- beautiful
- Speck Fitted
- PA Job Numbers Out, The War On Unemployment Insurance, and Inequality
- Pennsylvania Hunger Games Diet: Cash for Corporations, Cuts for Kids
- The Incredible Shrinking Mayor
- Multi-tasking with the 1% … killing the schools AND making the poor pay for their funeral.
- Council Can Give the SRC the Money to NOT Privatize the System
- Predatory Payday Lending Bill Flies Out of Cramped PA House Committee
- Let the Games Begin: PA Senate Announces Details of Budget Proposal
- Good News on PA Revenue But Don’t Count Your Blessings Just Yet
Talking Out of Both Sides on Libraries
Submitted by Ray Murphy on Wed, 12/03/2008 - 11:08am.
So here's what the Inky Op-Ed folks had to say on Libraries last week back:
Ironically, the library restructuring - while painful - appears to be the most well-thought-out piece of his proposed budget cuts. The 11 branches slated to close have the least amount of traffic and are within two miles of other libraries.
Funny, because "It's Our City" reports today that the two-mile radius was NOT thought out in advance at all:
Library Director Siobhan Reardon walked us through the choices she faced. She said one option was to reduce all library branches which is more than 50 down to three days a week while keeping the Central Library fully operational. But she says, that leaves the entire library system closed more than half the time while still be responsible for the maintenance and security of all locations. That’s when they decided to close 11 branches that she said were not yet identified. Reardon says that leaves a large portion of the library system operational six days a week and that was the best model to cut costs. She said it was only then that they began to craft the two-mile criteria
Anyway, the Inky goes on to say that:
The plan is expected to reduce the library budget by 20 percent and save $8 million a year. Of course, such restructuring shouldn't end there. All of city government needs a top-to-bottom overhaul.
No one favors closing libraries. The branches are a valuable asset to any neighborhood. But Philadelphia has more library branches per capita than any other major city in the country. Even after the 11 branch closings, the city will still have the most libraries per capita. Leaving aside the contrast between their radically different perspective on the cuts than the DN Board--which has actually echoed the call for revenue solutions--what intrigues me about this is the confusing argument on libraries.
Note that we actually have no idea if Philadelphia has as many librarians per capita as other cities, just that we have more buildings. But basically the Inky is saying we distributed branches based on population size, and now that we have fewer people, we can do away with some buildings. So these cuts have nothing to do with a lack of revenue, this is "right-sizing" government.
Um, OK. The two things that stand out to me:
1) If eliminating geographic redundancy was the issue, why is the Rittenhouse branch not getting cut? God love it, it's a cute library, and I for one use it, but come on. The fact that PCI or Chestnut Hill are not getting closed certainly points to a class/race bias here...or maybe just a fear of pissing some people off (more than others).
2) What do buildings have to do with staffing? In most branches of the FLP now, we're looking at 1-2 hour waits for an hour-long computer shift. There are tons of kids at branches after-school and story hours and DVDs and books checked out all the time. Let's say we really do have to close 11 old, hard-to-maintain buildings. What does that have to do with layoffs? Do we really think that the librarians and their assistants getting laid off could not be put to better use doing computer trainings, helping patrons find books, working with kids and teens at existing (and undeserved) branches?
I dunno. It seems like money (or lack thereof) is maybe the Mayor's issue, but not the Library's. Meaning that even if Mayor and Council do the right thing, and figure out the best way to raise some additional revenue, there is no guarantee the library will use it.
Only 4.5 million to save the brances
Im going to say much more about libraries tomorrow after my health care event.
But one critical fact I picked up yesterday: saving the branches would only cost $4.5 million not %8 million. The other 3.5 million is in cuts to the cntral staff, which I'm told by people who should know IS overstaffed.
It's not about the money. It's about restructuring the library because the people who run it have wanted to reduce branches for a long time. Why is a long story and I only have some educated guesses. But I'm absolutely sure now that this what is going on.
And that explains why there is no serious rationale for the branches they cut. There couldn't be because all of the branches are busy and all are needed to cover the neighborhoods of the city.
But they don't are about covering the neighborhoods.
So they decided they couldn't cut the ones in rich areas, couldn't cut the ones in the poorest areas, and took 11 in the middle, trying to spread the pain around Council districts.
We need to fight this not on money but on our vision of the library and the importance of the branches to the city.
Perspective from Tom Ferrick
Man, I wish he hadn't retired from the Inquirer
http://whyy.org/blogs/itsourcity/2008/12/03/the-fishtown-wars/
Ferrick has a great point.
Ferrick has a great point. We look at the city as a whole, it's still losing population. Taken community-by-community, some (even outside of Center City) are thriving and gaining population. Fishtown is a great example of that. So are portions of lower North Philadelphia and much of South Philadelphia.
Right sizing is one thing, but how do you "right-size" to promote thriving communities, like Fishtown.
Simply astounding
Don't the Inqy editors read my posts!!!????
Leaving aside questions about whether the "well-thought out" plans were after-the-fact rationalizations, and leaving aside the questions about whether their supposed criteria for selecting branches to close were consistently applied, the Inqy goes on to trot out population loss compared to the 60s as the underlying justifying rational for closing branches.
That rationale makes no sense whatsoever. How can people continue to trot this crap out there?
not to mention
... so we have more libraries than other big cities -- isn't that something to be *proud* of, rather than to change out of hand?!?
acm
To some extent, yes.
But let's say someone actually did actual research, and found that Philly branches were being used less (on a per capita basis) than branches in other, similar cities. That could, reasonably, be used as a reason for arguing that we need "right-sizing" of the FLS within a context of overall budget priority discussions - because our branches were being comparatively under-utilized.
I would still question the value of those kinds of stats relative to other cities, but at least it would approach comprising a "well-thought-out" argument.
You forgot the
"assuming we are setting aside the idea that, you know, increasing library usage might also be a goal of the library system" part.
That is the ulitmate irony here
Wonderland has no bragging rights in a match-up of upside down reasoning
All I can think is
please, let them not apply this approach and reasoning to the project of halving the drop-out rate (or whatever was promised) and fixing the schools. (Helen's stretched thin as it is.)
My guess is that closing schools in poor neighborhoods
and not allowing students in those areas to transfer to other schools, would decrease the dropout rate.
Come to think of it, a similar approach would reduce school violence, and the number of kids that attend schools with insufficient supplies. Fewer overworked teachers. Fewer schoolkids needing free lunch services. There could be a lot of money saved as well on security staff. Eerily similar to No Child Left Behind.
Unfortunately, not a hypothetical
Paul Vallas had a list of 22 schools slated for closure? We are pretty sure the SRC and staff at the district will be proposing school closures in the very near future.
Don't mention right-sizing to me again
It's so bogus. Like I said above, is "right-sizing" about cost savings or efficient government? If the latter, is it about buildings or staff? If the latter, do we really have more staff than other cities? Would having 3 rather than 2 librarians (what we have now) at each branch be so bad?
Libraries and Schools
We have a redundancy in services. What if we moved school libraries to the first floor, expanded school libraries in terms of books and services offered, and expanded hours as well.
This would get more community people into our schools, make the schools safer and save both library system and the school system money. Schools would become a vibrant part of the community, something sorely needed to restore their luster.
Many suburban communities have their recreation departments work out of school facilities. If Philly did that we would both expand and improve the recreation services offered and without the cost of maintaining our old antiquated recreational facilities. We might even raise revenue selling off some facilities.
Prove it
None of the schools close to my branch library which is being slated to close have libraries in them.
Certainly if the city made a map of which schools have libraries in them and which don't that should have at least been a consideration in picking the closings. It wasn't. Now the closings are being questioned they are saying they may move some of the children's libraries into the schools but why propose definite, permanent closings if you don't already have concrete plans in place. If they move computers into rec centers or children's libraries into schools, there are still staffing and operating costs associated with that, plus the initial expenses of moving and setting up shop. How much of the now only $4.8 million they are going to supposedly "save" get eaten up by these other costs? You certainly don't close first and then find out after the fact that in half the closings savings are only 1/10th of what you originally projected due to unforseen expenses in the "alternate" plans. You lay out specific costs and savings for the proposed alternatives well before you schedule closings.
Even if we take the plan at face value, the library closings are so half-assed in their planning for the "day after", so incomplete and so close to the beginning of the FY'09 budget process, one has to really question if the closing plan is really just about using the budget crisis as fig leaf for political expediency for another agenda. Its certainly not carefully considered fiscal planning.
If you want us to believe operating costs are the real motivation, give us operating costs broken out for each library versus circulation - and not a static view but also an indication of changing trends in usage because many of the branches being closed have seen dramatic increases in circulation in the last two years- versus proximity to schools without libraries in them. Anything less than all of those considerations is poor planning.
I never thought I would say this, but on the library closings the Nutter administration simply has not done enough homework to justify their decision making process. Basically its a big example of "because I said so, that's why" and thats not a responsible way to run a city.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Map of Libraries and Schools
There is an interactive map of Philadelphia libraries and schools that is posted here.
Thanks for Google map of schools and libraries
The interactivity is (as often the case with google maps) very awkward. It does not seem to allow you to do want I most want - which is to display schools that don't have any kind of library (it apparently counts in some instances books inside the classroom as a "classroom library") or extended hours (open when kids are not in class) at the same time it displays libraries that are proposed to close.
I do find that its interesting that currently 213 out of 273 schools in the City of Philadelphia are not open for kids when they are not in class. I also note that 250 of 273 schools do not allow community access to school grounds currently which would seem to put a damper on plans to move Free Library books or public access computers into schools it would seem to me.
Either 213 out of 273 or 250 out of 273 is a pretty high percentage, so in retrospect the idea that public libraries with afterschool and evening hours are scarce around the proposed closings is not a stretch. School libraries with afterschool and evening hours in Philadelphia at all are scarce - period.
Does that sound like a fair analysis of this map?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Search Criteria Added to Map
I added the criteria I think you wanted (Libraries Closing And Extended Hour School Libraries) as a searchable element to the map.