Letter: Supporting More Library Spending? Where’s the Proof?
Photo: istock
The following letter appeared previously in the Daily Hampshire Gazette.
Where is the proof?
Some supporters of the Jones Library demolition/expansion project have made increasingly desperate and baseless claims, while also taking pains to denigrate fellow townsfolk who do not share their blind faith in this flailing project. Though blind faith was a good name for a great band, having such, as we see on the national political stage, can be dangerous.
It is time for proponents of the Jones plan who are making these claims to provide proof of their validity.
Here are some questions I have for them.
Have you read the available material and viewed the meetings? I have, and there is a wealth of documentation disputing your assertions.
If the project won’t damage the historical elements of the library, why has the Massachusetts Historical Commission, twice, cited multiple violations of historical standards and rejected almost $2 million in historic tax credits?
If the project is so green, why has only one sustainability measure survived the two rounds of value engineering? Replacing the HVAC system with electric heat pumps would be the first thing that gets done in a repair scenario.
If the Jones Library has been a valued treasure and resource for you and your children, where have you been for over a decade as it languished in disrepair and deferred maintenance?
What delays are you talking about? The time the town took to disenfranchise legitimate petitioners? The months it took for the consultants to get the bidding docs in proper order? (see also here). The months and years of mismanagement? The delays in this project have been self-inflicted.
When pointing fingers and using words filled with vitriol (including some that may be legally actionable for slander and libel) what exactly do you think we “naysayers” have to gain by attempting a more reasonable and less expensive approach to protecting what all of us value?
Why are you not talking about the exorbitant cost?
Fact: The project went from $36M to $46M and the lone bid came in $7M over that. The planned “value engineering” is more than wiped out by cost escalation, rejected tax credits, and grants at risk for lack of compliance. Fundraising is many, many millions short and the town will be on the hook for it.
It’s time to get to work on what we can afford, including addressing all the other unmet needs in town.
Rita Burke
Rita Burke is a resident of Amherst
I can confirm that I am indeed a resident of Amherst, at the same address on Henry Street for 45 years and on Cottage Street before that. I am also a retired town employee and mother of three sons who attended Amherst public schools K-12. So check, check and check.
I don’t disagree with Ms. Burke’s first note, but people citing the number of years they have lived in town is an argument that has always fallen flat with me. I don’t care if it’s three weeks or seventy years, it’s a democracy. I have also noticed that on more than one occasion hiring seems to have been based the same parameter, it really doesn’t make a difference. We could always use new ideas.
Well, Tom, I added the comment because of a typo that initially appeared after the last sentence of my posted letter. There was a question mark, which has been removed.
Meanwhile, to your comment: First, I am proud of my credentials, as I assume others are of theirs. Second, given that mine was one of the signatures rejected from the petition a few years ago regarding the Jones plan, about which I never received an explanation, I wanted to be sure there were no doubts about my being a resident.
I offer that my long-time residency, experience as a town employee and mother of children who went through the school system, as well as ten years as a Town Meeting member, have broadened my knowledge of and deepened my commitment to the well-being of our town and the direction it takes with taxpayer dollars.
True, we live in a democracy, though sadly, “by the people for the people” seems to have morphed into by the few for the fewer. Regardless, for me, three weeks or seventy years do make a difference.
As to your statement that residency or length thereof affects hiring, I say, if only. I would be glad to have a full-throated discussion as to why, but I will save that for another time.
When someone takes the time to contribute, it is helpful to know some of what influences their view of the issues. One factor is the length of time they’ve been in town. I don’t interpret this fact as signaling that one opinion is more important than others. Instead, it gives a context for views that are grounded in a commitment of time and service to our community. I appreciate Ms. Burke’s well-reasoned comments on a complex issue and the personal experiences that have informed them.
> I appreciate Ms. Burke’s well-reasoned comments on a complex issue and the personal experiences that have informed them.
As do I Anita. One thing that stands out to me having worked for the town, (Water Dept) for around 38 years is upkeep and maintenance is not a priority any more. It’s hard because Amherst tries to do too many things at once. Some departments are Enterprise Funded and have healthy budgets to get things done. Everyone complains about the roads but the upkeep of them is not going to improve until this Town Manager sees that the DPW gets the money. One of the ways we do get infrastructure improvement is to pick certain roads that need improvement and along with the surface, they replace aging utility pipes for water, sewer and drainage. As much as I hated to see a couple million dollars going to the change in front of the Town Hall, it was good that they upgraded the utilities. It was a bad look though when everything on the outskirts is falling apart.
An example of where we could improve is now that they are detouring the traffic to Stanley Street because of the Rt9 work, why are there potholes all over there? I try and not drive at night just because you can’t see them but these type of things are inexcusable. As is the tall grass and shrubs at all intersections. Accidents waiting to happen.
But we can potentially spend millions above and beyond what tax payers agreed to for an oversized Library while DPW and Fire get delayed again, it’s been decades. So I agree with Rita when she exclaims:
“It’s time to get to work on what we can afford, including addressing all the other unmet needs in town.”
Also I would add a question to the Amherst Forward group on when they envision the tax base in this town to be “normalized “?
Everybody who favors the status quo, raise their hands.
Regarding Tom McBride’s comment about favoring the status quo, I would not raise my hand. But I also recognize that some change is short-sighted. In my opinion, demolishing and replacing the Jones Library’s brick addition with a larger addition clad with fiber cement siding, which requires re-painting every 10 years or so, is short-sided, as is replacing a metal roof with asphalt shingles. There is actually no sound reason to demolish the Jone’s brick addition as it is only the glass atrium at the center that leaks and needs to be replaced. Demolition of the brick addition to obtain an overly-large, big-box style library for $50 million is wasteful and the results would not enhance the character of Amherst. As to the length of time someone has lived in Amherst being relevant to making comments, it does take time to become familiar with political players in town, to see facts often hidden behind marketing spin and to care enough about the future of the town not to simply regurgitate sound bites. Renovation is smart and what the town can reasonably afford. That the Jones Library Director and Library Trustees cannot acknowledge the project as wasteful, unnecessary and far too costly, only points to their lack of reason and perhaps, blind loyalty to the Amherst Forward PAC.
Dear Peggy: Thank you for your comments about retaining the 1993 addition and instead, replacing its glass atrium that filled in the courtyard area in the back of the original 1928 building.
I hope you may be able to attend the 6.30pm August 22 meeting on Zoom of the Amherst Historical Commission. There will be time for public comment. A little history: when the demolition delay originally came up for a vote – well before the “value engineering” and the other findings related to historic preservation of the Jones Library – I abstained from the vote. I haven’t decided yet where my vote will fall at the time of the meeting but “The greenest building is the one you already have built” (Carl Elefante) and besides, no one has addressed the amount of embodied carbon when it comes to demolition and removal.