voiceofsandiego.org: Letters... Library Bid Will Definitely Be Within the Budget

Friday, Oct. 30, 2009 | This is how I predict the main library will proceed.

The estimate will come in at or below $185 million, and no one paid me $500,000 to know that. The City Council members will pat each other on the back, not for being visionaries but because they know some of them will be out of office when the contractors come back to ask for additional funds because, ooops, their estimate was too low.

Then it will be too late because, after all, construction has already started and now we have to add money to the project, even if the fundraising is still pretty pathetic even after a decade of trying to get interest in the project. And the Council will add money and add money and add money, and the public will never be told the total true cost of the project, but will continue to be told it was approved at the original amount. I've seen this before, by the way, and so have you if you've paid attention to projects built in the city. And because it is a bigger building, everyone will be surprised the operating costs went up because, unlike construction costs, operating costs tend to go up, but now we have the building so we have to pay the added costs of running it.

And the first major earthquake we have, the whole thing will fold like the tower of toothpicks it is due to the maneuvers to move school money out of projects that needed the funds and dumping them into the main library in a community that didn't want a charter high school but that's all they get so the safety requirements can be avoided.

Of course there is the added cost of transporting the students to the site, but let's not count that -- the school system can afford that extra expense, right?

Good job all around. Typical city project.

I would love to be wrong, by the way, but I would also have liked to have had a decent design for the library and that didn't happen.

My recommendation: either way, have a vote. Have a binding plebiscite on whether or not to have the downtown central library at all, with or without the currently proposed hideous design. Either that or have a recall election for those members of the city council who refuse to allow the direct will of the people to be heard and counted. Sooner or later (it is already later) a line in the sand needs to be drawn. We can no longer have municipal government based on the principle of closed door, back room deals with no say from the lowly plebs. Brown Act? Who is kidding whom? I hope somebody from DeMaio's or Frye's office is reading this. They are apparently the only ones willing to push this out into the light of day.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
October 30, 2009 3:49 pm

Since the top two floors are going to be used for a school, maybe we could use the middle two floors as a homeless shelter. Watch how fast the downtown elite run away from this library monument with the inclusion of the homeless. Also, the county libraries run much better than the city libraries because they don't have a central library. Build a small neighborhood branch library downtown and use a central warehouse to distribute books to all the branches.

Posted by RB | reply to this comment
October 30, 2009 4:06 pm

Here is something no one is talking about...how do you get the kids to their school without having to go through the gaunlet of homeless or even the public. You can't monitor who goes into the library, so no background checks for sex offenders, etc. This is a stupid idea even if money wasn't an issue. The school board made a very bad decision by taking $20 million out of the pot for schools who really need to be fixed, for this pie-in-the-sky schoobrary. As for the city...business as usual. Hey, if they give Spanos the property for a stadium that is used eight days a year, how about the rest of the year it houses the homeless. We could kill two birds with one stone.

Posted by itsbarneysfault | reply to this comment
November 3, 2009 8:42 am

Like it or not, the homeless ARE included in the new library. The homeless population has found solace at the main library on 8th Ave for 30 years. It is warm inside and safe, there are chairs and lots to read :) The city cannot keep them out. It is not illegal to not have an address. It should be illegal for the city to treat this needy population so poorly.

Posted by T.Tanaka | reply to this comment
October 30, 2009 7:19 pm

All the more reason not to build this monstrosity.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
October 31, 2009 7:34 am

Google Books now has digitized ten million books, and the digitizing continues day and night. The internet is a better resource. Sony and Kindle have great digital readers, and more will appear each year – you can read books on an iPOD or iPhone!. Borders and Barnes and Noble are competing with Amazon.com by selling books cheaply. The downtown library is simply an Edifice Complex on steroids awaiting a brass plaque for the Silly Council and Mayor to affix their names for posterity. San Diego is near bankruptcy and cannot fix the water pipe breaks and potholes, and still this monstrosity continues to live – drive a stake through its heart!

Posted by Allen Hemphill | reply to this comment
October 31, 2009 8:43 am

I presume that we can count on your to donate Kindles, I-phones and I-pods to those that cannot afford them, eh Allen? A central library can be a valued resource for many professionals as well as those who strive to improve themselves. It should also be used a repository of other information and documents (historical for instance) that may not be available online or in electronic format. Any proposed library may not be perfect; maybe it should go to a ballot. In the mean time we have been without a central library for over 20 years. In my opinion it lends this city to be viewed as not caring for the dissemination of advanced knowledge. Quite frankly, I'd much rather deal with commuting downtown than using SDSU or UCSD libraries knowing that a central library is there specifically for my/our use.

Posted by Joe Weil | reply to this comment
October 31, 2009 11:50 pm

We have not been without a Central Library for 20 years. There is a downtown library. It is old, and perhaps doesn't meet your high architectural standards the way the phallic symbol building does, but it has been a serviceable building downtown and has served the public despite a lack of maintenance money. Yes, if the magic donors were actually there, I'd agree we need a new building...but the proposed building in the proposed spot will mainly serve the homeless (which may be the goal after all). People going to football and baseball games are not pointed toward the library, unless the football stadium is combined with the library (I always thought if you were going to gift a building to Moore, why was the baseball stadium not combined with the library...this is a second chance to repair that mistake). Why not combine with the City Hall?

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
November 1, 2009 5:21 pm

"It should also be used a repository of other information and documents (historical for instance) that may not be available online or in electronic format. " What you are describing is a musuem not a 21st century library.

Posted by T. Tanaka | reply to this comment
November 2, 2009 7:16 am

"...I presume that we can count on your to donate Kindles..." For $185 million every family in San Diego could be given a Kindle. "...A central library can be a valued resource for many professionals..." For up to date information I use the Web. "...historical for instance) that may not be available online..." So lets spend the money to scan valuable San Diego documents and make them available world wide. "...we have been without a central library for over 20 years..." No loss, last time in San Diego took me an hour to find a parking space. "...not caring for the dissemination of advanced knowledge..." Advanced knowledge is on the web, not in books printed 5 ... 10 years ago. "...I'd much rather deal with commuting downtown than using SDSU or UCSD libraries..." I'd rather stay at home. Watching programming lectures from Stanford on another browser tab for the last two hours.

Posted by Chris Wood | reply to this comment
November 6, 2009 9:19 pm

Heck, now the mayor is meeting with the Chargers to build Spanos a playpen near the Padres stadium. The City has tons of money to throw at millionaires, why not build a structure that the public can use for something other than expensive games that make us the losers anyway? Let's see, a new Chargers stadium to buy for Spanos, the new library to buy for Moore, the new Convention Center and City Hall to buy for the downtown wheeler dealers...Sanders is Santa Claus to the wealthy. In fact, let's go back further and say that the Egyptian pharaohs had nothing on Sanders for building edifices to their own ego no matter how much it bankrupted the day-to-day needs of the people. Build on! As for creating new jobs, none of those are permanent jobs, and the stadium offers minimum wage.

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
October 31, 2009 9:21 am

What does this have to do with a Central Library?

Posted by Joe Weil | reply to this comment
October 31, 2009 11:39 pm

It has to do with four building projects the Mayor wants to proceed with even thought the City can't afford any of them, and his funding for each of them is iffy at best. That's what it has to do with the library. It's the budget, lack of revenue, lack of realistic goals, lack of credibility. You name it, the four projects have a lot in common.

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
November 2, 2009 10:39 am

It gets worse: Remember that even an insincere "low" bid of $185 million is over the original price by a good $100 MILLION. For years, the cost of replacing the library, at or near its current site, was around $80 million. And for years, the city (rightly) said they couldn't afford it. Now, with a deficit of what, $200 million, the city says suddenly they CAN afford not only $80 million, but $185 million. Yet they say they can't afford to treat our sewage before dumping it in the ocean, which they've been telling the EPA for the last 20 years, and we're still the only major city in the country which dumps largely-untreated sewage into the ocean. And don't forget the city can also somehow afford a $450 million, gleaming new city hall. Bottom line: They can afford what they want to afford.

Posted by Jason Ford | reply to this comment
October 31, 2009 9:31 am

How about some shiny brand new WATER MAINS instead?

Posted by Merkin Muffley | reply to this comment
November 1, 2009 12:23 pm

Why isn't an intelligent and concerned citizen like Dianne Parham ever listened to in San Diego? This half-million dollar expenditure, as Dianne notes, won't tell us anything new. It will only be yet another falsification of figures deliberately designed to deceive. Later, as Dianne predicts, the true numbers will be much higher. I love books and libraries, but when our city is broke it's just stupid to continue financing fancy projects on John Moores' property downtown.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
November 1, 2009 7:46 pm

Ever hear of cost overruns included in a budget? Yes, all construction projects do tend to have cost increases as they move through the construction process, usually due to unforeseen expenses i.e. increase in materials costs, labor issues, etc. That's why any budget should have a "cost overrun" percentage built into the final budget. We may get a number, but we will need to ask if a cost over run is included in the final budget....and how much (based on past experience). Then, I think we will have a better idea about the cost of building a new library. This maybe what Ms Parham is referring to.

Posted by Jena | reply to this comment
November 2, 2009 11:01 am

No, she is saying they will low ball and then "discover" they were wrong and need more money at each step of the way. I love libraries, but the chances I'll go downtown to one are about zero. Electronic devices sound good, but have you tried reading a book online? And am I going to spend $300 to get a kindle? No. I believe that small libraries are best. I'm not a fan of a central library in this sprawled city. Resources are limited and are best spent in local areas, where the most people will benefit and not on grand edifices, but on usable resources. The main goal would be to provide resources locally and through inter-library cooperation. At the heart of this is to treat areas as medium-sized towns with sharing of resources to maximize what is available at minimum cost

Posted by janet | reply to this comment
November 2, 2009 2:31 pm

Do we find out about the union only construction clause before or after the funding is approved? Unlike the Prop S bond for school construction wouldn't it be appropriate to inform tax payers of back room deals benefiting special interest groups BEFORE voting?

Posted by PMP | reply to this comment
November 2, 2009 11:21 am

Library Bid Will Definitely Be Within the Budget

By Dianne Parham, Normal Heights