Letters - We Get Letters
|
||||||||||
| Printer Friendly Story View |
Concerning MBC's Library Article Sunday November 5, 2006
Your November 5 story about the new public library contains incorrect information regarding naming the library for the Wirts. You stated: "The naming of a public building is mainly in recognition of service provided the community, be it a city, a college, university, state, etc. We don't look at this naming as a quid pro quo for a donation, and we don't think the Wirts would think of it as such, either."
Wrong! If you read the minutes of the Bay County Library Board of Directors, you'll find that the donation was indeed made by the Wirts solely for the naming rights. This is confirmed by the official minutes of the May 25, 2005, meeting as posted on the Library Board's minutes page.
Here is the information directly from the Library web site: Wirt Capital Campaign Donation - M. Gray asked for a resolution from the board on the Wirt Family donation as it has been offered for a naming opportunity for Central Library. F. Paffhausen requested that the new Central Library be named the Alice and Jack Wirt Public Library, noting the difference that it is not a branch library but a public library.
Your suggestion that the library is valuable because you have a picture of people waiting at the door is ridiculous. If there was a tax supported bar where you could drink for free there would be longer lines than the one you picture. If there was a tax supported golf course where I could golf for free, I would wait in line for it to open. Some people like to read, others like to drink or play golf. Nobody else pays for my golfing --- why should I pay for someone else to read. I agree that the library is a beautiful facility. But it should be paid for by those who use it. If there were unlimited tax monies to pay for all of these niceties, we wouldn?t be considering closing a few bridges, would we? If you believe otherwise, please then explain why you shouldn?t have to pay for me to play golf. Read very closely--"as it has been offered for a naming opportunity for Central Library." Quid pro quo, we will give you the money, but only if the building is named for us. Kind of turns your logic on its head, and gives credence to the so-called "gripers" who were incensed by this decision.
And for your information, the majority of library systems across this country have formal naming policies in place and they generally agree that 51% of the project's total costs must be contributed before a naming opportunity is granted. In case you're interested, you can check out Fargo, ND, and Madison, WI. Both have formal policies that state the 51% figure, as do many, many more.
Next time you publish an article about the library, be sure you check all the facts first. And you may want to ask the Library Board for a copy of the Wirt's deal memo--the documentation that formalized this agreement. Now THAT would make for interesting reading!
More . . .Concerning MBC's Library Article Sunday November 5, 2006
Very good article!! Well spoken. It doesn't change my mind though because I have already sent it my YES vote!!!
Let's hope there are enough people who see the worth of our libraries and understand their value!! And kudos to you for addressing the naming of the library.
I was with a friend at a local function a couple of weeks ago and the Wirts were there also. My "friend" spoke negatively about them and I was very embarrassed and disappointed in her remarks. I told her I voted yes for the libraries and she stopped her negativity. How sad!
Thank you so much for a fine article,
Still, More . . .Concerning MBC's Library Article Sunday November 5, 2006
Your suggestion that the library is valuable because you have a picture of people waiting at the door is ridiculous. If there was a tax supported bar where you could drink for free there would be longer lines than the one you picture.
If there was a tax supported golf course where I could golf for free, I would wait in line for it to open. Some people like to read, others like to drink or play golf. Nobody else pays for my golfing --- why should I pay for someone else to read.
I agree that the library is a beautiful facility. But it should be paid for by those who use it. If there were unlimited tax monies to pay for all of these niceties, we wouldn?t be considering closing a few bridges, would we? If you believe otherwise, please then explain why you shouldn?t have to pay for me to play golf.
Concerning Plans for Uptown at Rivers's Edge: October 2006
Kudos to Dave Rogers for calling a spade a spade ... re: Bay City's $80,000 study on the "feasibility" of placing a municipal marina on the Uptown at River's Edge property.
This study, of course, is not the first (or, no where near, the least expensive) ... a previous, much more comprehensive study by the Urban Land Institute already spelled out the foolhardiness of such a plan as a development centerpiece on that invaluable property.
What on earth is Bay City's supposed leadership thinking? With a declining industrial/commercial tax base shoving more burden on residential tax payers, why would Bay City even think twice about further reducing its pool of available taxable properties?
If increased tourism is the target for future growth, why not at least "study" something worthwhile in terms of year-round attraction ... e.g., infrastructure for Great Lakes Cruise ships, nature conservatory & botanical gardens, IMAX theater with maritime museum, freshwater aquarium & Great Lakes Aviary, tall ships boat building exhibition, indoor-outdoor theme park, industrial archaeology museum (partner with SVSU & Michigan Tech), and so on? Taxable developments (and ideas) abound.
Both Saginaw and Midland have trumped BC in terms of year-round attractions ... if only from a concert and/or exhibition space standpoint; and, more recently, Midland's coup on the minor league baseball stadium (note that the planners even accounted for year-round potential with that).
At a bare minimum, keeping the issue of how Uptown must be properly developed in front of this area's taxpayers is critical. Let's not "allow" mis-use of this crown jewel. Bay City has a chance to cement a future for its downtown merchants -- and a chance to reduce its residential tax burden -- not to mention, stem the tide of a declining city population. Nothing compares with how Uptown at River's Edge can accomplish that.
Our community visionaries must become more vocal; our community planners must start listening.
| Printer Friendly Story View |
|
|
O. J. Cunningham |
|
|
|
Printer-Friendly Story View
0200 Nd: 04-21-2024 d 4 cpr 0
12/31/2020 P3v3-0200-Ad.cfm
SPONSORED LINKS
12/31/2020 drop ads P3v3-0200-Ad.cfm