"Philadelphia is a city designed for higher density, currently operating at a much lower density...

...In 1952, with a population of over two million, the City maintained 34 police facilities, 88 fire facilities, ad 43 library facilities. In 1998, with a population of less than 1.5 million, the City maintains 42 police facilities, 66 fire facilities, and 54 library facilities....

...Closing facilities frequented by the citizenry will not be an easy task to accomplish and it certainly will not be popular. But, where necessary, it must occur. Certain neighborhoods may feel the pain of this action more acutely than others, but as a whole, the CIty is more viable with 70 well-maintained pools than 80 pools that the City must struggle to keep in good repair, or 2,000 miles of streets that are level and smooth instead of 2,400 miles that are uneven and crumbling. "

Written by former City Controller Jonathan A. Siedel in 1999
"Philadelphia: A New Urban Direction"
(Pages 124 - 127, second edition)

I only quote this because it reflects the information base for your sentiments, more or less. You, and anyone else here, can interpret it as freely as you'd like, but just know that much of it is rooted in fact.

---
- All politics is local.

In 1952, Democrats Joseph Clark and Richardson Dilworth led the Democratic ticket to victory in Philadelphia for the first time in the 20th Century.

The 1952 facility figures represent the judgement of the governing Republican Party as to the appropriate levels of staffing. The 1960 facility figures represent the Democratic modifications only eight years after the Democrats took over. As we enter 2009, the Democrats have controlled city government for 57 consecutive years, and have created new structures of opportunity that did not previously exist.

It is no secret that Democrats favor more governmental services than Republicans. It is also no secret that the years of 1960's and beyond were years of great great governmental expansion at all levels for good reasons.

In 1960, it was extremely rare to find find black students attending college. The Penn and Temple campuses had only token representation of non-white students. Community College of Philadelphia had not yet been established. Temple was still a private institution.

The state had not yet established its PHEAA program, and the federal government had no role in establishing aid to college students. Not only was it rare for blacks to attend college, but the vast majority of white people did not attend college either. The overwhelming majority of Philadelphians had achieved a ninth grade education or less.

The simple fact is that the expansion of library services has not kept up with the societal demands for increased access to information and the increased opportunities for white collar jobs. In 1960, the vast majority of jobs in Philadelphia did not even require a high school education. Today, if we not reached the point where the vast majority of Philadelphia jobs require a college education, we are rapidly heading there.

Throwaway lines in books do not represent enacted city policies.

It is time to recognize that the demand that we return to the level of services that occurred before the enactment of civil rights legislation, before the enactment of significant federal state aid to education, is an extremely reactionary one which all citizens of knowledge and conviction should actively oppose.

The post by afeldman is one of the wisest and most informed of all the many excellent posts on the maintenance of library services that has been posted here. It represents the direction the city should be heading in. The post by TheIntern does not.

^You're right, I should have provided more substance to my post.

It is also no secret that Philadelphian Democrats are as cohesive as an unsolved jigsaw puzzle. But so is the way of one-party rule, a fact of life in the big city. Pluralism in Philadelphia is rooted in the assumption that, despite our nominal unity, we are divided into sects. I'm not arguing whether that's a good or bad thing. I'm merely stating this to reaffirm that our Democratic policymakers, despite their factional ways, will invariably embrace the same broader policies as those before them. Contention is only found in the nuances (the who, the where, the how much).

From the '70s onward, the big city Mayor/administration has been deemed a success or a failure based on his ability to attract business. This is best reflected in Phila's favoring of self-sustaining capital projects, financed by revenue bonds, that will have a minimal presence on the operating budget. It is likely that Phila will continue to prioritize such "Economic Development" over neighborhood improvement.

I'll have to spout some basic history to make my point, a history that you certainly know a lot better than I. Reform was made easier for Clark and Dilworth because they represented, and were elected on the promise of, much needed change. I will never undervalue what they accomplished in office. Serendipitous factors benefited them afterwards - the Home Rule Charter, public-favored incumbency, etc. Their proven success and the Great Society took care of their predecessors. But when the GS programs dried up, we, like every other city, had to fend for ourselves. Coupled with a downturning economy, fiscal stability became a new priority. The pro-neighborhood policies that we now desire so greatly, here in 2008, were abandoned a little under 40 years ago. Strengthening the tax base and attracting new business was the game. Since then, neighborhoods and communities were placed on the back burner.

Closing the libraries can interpretably be a sign of the administration continuing the trend of throwing communities under the bus. But we have budgetary obligations to consider and an economic climate in the red.

If you want to keep libraries open, you should really be asking for a revolution. And if you want a revolution, you'll have to convince the current and future administrations to make a dramatic shift from economic development to "neighborhoods now." Closing libraries and saving libraries are incremental steps towards each policy preference, respectively. Both outcomes are only small victories. The book-quoting in my first post was an attempt to show that the policies pursued by this administration have been ideas long brewing.

Within this larger context, I remain ambivalent on the library issue, leaning towards "maybe it's okay". For what it's worth, I support other options, such as cutting the pays of upper-level staffers and council members, but only in conjunction with library closures, not in place of.

(I know I injected a lot of "big picture" into this. Furthermore, after typing furiously, I've realized that I may have gotten a little rambly and off-point.)

---
- All politics is local.

Since Nutter's announcement that he was "attempting to close the budget gap by closing 11 libraries", I think many of us have been struggling to follow his logic. I have asked his office and Reardon's office many times for a more detailed explanation and accounting of whose idea was this and where did the justifications for this decision originate--i.e. with his office or with Reardon. However, even if it originated with Reardon, as your above post suggests, I conclude that Nutter is guilty of "drinking the Kool-Aid" and, in essence, betraying his constituents in exchange for loyalty from a "more profitable" relationship.

As for Reardon, I also can't help but ask if her actions are legal--in a constitutional sense. She professes to have made the selections based on apparently "race-neutral" criteria, while also admitting that her ultimate decisions deviated grossly from those facially neutral criteria. I have asked her several times to explain how her deviations, or her application of the criteria, adhered to the racially-neutral requirements of the law/constitution, and have gotten zip for a response. No surprise there, I suppose I wouldn't respond to some unknown off the street either. But, on the other hand, I am a Philly resident, and she is a city administrator--so I am reminded of that whole premise that she serves the people of Philly, and feel that some sort of substantive response is called for.

*****I also would like to know how others analyze this whole "discriminatory as applied" issue, and if they consider it a valid question to be asking.*****

At the bare minimum the logic applied to selecting these closings should be internally consistant. They are not. Holmesburg matches none of the criteria cited for closing. Zip. Kingsessing matches 2 out of 6 but several remaining open match 3 or 4. Neighboring Cobbs Creek matches nearly all the cirteria and geographically makes at least as much sense as Kingsessing but thats the library Nutter went to as a kid.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8546326/Table-of-Library-Closing-Criteria

And Reardon and the administration has not responded to questions about trends in usage. Fishtown, Kingesssing, Holmesburg, several others are seeing trends for usage shoot way up between 2006 and 2008.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pWKvTi1GOfTUMHNl1ybHYYQ

Closing those branches responsibly requires at bare minimum specific numbers about the operating costs for each of the branches being closed and real operating costs for moving those services to other locations. Reardon and the Nutter administration in either a brazen act of hubris or shocking incompetance has not given that information. Not to the public that asks for it at every single one of these town hall meetings. Not to the press despite frequent requests. Not to City Council despite the fact they have been asking for this information for over 5 weeks.

That is simply BAD GOVERNMENT. There is no other way to fairly describe that process (or lack thereof).

I'm sure everyone saw this City Paper article but if you haven't read it yet, you should.

Despite requests from citizen groups, City Council members and City Paper, the Free Library has yet to produce numbers describing the exact cost of operating each of the libraries slated to be closed.

Councilman Bill Green, who requested the numbers in a letter to the administration five weeks ago, finds the lack of response telling.

"If they don't have it, it means they made a very uninformed decision," says Green. "If they do have it, and they're not sharing it, I can only assume it doesn't support their positions."

-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.

"No surprise there, I suppose I wouldn't respond to some unknown off the street either. But, on the other hand, I am a Philly resident, and she is a city administrator--so I am reminded of that whole premise that she serves the people of Philly, and feel that some sort of substantive response is called for."

Indeed, much of the responses to questions from citizens has been stonewalling. And not just to ordinary people who live in the neighborhoods, but even to council.

so much for transparency, i guess.
the adminsitration won't hit the wealthy because they can afford to advocate for themselves.
And they won't hit the truly poor, because they have advocates to, through local, state, and federal agencies.

So instead it's working class and working poor communities that get it.

Still wondering how they're going to increase the literacy rate and high school graduations with this idiotic plan. Maybe they can expand stop and frisk, arrest all the teenagers, incarcerate them (where they'll get an excellent vocational training in desk and license plate making from the state), and then get the education they need through the mayor's re-entry program.

That's sarcasm.

I noticed this thread and feel like the latest story on It's Our City is a perfect illustration of how the "weaker" libraries are actually more valuable in their respective neighborhoods than some of the stronger ones. Stephanie Marudas visit the Durham Branch in Mantua and talked to a bunch of the folks who will soon be losing their neighborhoods own little gem.