School kids do not need fully stocked shelves at community centers every day after school. If they need help with homework, then there is homework help at school. If they need hangout time, they don't need a library where they can watch tv or play video games. They need a community center like the Drop.

person200a--how many times are you going to post the "cumulative hours" red herring? I think people have seen it numerous times (especially in the last hour) and they can draw their own conclusions from it.

To address some of your other points:

"3. Your taxpayer dollar, spent for the library, will return between $1.30 and $4.60 to the community in REAL DOLLARS according to TWENTY-FIVE municipal studies that looked into this matter. Those studies were conducted by econometricians and demographers in cities like St. Louis, San Francisco, and 23 other cities - many the size of Palo Alto."

This issue, the 25 other studies, has also been flogged to death on this forum and i think it has also been exposed as fuzzy math, at best.


"4. City Council members have funded several polls that clearly show the VAST majority of Palo Altans support Measure N, support our branch system, and want our libraries brought into the 21st century."

Maybe, but the polls I recall were clearly slanted towards maintaining the branch system (since no city council member wants to incur the wrath of FOPAL--everyone remembers what happened to our former library director). I also suppport our library (not branches) being brought into the 21st century--by building a single main library that is modern.

"5. That is Measure N fails, it will be YEARS before we approach another bond, and that that bond, even if for a single central library, will cost MORE than Measure N, which supports an entire branch system?

Can you imagine living with the current system; it's overcrowding; lacking room for increasing collections; having to close in the summer when it gets too hot. Palo Altans don't want this!"

So be it then, I can wait years for our council to do the right thing.



"6. The 2008 bond plan is the result of more than three polls and two years of diligence that clearly shows Palo Altans, by a large margin, want to fix their library system for the sake of their kids, seniors, and the future of our community!"

If that is true you have nothing to worry about on election day.
The number that interests me is 33 1/3 +1

"In fact, I can't picture any family walking to 3 storytimes, one after the other."

But three DIFFERENT families could, instead of two of them driving. That's the difference. How many Mt. View residents can walk with their kids to the library? Not too many. THat's one of the great things about our branch system.

You're wrong about story times in a community center, because after story times, kids linger in the library to borrow more books, and read.

You mention a bookmobile. Palo Alto doesn't HAVE a bookmobile. Are you seriously saying that a bookmobile that is there for an hour and gone is better than a branch that a kid or a senior can walk to? Nonsense.

Kids go to the library to use the library. Are you seriously proposing that kids don't have the right to use a library the way adults do? Honestly, I can't figure out where you're coming from, because your experience is way off the mark compared to me and most of my neighbors.

We know that the library plays an important supplementary role in our children's education, and that we want a better collection for our kids.

Right now, there is no room to increase the collection.

YES! on measure N!

Person2000a--

"How many Mt. View residents can walk with their kids to the library? Not too many."

How do you know this? have you counted or done a survey?

More fuzzy math unlike the clear 33 1/3+1

Marvin, I am predicting a 71-76% YES vote on Measure N. There isi great enthusiasm among seniors (I volunteer with seniors and haven't spoken to one that is voting against N), and all the schools are coming on board. Remember the 80%+ for the last school bond? That's what this is shaping up to look like.

I know you're working hard to defeat Measure N, but this time Palo Alto is coming together.


YES! on Measure N!

Marvin, Go look at a map. Draw a half-mile concentric circle around each library, and do the math. Far more Palo Altans can walk to a library than Mt. View residents. If you can't see that, then you need to bone up on topography and geometry. A visit to one of our branch libraries might help - you can probably stroll over.

YES! on N!!

person2000a
I am a senior and I am living on fix income. I enjoy riding to the library every weekend. Distance is not the issue here but money does these days. If you really try to help the old generation like myself, please vote NO on N and stop talking like an idxxt! Thx

person2000a--another reason to vote no on the bond is your snide, condescending comments
More people may be able to walk to a branch in PA, but they get less than those that walk to the Mtn View library and once again to point out to you--drawing concentric circles is not the same as providing the actual numbers you boast about.
Anyway if you are so certain about 80+% this time, I do not know why you are so concerned and are constantly posting to this forum and insulting those that do not agree with you.
Maybe things are more in line with Klein's comments that about 62% are onboard now.

""I don't live within 1/2 mile of a library. I don't go to a library as a special trip."

I do, and so do many of my neighbors....and, they're all voting YES!!"

How is that possible? Neither Mitchell Park or College Terrace are within 1/2 mile of any part of the Barron Park neighborhood.

Persona

No Palo Alto does not have a bookmobile. But, it does have a system whereby books are transported to drop off libraries all over town at present. This means that books can be transported by this method to community centers pickup desks and drop offs without extra cost. Yes, better than a bookmobile I agree. Hey, we could probably do better and have one at Lucie Stern as well. That would actually be an increase in service. You must like that one.

"More seniors and kids can walk to libraries in Palo Alto then Mountain View" - so what. Once you walk to your PA library it is much more likely to be closed or without the item you are looking for then any of the surrounding towns.

"libraries plays an important supplementary role in our children's education, and that we want a better collection for our kids" - yes and each of the PAUSD students has one within walking distance of their classroom - its called a school library. Keep them open longer.

"surveys show that most palo alto residents support the branch system" I suspect if the survey question was "You can have one new library for 40 million or keep the branches for 75 million" the answer may be totally different.

No matter how efficient we are, it takes more staff, electricity, water, books, etc. to run 5 buildings. How green is that?

wow! Weekly editor, the same poster keeps using multiple sigs. Most of the "no" on D posts on this thread are by one or two people.

What this obsessed person doesn't realize is that the community has already been polled on this issue - many times. And the community says it will support a rebuild in November.

I can't wait till the bond passes! We'll finally have a library that Palo Alto has a library we can all be proud of!

wow! Weekly editor, the same poster keeps using multiple sigs. Most the "yes" on D posts on this thread are by one or two people.

Isn't this called dialog? or debate? or something?

I don't know about multiple posters, but I do want our citizens to understand that if Measure N fails, we may lose our entire library system! Please vote for the bond!!!

"but I do want our citizens to understand that if Measure N fails, we may lose our entire library system!"

Why do you say that? If we dont pass the bond, the library will continue in its current form, correct? If not, why not?

If Measure N fails our library will regress to a shell of its former self. the library infrastructure is way past being able to wait another six years. Even though the buildings still stand, and circulation and visits are climbing, the infrastructure can no longer hold. Mitchell and Main cannot be rebuilt from the general fund. There is a serious move afoot to replace or retire the entire system if this Measure N fails. This is the last chance to save Palo Alto's library system. Vote YES on Measure N, and save our public library!

Actually, I don't think anyone knows what will happen if we vote No.

That is part of the trouble, we have no alternative plans. If we vote No, then an alternative or two will be brought into play.

Don't use scaretactics, chicken licken, the sky is not falling and will not fall immediately if we vote No.

You make a joke about our library closing?? I don't think that's very funny. Where will the money come from to fix our library? We will lose our library system if Measure N fails. MITCHELL IS PRACTICALLY FALLING DOWN!! You seem to be happy with that! That's what you want, isn't it? Admit it, and stop hiding underneath the cover of civility, and false data.