Letter: Petitioners Represent Tyranny Of The Minority
Photo: flckr.com. Creative Commons
The following letter was sent to the Amherst Town Council on May 11, 2021
Having listened with great dismay to some of the Board of Registrar’s recent meetings, I wanted to voice my opinion as you consider a course of action with respect to the Jones Library.
First, a petition is not an election, and should not be treated as such. Here’s why –
The petitioners had none of the checks and verification requirements that occur during an election. To treat a petition signatory as the equivalent of a vote is simply a false comparison. The petitioners were under no supervision, and as was clearly the case in this signature drive, they may say whatever they like to cajole unwary residents into signing. Unlike an election, there was no opportunity for signatories to hear about and weigh the other side of the argument – the very argument that persuaded 10 members of the Council to vote in favor of funding the project. We know definitively that petitioners were throwing everything but the kitchen sink at potential signatories – including spreading patently false information about the cost of the project and the ability of the Town to use MBLC grant monies for other purposes. Scare tactics like these serve no purpose but to confuse, and are, of course, similar to the underhanded tactics that members of this same group used to sink the school project at Town Meeting. You and I and everyone in Town will be paying for that disinformation campaign for decades to come when the upcoming school project comes in at many millions more…
Second, the large number (at least 26) signatories who took steps to attempt to retract their signatures from the Town Clerk is nothing short of astonishing and speaks volumes about just how low the petitioners went to get people to sign. I would venture that the Clerk’s office has never experienced anything like this in our Town’s history. There are likely many more signatories who would retract but are reluctant to speak out. I urge you to confront the petitioners with this information and hold them to account. This is a truly troublesome issue for our local democracy.
Third, the people, through the Council have spoken decisively and the petitioners did not meet the threshold – their clock has run out. The subsequent actions by the petitioners are frivolous, without merit and come from a place of extreme personal privilege and prejudice. I sincerely wish they would put their energies to more productive use, but this group continues to believe that they exist on a plane far above the rest of us and that honesty, fair play and reality are whatever they choose to make of it at a particular moment in time. How long must we as a community be held hostage to such ridiculous and destabilizing behavior?
In closing, I want to thank you for your ongoing service. While I certainly wish that the Council vote had been unanimous in its support of funding the Jones renovation and expansion, I do respect the debate and thought that went into the decision. Even with the MBLC grant and additional private support, it is a major expense for our community and I appreciate the financial impact that this and the other key capital projects will have on all of us. Obviously, I believe the benefits far outweigh the costs and, having worked on more than 25 other public library facility projects, I fervently believe that the Jones renovation and expansion will make Amherst a more equitable, just and open community for all – particularly children, teens, seniors and new Americans. Further delay will only increase costs, and, as the budget number is set, this will mean that cuts will have to be made. That would be unfortunate, as our community deserves a Jones that is truly a 21st Century Learning Center and Community Information Hub.
I urge you to do all in your power to allow this critical project to move forward without any delay and to help thwart this tyranny of the minority that has once again reared its head in our Town.
Matt Blumenfeld
Matt Blumenfeld is a 25+ year resident of Amherst, a former Town Meeting member and Amherst business owner. His firm, Financial Development Agency, Inc., (FDA) has worked with the Jones Library for a number of years on resource development and the renovation and expansion project. FDA has helped more than 25 public libraries in the Commonwealth and beyond to raise funds and create new facilities. This letter was written in his capacity as a resident of Amherst.
Hello Mr. Blumenfeld,
Thanks for your discussions. In your letter you say “a petition is not an election, and should not be treated as such”.
I agree! But who is asserting this? I have not heard from either sides of this divisive issue saying that the petition IS an election. For the sake of your arguments please indicate your sources for this.
You also state “the petitioners had none of the checks and verification requirements that occur during an election”.
In which I also agree that you are correct! BUT that’s the whole point of referendum petitions, to bring about a community (town, state, nation) wide VOTE for important issues.
Are you against the overall petition clause in the Amherst city charter? Are you saying the strong petition clause protections in the charter should now be REMOVED??
I put forth that the petition clause is INTEGRAL to the minimal checks and balances of the town’s charter itself. Another problem is that the unelected town manager has unlimited powers to pay KP Law’s hourly fees from the limited Amherst budget with zero oversights.
About three, maybe four, years ago a young woman, who’s now ON the Amherst city council, approached my front garden and explained to me that (then) Town meeting members were sadly SLOW and OUT of TOUCH with voters and that the new charter system has a petition escape clause should a city council become OUT of TOUCH and start making BAD decisions, and council members will server for only TWO years and have term limits.
We NOW appear to be at that point. MANY on the town council appear sadly OUT of TOUCH, perhaps because they’re now in their third (un-elected???) year. I’m not really sure how they got this third ‘free’ year but I digressing.
So I vote for keeping the citizen petition protections in the charter! It’s MINIMAL but it’s all we got AND let’s FAIRLY count those who sign the petitions.
-Roberto M. Smith Amherst resident and concerned citizen
There you go again, Mr. Blumenfeld. If ever there were a petition-sophisticated town, both for gathering petition signatures and for signing petitions, Amherst is it. It’s what we do.
The whole point of the new Town Charter’s Voter Veto Petition process (Charter, Section 8.4: https://www.amherstma.gov/27/Your-Government) is to allow a fairly daunting number of Amherst voter petitioners — 5% of the number registered to vote in the most recent Town election — to send Town Council decisions to the voters in a referendum, if Town Council votes the second time the same way it did the first. Gathering the signatures of 1,088 voters, within the required 14 days plus a holiday, would be hard enough in ordinary times. That the petitioners did it now is nothing less than heroic.
Yes, amazing as it might seem, rather a substantial number of Amherst voters think that the voters, rather than Town Council, should vote on whether to borrow the $13.6 million, or whatever it is, that the Council wants to borrow for the Jones Library demolition/
expansion project.
As I recall, this novel Voter Veto Petition process was one of the wonderful selling points about how democratic this Town Council form of government was supposed to be. The very first time Amherst voters try to use it, however, you object in part because Town Council voted 10-2 and one abstention for the measure about which 1,088 of us then petitioned. Doesn’t this sound just a tad as if we plebs are not sufficiently grateful to our betters?
As to delay increasing the cost, what have the Library Trustees been doing since their proposed project went on the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners’ waiting list in July 2017? Even now, apparently, they still do not have final plans.
And about those 26 Petition signatories who reportedly changed their minds afterward, and honesty (since you bring this up), don’t you think you should have linked to Art Keene’s reporting on the apparently extensive social media effort to try to get Voter Veto Petition signers to back out? [in comments: https://www.amherstindy.org/2021/05/07/board-of-registrars-takes-no-action-on-appeal-of-signature-disqualifications-hearing-continued-to-monday/%5D Over the past 2 decades I’ve signed a gazillion petitions in Amherst. I’ve never heard of anything like it.
Finally, let’s look at what Town Council IS willing to leave to the voters: whether to equip our children with desperately-needed new elementary schools. Our children, by law, must attend whatever schools Amherst provides, 5 days a week, throughout the school year — or go elsewhere. Public libraries are vital. Unless I believed this, I would not have given the years of my life as a Jones Library Trustee that I did.
But as between what our schools need and what our Library needs, I think that Town Council has it backwards. What our schools need should be guaranteed, instead of leaving the schools to the risk of a tax exclusion override vote (i.e., tax increase) that could fail. Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a town in which one could, in effect, espouse such a position, without being publicly denigrated for it?
Mr Blumenfeld,
With all due respect, you’ve done your convictions and your clients a grave disservice.
If you can’t argue the facts or the law, you really shouldn’t pound the table and yell mistruths, insults and assumptions as to what is in the hearts and minds of those with whom you disagree. Sad.
If indeed you are confidently on the “right side” of the Library issue, what are you afraid of by having the voters exercise “their” right to having a town wide vote regarding it?
BTW, if you could get your mind off your target for a minute, you might understand that what is at hand are separate issues to the ones you cling to; they are called democracy and legal process.
As an Aside: All signatures counted were filed before the deadline set by the Town. Those who requested to have their signatures withdrawn did so after the deadline set by the Town. Polls open…polls closed. Since when does anyone get a do-over after polls have closed?
I find it pretty embarrassing that I live in a place where the people who have spare time and money choose to spend so much of it quarreling over the particulars of a library expansion. Meanwhile, in the real world, the rents are skyrocketing to unsustainable levels, local businesses are struggling, and the town is missing opportunities to move into this century with promising new ideas like a fully funded CRESS program. I’ve lived in this area for ten years, and this library fight has been going on for most of that time. I can have coherent conversations with people who are younger than this fight. It’s disturbing to me how many of you are playing your violins as Rome burns.
Mr. Blumenthal’s premise that “a petition is not an election” is correct, but a correct premise requires sound reasoning to reach a correct conclusion, and there he fails.
Not only is this review-by-petition-and-potential-referendum process now underway in Amherst an explicit part of our recently-adopted charter, it’s also a fundamental right that is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which binds each state and each of its municipal subdivisions, including Amherst:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In sharing his views at this news site, Mr. Blumenthal has certainly benefited from the first clause of the First Amendment, but perhaps he’s overlooked the last clause….
Thank you Matt for writing this comment to town council and to the Indy for publishing it. Another important point to note that seems to be overlooked is that several town councilor reported a large majority of comments and emails received from the public ahead of the vote were in favor of the library project – upwards of 80% in favor. I believe the Indy even reported that from the public forums. The majority of Amherst supports this project. There is no conspiracy or alternative reality here. I also find the comment above referring to a councilor as a young woman to be offensive – it shows a lack of regard for both women and people either perceived as young or “new” getting involved. Last I checked I believe all but one of the councilors was over the age of 40.
Mr. Blumenthal?
Who’s that?
I’m curious to know how many Amherst voters are aware that this vote is at hand. I just found out, and I would certainly vote against this expansion. I have a hard time believing that 80% of Amherst residents would support this project as it is currently outlined. I certainly would support some renovations, but this seems woefully misaligned with our needs as a town. I believe it should go to a vote.
Shelly – here is coverage from the town forums: https://www.amherstindy.org/2021/03/12/second-jones-library-forum-mirrors-the-first/. The council voted in favor of the project on April 5th. I would be interested to understand your concerns and where you see misalignment. Our library has basic needs: a new HVAC system, plumbing upgrades, and to be made ACA compliant. Amherst had the option to spend more than 15 million on just the basic needs of HVAC, plumbing and ACA, or we could accept the state funding and spend the same amount of money on a library that meets all the basic needs and supports our community better, saves energy and doesn’t rely on fossil fuels anymore. I am very happy that our town council saw this as a win-win and voted in favor. I am also very happy that we are supporting our wonderful library staff who wholly support the project as they do not feel our current library keeps them safe or healthy, nor do they feel they can serve the needs of our full community. More info here: https://www.joneslibrary.org/buildingproject.
“Republicans Move to Limit a Grass-Roots Tradition of Direct Democracy:
Through ballot initiatives, voters in red states have defied legislators’ wishes and produced liberal outcomes in recent years. Republicans want to make the practice harder, or even eliminate it.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/22/us/politics/republican-ballot-initiatives-democrats.html?smid=em-share
Dear Matt,
Can you please explain why you replied, on May 17, 2021 at 11:42 pm, “‘Mr. Blumenthal?’ Who’s that?” And was there nothing of substance that you could say in response to those who critiqued your letter lambasting supporters and organizers of the Voter Veto Petition?
Do you acknowledge that Amherst citizens have a right and a responsibility to petition the Town Council to reconsider their decision about a major project if they deem that it is not well-advised or in the best interests of town residents?
Do you also acknowledge that all evidence shows that the vast majority of the many signatures rejected (20% of the total) were actually valid, and that a travesty of voter suppression has occurred?
You identify yourself as “a 25+ year resident of Amherst, a former Town Meeting member and Amherst business owner,” and you mention that your firm, Financial Development Agency, Inc., “has worked with the Jones Library for a number of years on resource development and the renovation and expansion project.” I can imagine that you have a significant vested interest in the Jones Library demolition/renovation project going forward. Can you please state for the record how much you were paid for your services?
I also imagine that you have read the ten reasons for opposing the project and to renovate, not expand, the Jones Library presented at savejoneslibrary.org. However, you failed to address or challenge any of these facts in your May 11 letter to the Town Council that you submitted to Amherst Indy for publication. Could it be that you are not able to provide cogent rebuttals to any of these points? For your information, here they are. (Laura Draucker, I would also invite you to read and respond to these concerns.)
1. BORROWING LIMIT AND PRIORITIES: The impact of COVID-19 on the Town budget is currently unknown. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the State set a $105 million cap on Town borrowing and the 4 capital projects were already estimated to cost more than the State would allow the Town to borrow. This fact coupled with the impact of COVID-19 budget shortfalls, will make prioritizing capital projects even more of a necessity. Three of the 4 capital projects, Schools, Fire Station, and DPW Headquarters represent the values of education, public safety and maintaining Town infrastructure. The 4th capital project, the demolition-expansion of Jones Library is controversial. The design has not been finalized. There is broad agreement that the Jones Library needs to be fully renovated and its infrastructure upgraded, and many have pointed to the benefit of reorganizing existing interior space, rather than demolishing the ADA compliant brick addition. There is much disagreement about the need for a larger library building.
2. LIBRARY BORROWER DATA INFLATED: Part of the justification for the Jones Library expansion is based on a formula of a town population of 40,000 to estimate the library population served. However, this figure for the Town includes 20,000 college students who nearly all use libraries on their college campuses, not the Jones Library. The actual number of Jones Library card holders is 19,000.
(Click here to read an Amherst Indy article on Jones Library borrower data.)
3. EXPANSION IS NOT NEED-BASED: The currently proposed design was developed from a wish-list of everything library staff could imagine wanting in the Jones Library and is based on the Library Director’s preference to locate all enhanced library programming under the single roof of the Jones Library. The Initial design included items such as a cafe, boutique, popcorn-machine, expensive book sorting machine etc. and ballooned up from the existing 48,000 square feet (SF) to 110,000 SF. The architects scaled back the square footage to the currently proposed 65,000 SF. A full renovation that included reorganizing existing space at the Jones and use of the North Amherst and South Amherst branch libraries would allow enhanced library programming, along with increased access to residents outside the Town center with the added benefit of decreasing demand on downtown parking.
4. AFFORDABILITY: The Jones Library is already struggling to financially manage its current building size, operating at a $100,000 deficit each year and drawing down its endowment to meet its financial shortfall. Pursuing all 4 capital projects as proposed would likely require two tax overrides, which would increase Amherst’s already high property taxes, resulting in the town becoming more unaffordable for more people. In addition, the 2016 cost estimate of $35.6 million for an expansion was based on construction starting in 2019. Factoring in rising construction costs, estimated to increase at 4% per year, if construction were to begin in 2022, the project cost would rise to nearly $40 million. The $13.7 million State grant funds would not increase, raising the cost to the Town. Click to read Lower-Cost Alternative to Jones Expansion.
5. UNSUSTAINABLE DESIGN: Re-purposing and re-using are cornerstones of sustainability and green design. Demolishing more than 40% of the existing Jones Library building would create 1,660+ TONS of demolition debris. The Demolition-Expansion design contains no LEED certification, no solar panels and did not seek and therefore, forfeited up $450,000 in “green library” grant funding.
UMass Amherst author and preservation expert, Max Page, describes an environmentally sustainable approach:
“In addition, saving historic places and reusing them must be a cornerstone of environmental sustainability. Nearly half of all greenhouse gases are produced in the construction, demolition, and operation of commercial and residential buildings. We need to find ways that the preservation movement can join the conservation movement to achieve more sustainable communities. For the preservation movement to fully embrace its role in the fight against global warming, we must jettison some of our concern with aesthetics. We must change what we mean by “value” in old places. We need to save and reuse even “ugly” old buildings because demolishing and replacing them contributes to the problem of climate change.” Quote from “Why Preservation Matters”, Max Page, Yale University Press, 2016.
6. WASTEFUL APPROACH: Demolishing the 27-year-old, brick addition that is compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) with a metal roof that has a 50+ year life span is financially and environmentally wasteful. Using a professional space planner to reorganize the interior space, replacing the leaking atrium and upgrading infrastructure systems as part of a full renovation would be a green, cost-effective approach.
7. LACK OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION: The Demolition-Expansion design did not include historic preservation as a goal in its original contract with the architects. Many historic features including the walnut staircase, walnut paneling, and historic fireplaces would be destroyed in the proposed design. Alterations proposed to the exterior facade of the historic 1928 structure would violate the Historic Preservation Restriction Agreement signed by the Town and Library Trustees. Further, as of October 2019, a required Historic Structures Report has not been completed, making premature any redesign of the Jones Library.
8. OUT-OF-SCALE/OUT-OF-CHARACTER DESIGN: The proposed Demolition-Expansion would expand the building size to the edges of the property boundary and dwarf the Library’s historic neighbors, including the 1750s era Amherst History Museum next door. The modern design would not harmonize with the historic district. In contrast, the 1993 brick addition harmonizes in both scale and character with surrounding buildings and Amherst’s historic district.
9. LOSS OF GREEN SPACE: The Demolition-Expansion would destroy the canopy of mature trees in the Kinsey Memorial Garden behind the Jones Library, and would result in the loss of this downtown green space. (See the Kinsey Garden page on this website for more information.)
10. NEW DESIGN REQUIRED: In 2018, the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) announced the Jones Library project must be redesigned to be eligible for grant funding. This requirement is an opportunity for Amherst to hit the re-set button on this unsustainable design. By starting over, Library Trustees could work with the community on an environmentally sustainable approach to renovate and upgrade Jones Library within the existing building footprint. A scaled-down building project would still be eligible for an MBLC Construction Grant.
John Root has lived in Amherst for 38 years, and served as Chair of the Recycling and Refuse Management Committee for five years. He is an educator and landscaper, and is the founder of Amherst Area Friends of Pollinators.
It’s good that a repeated auto-correct/typo (…feld >…thal) in my comment, followed by its “Who me?” dismissal* by the original letter writer, led to your substantive comment, John.
Those 10 points are important, and I look forward to Mr. Blumenfeld (and perhaps also Ms. Draucker) addressing them in detail. Many of us would also like to know the answer to the question in your third paragraph, John. Since this project involves public funds, presumably the amount paid is in the public record, but it would be nice if Mr. Blumenfeld supplied the answer himself.
=======================================================
*The second Urban Dictionary definition of the phrase seems uncannily apt:
A phrase used by ignorant people either to deflect a question that they were not prepared to answer, or because they are in an uncomfortable situation that is beyond their grasp.
-Sitting in an interview-
“So, what kind of work have you done?”
“Who me?”
In response to John Root, Rob Kusner spelled my name incorrectly.
I think it is great that folks exercised their right to petition. I think it is unfortunate for them that they did not produce the requisite number of valid signatures. And yes, I am pleased that they failed, not out of any hard feelings, but because the library project is a huge step forward for our community that will benefit all residents for decades to come.
Mr Root: those 10 points above are excellent, thanks for posting and summarizing.
That town manager and most (but thankfully not alls!!) on the town council are pushing so HARD for this library demolition and expansion, willing to blithely squander millions of taxpayer money on project overreach WHILE the nascent but CRITICAL community policing program goes BEGGING for funding along with cuts to the school district, as the town faces MAJOR public safety issues with fire department coverage and the DPW building shows how their priorities are UTTERLY out of wrack and appear to be DEEPLY in the back pocket of Archipelago Inc. and pro big development at ANY cost.
Solution to this problem: Come November let’s vote in a NEW town council that’s pro Amherst residents and pro community policing and INDEPENDENT of big development and will find a new competent and fair town manager!
Mr. Blumenfled: you wrote that “I think it is unfortunate for them that they did not produce the requisite number of valid signatures.”
YOU’RE FREAKING KIDDING ME RIGHT?? Have you SEEN the clips from the travesty of the last Board of Registrars meeting discussing just how those signature were supposedly “VALIDATED” ????
Face it, it’s quite obvious that for all intents and purposes there are MORE THAN ENOUGH signatures to call for a town-wide override referendum vote on spending millions and millions of taxpayer money on the library demolition mega project!
More to come on that? Who knows. BUT If this issue finally goes to a town-wide referendum vote (as it should!!!) guess who will be “COUNTING” those ballots, the same town manager joker and town office that “VALIDATED” signatures on the petition. It’s unfortunate but WHO can REALLY trust those voting results at this point???????
Amherst let’s do better! Peace out.
Roberto M. Smith Amherst resident and concerned citizen.
Matthew Blumenthal, you say that “I think it is great that folks exercised their right to petition. I think it is unfortunate for them that they did not produce the requisite number of valid signatures.”
If the Town Council had voted against the demolition/expansion of the Jones Library and 20% of signatures on a pro-expansion petition to reconsider were thrown out on baseless technicalities leading to a rejection of the petition by a couple of dozen votes (as happened with the Voter Veto Petition), it’s difficult for me to believe that you would have so blithely accepted the result.
I note that you are choosing not to reveal how much you were paid by the Jones Library for your pro-expansion public relations services.
I also note that you did not take issue with the accuracy of any of the ten persuasive reasons offered at savejoneslibrary.org for renovating rather than demolishing and expanding the Jones Library.
Who is Mr. Blumenfled?
Here are my responses to the 10 points…
1. BORROWING LIMIT AND PRIORITIES: There has been substantive debate about the ability of the Town to borrow to complete the 4 capital projects while maintaining its operating and other funding levels. The fact is that the Town has been preparing for these projects for more than a decade, building up reserves, to fund all four. The impact of COVID-19 is still unknown, but state funding and the local tax levy seem to be weathering the storm. That is not to say there is no risk. However, these capital projects are needed and will only get more expensive with time. If the Town had funded the school project several years ago, then we would already be on our way. Town Meeting voted down that funding and we will now pay millions more because of that decision.
2. LIBRARY BORROWER DATA INFLATED: This data is not inflated. The Jones is more than Amherst’s library, and we are partially reimbursed for that role annually through State Aid to Libraries. Is it enough? If you don’t think so, then write to the Commonwealth and ask them to increase our State Aid. The Jones was required by the MBLC grant to plan for services for 20+ years and to account for population growth. Further, all data on public libraries shows that new/renovated facilities see an increase in usage. The Jones also serves visitors to Special Collections at no charge, and the renovation expansion will create opportunities to increase that visitorship. Further, the increase in public spaces within the Jones (larger, brighter reading rooms, larger public program rooms, quiet study rooms and other spaces) will increase usership.
3. EXPANSION IS NOT NEED-BASED: This is patently false. The Jones undertook a comprehensive needs assessment prior to submitting its grant proposal to MBLC. That included community surveys and listening sessions. If you missed those, that’s your responsibility. The architects did take the broad list of program components and then worked diligently to fit within a footprint that would make the Jones much more functional from a patron and staff perspective. Go to the Jones website to see more…
4. AFFORDABILITY: The Jones has raised more funding from individuals over the past 5 years than in the prior decade. The endowment has grown under the prudent management of the current Trustees. Past board of Trustees drew more from the endowment than the current slate. The project budget has been fixed, but if the timeline is drawn out construction costs will force cutbacks in the building program. If we don’t do this project now, the Jones will still have $15 million+ in facility needs – and we will have to pay for those without MBLC or private support.
5. UNSUSTAINABLE DESIGN: The design will make the Jones the most environmentally friendly (or at least top 3-4) library building in the state. The renovated Jones will be greener than any other public building in town.
6. WASTEFUL APPROACH: The 1993 addition was created prior to the internet becoming so prevalent. The Atrium was designed for a card catalogue based library. There is no good, feasible way to accomplish all that is needed within the existing building.
7. LACK OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION: This is patently false. The design team is working with one of the leading preservationists in the Commonwealth to ensure that the facility complies with the most stringent preservation standards.
8. OUT-OF-SCALE/OUT-OF-CHARACTER DESIGN: This is a matter of aesthetic sensibilities, but many think the new design is beautiful and that it will fit in nicely with our streetscape. In fact, the view from Amity Street will be pretty identical to what we currently have.
9. LOSS OF GREEN SPACE: The green spaces will be more functional and patron friendly than current conditions.
10. NEW DESIGN REQUIRED: This is patently false too. Architectural design is an evolutionary process and the Jones design has continued to evolve and get better. It will continue to do so once design development commences..
I say BS!
Matt, it seems that you have decided not to reveal how much you personally earned as a public relations person for the Jones Library, but it is public knowledge that this PR campaign cost the Library a half million dollars.
As for your rebuttals above, I assume that you have read the Q&A page at joneslibrary.org; this information is also important for the public to know in evaluating whether to proceed with the demolition/expansion that was approved by the Town Council. I will leave it to someone better informed than I to respond to your claims in greater detail than I would be capable of.
However, I am disturbed by your statement that “the Town has been preparing for these projects for more than a decade, building up reserves, to fund all four” (referring to the four major capital projects currently needing attention). You seem to imply that there is no need for the Town to be frugal at this time.
I beg to differ. I assume that you read the front-page article in the 5/21 Amherst Bulletin; if so, you are aware that many citizens are appalled that the Town has only agreed to earmark 6% ($130,000) of the $2.2 million requested by the Community Safety Working Group (CSWG) for a proposed Community Response for Equity, Safety and Service (CRESS). While CSWG’s proposal to cut the proposed $4.86 police budget by nearly half as a way to fully fund their request might be reasonable, it may not be politically feasible. CSWG also proposed an additional $300,000 to support our public schools, but this, too, might face an uphill battle.
According to statistics presented in the joneslibrary.org Q&A, “Demolition-Expansion would still saddle Amherst taxpayers with at least $29.5 million, nearly twice the $16 million figure quoted publicly by Trustees.” In comparison, we still do not know what renovation of the Jones Library would cost. Save Our Library ( SOL) “requested a cost estimate for a renovation within the existing footprint (instead of a deferred maintenance repair list). To this day, Library Trustees have not obtained an estimate for an architect-designed renovation within the existing footprint.”
I have copied the entire SOL Q&A information section below (see https://www.savejoneslibrary.org/faqs).
Q: Does The Jones Library need renovation?
A: YES. The layout of the Library needs to be re-configured and infrastructure needs to be updated. For example, the lobby elevator as well as other areas in the building must be made wheelchair accessible. Wiring needs to be updated. HVAC systems heat and cool unevenly. The Atrium leaks. Restrooms are inadequate. Shelving must be made accessible. However, all of these upgrades could be made using the regular Town budget and Community Preservation Act funds. Chasing state grant monies for an unneeded library expansion project is NOT a bargain.
…
Replacing the leaking Atrium in the 1993 addition with clerestory windows (example shown in photo – again, see https://www.savejoneslibrary.org/faqs ) would provide both natural light and a roof design that would allow the installation of solar panels. This is just one example of a creative renovation that would make demolition unnecessary.
Q: Does The Jones Library need more space to enhance programs?
A: YES and NO. More space is needed for some Library programs: Children and Teen Book collections and activities; Special Collections, Local History Archives; AV materials; English as a Second Language (ESL). However, enhancing these programs can be achieved through reconfiguring interior space and using other space in town and does not mean that an expansion is needed.
Q: Can better use of The Jones Library’s existing space meet these needs?
A: YES. Of the Library’s more than 48,000 gross square feet (GSF), some 3,000 SF are now unused, underused, or used inefficiently. The unused, inefficient interior rooms could be reconfigured by a professional library space planner to create more space. If more space is needed beyond what could be accomplished by reconfiguring the interior rooms, construction could remain within the existing footprint through an “in-spansion,” or building higher.
Q: In the Demolition-Expansion, would the Jones Library’s 1993 expansion be repurposed?
A: NO. While the Town finished paying for the 1993 expansion in 2010, the Demolition-Expansion calls for demolishing ALL of the 1993 brick addition in addition to parts of the original historic structure. This demolition includes the Woodbury Room (the large, lower level meeting room) that was renovated in 2012 at a cost of more than $175,000.
Q: What would be the cost for the proposed Demolition-Expansion?
A: Approximately $49 million in total costs. The Trustees’ Total Cost estimate of $35.6 million does NOT include interest on the debt, which is estimated at $13.4 million (assuming a 4% interest rate over 25 years). After subtracting a possible State construction grant of $13.7 million and $6 million from gifts and other potential sources of funds, this Demolition-Expansion would still saddle Amherst taxpayers with at least $29.5 million, nearly twice the $16 million figure quoted publicly by Trustees.
Q: Could a substantial RENOVATION be done within the existing footprint that would provide needed space?
A: YES. A renovation within the existing footprint is consistent with the values of repurposing and sustainability in reusing what was done well in the 1993 expansion. The need for a costly expansion requiring extensive demolition has not been substantiated. Starting in 2016, a grassroots group, Save Our Library (SOL) requested a cost estimate for a renovation within the existing footprint (instead of a deferred maintenance repair list). To this day, Library Trustees have not obtained an estimate for an architect-designed renovation within the existing footprint.
Q: Would the Demolition-Expansion increase the collection of books, DVDs, etc.?
A: NO. The Jones has already begun to discard books in its collection in anticipation of the Demolition-Expansion which provides for no increase in collections. There is also no Technology Librarian, and no plan for hiring one in the Demolition-Expansion.
Q: Would the proposed Demolition-Expansion renovate or expand the two branch libraries that are part of the Jones Library system?
A: NO. The two branch libraries, Munson Memorial Library in South Amherst and the North Amherst Branch Library would remain untouched by the Demolition-Expansion.
A comprehensive approach to a renovation would significantly improve the Jones Library and also allow some improvements for our two branch libraries as part of our town-wide Library System. The North Amherst branch library currently has NO accessible public restroom. Many find the lack of a public restroom unacceptable in a public library.
John Root:
You state in your comments above the following:
“Matt, it seems that you have decided not to reveal how much you personally earned as a public relations person for the Jones Library, but it is public knowledge that this PR campaign cost the Library a half million dollars.”
What is the source of this false information? Please provide a shred of evidence.
You do extreme harm to your credibility and to our library by coming out with such a wrong claim.
And, hopefully for the last time, everything I state on the Indy is done on my own time – it is not PR and it is not paid for in any way. Rather, it is driven by a strong belief in the importance and validity of this project, and a desire to counter the false narrative that seems to provide some form of sustenance to you and other naysayers.
You say you love the library. Well, I challenge you and all the other naysayers to put your money where your mouths are – Why not make a financial contribution to the Jones Annual Fund to support services and programs and materials. That has nothing to do with the building project.
I know we give to the Jones each and every year, and I know that all gifts are appreciated.
I stand corrected – I was off by a factor of ten. The Library spent about $50,000 on its PR campaign. In any case, Matt, you seem to be reluctant to disclose your earnings for promoting demolition and expansion of the Jones Library.
There is no denying that there was a concerted PR campaign on behalf of this project. The public has yet to be provided with an architect-designed renovation within the existing footprint, so we have no way of knowing how much could be saved in this way compared to the $30 million price tag that Amherst taxpayers will be saddled with by the Jones Library mega-project. This is unacceptable, given the the Town’s current financial pressures and the fact that Amherst is already a prohibitively expensive place for many people to own a home.
Also, I am incredulous that you seem to think a rejection of almost a quarter of the Voter Veto Petition signatures for trivial reasons was of no consequence and that justice was done in rejecting the petition on these grounds.
As stated by Art Keene a week ago (https://www.amherstindy.org/2021/05/14/town-clerk-uses-ex-offico-role-on-board-of-registrars-to-kill-fresh-count-of-petition-signatures/), “petitioner signatures were disqualified for what appeared to be ‘absurd’ address issues, such as abbreviating Lane to ‘Ln.,’ or ‘Brook’ to ‘Brk,’ either on the petition or in voter registration; or for failing to include the abbreviation ‘St.,’ after writing a street name.” Does this not disturb you? Could you honestly say that you would accept such frivolous disqualifications of signatures if they effectively rejected a petition that you supported?
John,
For an accurate accounting of what the public knows so far about development and marketing costs for the Jones Library demolition/expansion project, read my Indy article of January 29, 2021.
https://www.amherstindy.org/2021/01/29/opinion-jones-library-capital-campaign-part-2-why-such-a-convoluted-process/
Between 2014 and 2018, Matt Blumenfeld’s Financial Development Agency (FDA) was paid approximately $69,000.
The public does not know what FDA has been paid since then. That said, $75,000 from the Van Steenberg unrestricted bequest has been earmarked for capital campaign development and marketing expenses. Only a small fraction of that has been billed from consultants so far of which FDA is one of two firms. The other firm is indicated in monthly Jones Library budgets by the initials “NR.”
John Root:
To be off by a factor of 10 seems pretty wide of the mark. I suspect you weren’t a math major at Oberlin College – nor was I.
Thank you Terry for providing that reference to your article of January 29. I would point out that $69,000 over 5 years comes out to under $14,000 per year, and I would further assert that a large portion of that was devoted to developing the Sammys (hope everyone attends in 2022) and the annual fund drive. The return on investment to the Jones was very strong philanthropically.
On the question of whether it is appropriate for public libraries to invest in development, I think that is a very fair point to make. The fact of the matter is that numerous public libraries throughout the Commonwealth and beyond choose to invest in professionalizing their development efforts – both for annual funding and for capital projects. And, because there are several kinds of public libraries (some independent 501(c)(3)s, some municipal departments, and some hybrids (the Jones is a hybrid as a 501(c)(3) with publicly elected Trustees), there has evolved a number of different approaches to private and public support. Some municipalities have traditionally kept library operating funding extremely low. I know that several years ago, the MBLC recommended that municipalities provide a minimum of 1% of their annual budgets to library services. Many, like Amherst, have exceeded that percentage for quite some time. Other municipalities have traditionally not met that threshold. One of the wonderful things about Amherst is that we believe in funding our libraries, both from tax levy funding and through private support – and that has resulted in an operating and materials budget that could of course be improved, but is relatively generous. I know that we rightfully spend more on our collections than most other communities of similar size (25,000 – 50,000 in the service area). I say rightfully, because our circulation per capita always ranks among the top libraries in the Commonwealth. Our hours of operation are also pretty great comparatively.
As for your assertion that I don’t believe the Town needs to be frugal at this time, I am glad you raised it. Part of the frustration that many felt under our TM form of government was that we debated so much, and seemingly spent scarce funds on studies that went nowhere, and of course turned down the opportunity to have the Commonwealth pay for a large portion of a school construction project that will ultimately be likely to be much the same as the prior plan but at significantly greater cost. And, of course, another generation of children will have been forced to go through elementary schools in sub-standard buildings – which, as we know, continues to pose serious challenges for Special Education students and others. My children have graduated from the system, but my godson is in elementary school now and I am saddened that he must be in a substandard facility. In my view, the four major capital projects are all priorities and it is the responsibility of our generation to ensure that future generations of Amherst residents have access to facilities that make life better for all. These are definitely expensive projects, but they will not get any less expensive over time – it does not make sense to continue to kick the can down the road. I’d also like to say that I, like you, am concerned about the resources that the Town should devote to CRESS and believe that we should fund this initiative in a significant way.
I hope that this is a helpful rebuttal.
I again invite any and all to make a financial contribution of an amount that is right for you to the Jones Annual Fund Drive. Funds raised through the Drive support library operations, programs and the materials budget. I believe the Drive ends on June 30, with the end of the fiscal year.
Both sides should look at the architecture of the proposed library expansion. Is this appropriate? Is this what we want? It’s enormous. It’s hideous.
Regarding library expansion at the Jones:
There are some things mentioned that I didn’t know about. Like, after 100 years, the Library Board is finally getting around to installing some plumbing in The North Amherst Library.
That wasn’t advertised much in their public information.
Other than that, lots of the comments seem very generalized. But we were only getting as much information as the library gave out to the general public. Maybe they should give out more. I haven’t seen much about the building’s design, maybe for good reason.
There are other items that are matters of opinion:
“there is no dedicated space for teens; (What libraries have “dedicated spaces for teens” Name some).
The building is not handicapped accessible.
( The front and rear entrances to the building are definitely not handicapped accessible. You have to climb up a stairway to get to the front door. To get into the back door, you have to squeeze around a lot of bad angles.
The space could be handled better, but would it take $16.8 million?
“The children’s space is hopelessly crowded”. That’s probably true, but the space could be enlarged at less than $16.8 million
There are not enough bathrooms.
Possibly. Let’s add some and hope they don’t cost 16.8 million
“There are too many hidden spaces where the staff regularly find items like syringes”. How many syringes have they found and what would you call “items like syringes”. How much would it cost to get rid of these tiny “spaces”. Would you need $16.8 million to get rid of “hidden spaces”?
“Parents no longer feel safe sending younger children to the library by themselves.” Who has asked them? Who has asked any of the children?
The main problem is, of course, the horrible design of the new building… getting rid of green space, and the ghastly grilled windows overlooking the entire north end. Most people I know, including a few in Amherst Historical Society, think it’s awful.
Amherst already has the DuBois library, the Amherst College Library, and two more libraries owned by the “Jones”. This makes more library space than any town this size could ever imagine.
And where are library users supposed to park? The Planning Board got rid of any additional downtown parking quite a few years ago.
Here’s how it looks to this resident of Hadley has been active in various democracy campaigns (and who is getting his information from public sources like the Indy and the Gazette, not by going to meetings):
1) A petition drive turned in well more than the required number of signatures
2) Registrars disqualified signatures and many of those whose signatures were disqualified have attested that they legitimately signed
3) The issue of whether the library plan should go to referendum is a matter of democracy; the outcome is a separate issue–but going ahead with the reconstruction in the face of a tainted non-certification will lead to much bitterness for years to come
I think the signatories have a legitimate claim that they made and exceeded the quota, and the vote should be held. I personally would hope that supporters and opponents would make their cases, that perhaps an alternative renovation might be possible that addresses some of the many concerns with the existing proposal, and the measure is approved or defeated on its financial, architectural, land-impact, and other merits.
If I were an Amherst voter and the vote was held today, I would vote to proceed with construction despite my uneasiness about the design. But if the vote were not held, I would see a subversion of democracy that makes me far more uneasy.