We're sure you've heard the old adage: a fish will grow to fit the size of it's bowl. The PRU Crew feels this adage holds true for librarians and their libraries too!
Last week we read a story in one of the local fish wraps headlined, "Library feels pinch of limited event space." According to Janet Van De Carr, executive director of the library, the "pinch" being felt by library staff is a product of "requests from parents to provide more programs for children", though Ms. Van De Carr always fails to mention that these programs are free to users, courtesy of the taxpayers. The PRU Crew feels that these users should at least write thank you notes to all the taxpayers before asking for more freebies.
So now Ms. Van De Carr will "meet with an architectural firm the library has used in the past to obtain a cost estimate and learn if an office trailer can be located anywhere on the library's property."
If the office trailer becomes a reality for library staff, who will be moved out of their current work space so that space can be dedicated exclusively to more children's programs, it won't be long before we will begin to hear about the over-crowded conditions in the office trailer and how a first-class town like Park Ridge shouldn't have a third-rate facility that forces staff into low-class trailers to provide minimal event space for the children. And we're willing to bet there will be great amounts of discussion about not taking up precious parking spaces, so the office trailer will have to be placed somewhere else -- no doubt in a very visible location that, by design, will detract from "the character of the library and town." The solution? We need to build a new library!
And no matter how big a new library is, the goldfish librarians will grow their collections and programs to fit the space available. The largest library in the world is the U.S. Library of Congress which was begun some 200 years ago with fewer than 1000 books in its collection, but now holds 30,011,748 volumes and "115 million items in a number of formats", with a commensurately large staff and budget of $300,000,000.00 -- because the larger the library building, the bigger the collection, the more programs conducted, the more staff will have to be added, and the more taxes will have to be collected to fund it, beyond what will have to be borrowed to pay for a new facility or even just an addition to the current one.
B.O.H.I.C.A.!
December 3, 2008
Of Fishbowls and Librarians!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
PRU:
Thanks for today's post. I should start by saying that I am completely behind what seems to me to be the general theme of this blog - open government. If there is a desire by public officials to spend a large amount of our money on something (a new library for example), there should be an open discussion of why we need it, what we get for it, what it costs and how we will pay for it. The resulting decision should reflect the wishes of the majority of PR residents. I also believe that these decisions cannot be made without considering our current budget and economic constraints.
Where you lost me was with the whole "free" statement. I pay taxes so how can it be a free service? It may be a service that you do not use of find of value. My tax dollars go to support things I do not use as well. Alas, that is a part of living in a community.
Anonymous 11:38 a.m.
The difference you fail to acknowledge when talking about having your taxes go for things that you don't use is the difference between "necessities" and "amenities."
For example, I gladly pay my taxes for having a fire department and paramedic/ambulance service at the ready even though I have never needed those services, because having such services available seems to be something of a public necessity. Yet the City charges users of ambulance service, which seems fair because it tends to prevent abuse of that necessity by people for whom "free" means "use as much as you can."
Similarly, having a library available to provide basic library services could be considered a necessity, which I have no problem paying for even though I and the members of my household use it no more than a couple of times a year. The same cannot be said about all those free library programs, however, which are clearly amenities that seem to be used primarily (and almost compulsively) by a small portion of our residents.
Which is why it's just plain goofy for the city to charge users of emergency ambulance service but force the taxpayers to carry the users of library programs on their backs, unless you're one of those compulsive library program users, or a library person who's trying to inflate the number of uses at taxpayer expense to justify more staff and more space (a bigger fishbowl).
When are we going to start realizing that, in the realm of local government, "free" usually leads to "irresponsible"?
Anonymous @ 11:38 AM,
Gosh, that sounds so reasonable on the surface...but if you stop to think about it, you realize your semantic objections are just that...semantic objections.
Not every patron who utilizes the children's programming at the library is a property taxpayer...additionally, the amount of property taxes paid per person do not cover the costs of providing any of the programs provided in specialized fashion to specialized groups of patrons. At some point, the patrons of these specialized services are receiving far more than they are paying for...and that seems to me to be where the "free" portion of the debate comes into focus...and some patrons are asking for more.
It's very much like the D64 instrumental music program that the School Board threatened would be subject to cutting if residents didn't vote in favor of the school referendum. What many people failed to realize is that the instrumental music program is not THE D64 music program...the IMP is a special program that allows students to receive private small group music lessons subsidized by taxpayers...and yes, music lessons are of value, but no, you should not tap my wallet to pay for your kid's private small group lessons.
Parents looking for still more enriching entertainment for their kids, which is precisely what the requests are about, should pay for it directly instead of asking for more...paid for by the vast majority of taxpayers unlikely to use these specialized programs, because the demographic for these programs is less than a quarter of the entire Park Ridge population.
What is already available seems to me to be above and beyond any community call to duty for providing for the public welfare, and should be viewed as generous gifts graciously provided by the taxpayers...in addition to the public educatoin also graciously paid for by this community, and can be said to be of value to the entire community...one of the fundamental principles of public education.
However, while you might want to make the issue about the value of children's programs...the real issue...the bottom line, if you will...is this is simply another effort by Janet Van De Carr and the spare-no-expense Library Board to again raise the issue of why, at the least, more space must be added to the library...and it is a very visual public display of it through the suggestion of moving workers to an office trailer.
When the conversation about the need for more library space again takes place, I'm fairly certain we can also look forward to the reasoning that, if we are willing to add on...then why not simply rebuild...? ...because then "we can put in a mixed-use development with retail on the ground floor and the library above"..."it can be paid for with TIF funds (not our/real tax money according to Howard Frimark) generated by the development"...and our community will again be getting the hard-sell complete with tables projecting all the scads of dollars that could come our way in the future...just like the current Uptown redevelopment...except, of course, that the tables are being recalculated and those scads of dollars aren't exactly pouring into our collective coffers...bad economy, you know...
Can we once again look forward to the stacking of books on the stairs at the library?
A trailer for the staff??
Heck they could probably move in next to Coldwell Banker in all that empty retail space for a song!
And look out, here comes another plane.
And another one.
Is there an airport around here I was not aware of??
Let's see....a tralier pk'd in Park Ridge - Uptown area no less...yes
that can be classified as a prelude
to the westside olympics!!
Stand by.............
UA Flt OU812 to Mayor Frimark.....cleared for landing...in Florida..........
BOHICA
Is it not true that our tax dollars go to support a variety of recreational activities and structures? I cannot imagine that fees support the cost of operating the recreational center or the ice arena. With the exception of two birthday parties, I have never set foot in the ice arena but I have neighbors who have kids who skate or play hockey and are very glad the arena is there. We all have different opinions of what is or is not a necessity - again a part of being in a community.
i think that our infrastructure, buildings, etc. should be paid for by the taxpayers, but that there should be user fees for all of the "discretionary" uses of those facilities.
i've got a neighbor who has two young kids and she uses the those free library programs like a babysitter. why should the taxpayers have to pay for her "babysitter"?
Bean I disagree with your statement that not every patron that uses the library is a property tax payer. You can only use those programs at the library if you live in Park Ridge. You have to prove that when you sign up. Even if you don't own a home in park ridge, you still pay property taxes. The cost of it is simply buried in your rent.
Anonymous @ 1:56 PM,
You asked, "Is it not true that our tax dollars go to support a variety of recreational activities and structures?"
Quite true...and your point? Should I take that seemingly rhetorical question to mean that you believe whenever a group asks the taxpayers to further fund recreational activities and structures the answer should always be, "yes"?
You went on to say, "I cannot imagine that fees support the cost of operating the recreational center or the ice arena."
Quite true again...and your point? Should I take that imagining of yours to be the basis for why the taxpayers should continue to pay an ever increasing amount of subsidies for activities in the recreational center and ice arena...or some other venu of choice?
You noted, "With the exception of two birthday parties, I have never set foot in the ice arena but I have neighbors who have kids who skate or play hockey and are very glad the arena is there."
The ice arena is a very nice amenity paid for through tax dollars...and I am very glad your neighbors make use of it and are glad the arena is there. However, if taxpayer funded recreation knows no bounds...then would you suggest taxpayers should also fund the activities of birthday parties that take place at the ice arena? After all, it's for the children...quite usually more than just the birthday girl or boy...and I'm sure the parents of those children would be very appreciative and glad about that.
You concluded, "We all have different opinions of what is or is not a necessity - again a part of being in a community."
Quite true again...but some of us have opinions "of what is or is not a necessity" that are formed from reality-based thinking and consideration of the issues.
Others of us...mmmmm...not so much.
Anonymous @ 3:22 PM,
Thank you for the comedic offering...of course, what was I thinking...ONLY residents of Park Ridge patronize the Park Ridge library...and staff ALWAYS checks IDs for everyone coming through the door...
You're a hoot!
Anon 3:22, you are mistaken. Bean is correct. Many of the library programs are drop in and it isn't a requirement that you live in town to sign up for programs. The library does give priority to residents though.
Bean:
Congratulations for putting me in my place. Of course I have no idea how on earth you took the leaps you took from my post. If you had read the thread, you would note that hoover and referenced the necessities and amenities. He stated that some of these library programs were not necessities.
I was simply suggesting that we support, through our taxes, a variety of structures, programs and events that some or many would deem not necessities. If one chose to they could use the same logic on a myriad of programs in PR and all over the city and suburbs. Governments support a variety programs (like library events) that some love and think are necessary and others could give a shit about. You take these wonderful leaps in your post as if I have suggested we fund birthday parties. I suggested no such thing. Are you suggesting that we raise all fees at all pools, rinks, soccor fields etc. so as to make them self funding by participant fees??
As clearly statted in my original post let me go ahead and copy and paste:
Thanks for today's post. I should start by saying that I am completely behind what seems to me to be the general theme of this blog - open government. If there is a desire by public officials to spend a large amount of our money on something (a new library for example), there should be an open discussion of why we need it, what we get for it, what it costs and how we will pay for it. The resulting decision should reflect the wishes of the majority of PR residents. I also believe that these decisions cannot be made without considering our current budget and economic constraints.
Think a library bult above stores would look kind of tacky.
Anonymous December 3, 2008 4:11 PM:
Just because some people "think" a government program is "necessary" doesn't make it so, which explains why so many governmental bodies are in such financial trouble - starting with Richie Daley, who despite auctioning off all of Chicago's assets still has to cut back on snow plowing and road salt because he's out of cash.
But I'll take you up on your offer to Bean and say, yes, I am suggesting that "we raise all fees at all pools, rinks, soccor [sic] fields etc. so as to make them self funding by participant fees" -at least as to operating costs if that's at all economically feasible.
When any of these non-essential activities or entertainments hemorrhage money and requires big subsidies by the taxpayers, they are usually either underpriced (a "steal" for the users) or underutilized (probably because they are undesirable to most).
Forcing these facilities and activities to cover their operating costs would force all the bureaucrats and politicians who operate them to actually become competent managers and accountable for that management, something they don't have to be when they can milk the goodwill of the "free lunch" crowd to support their sucking up subsidies from the taxpayers.
That's one of the reasons the Soviet Union finally crumbled, and why our debt-based, over-spending economy is also starting to crumble from inefficiency and waste.
pads will never be over, those white shirted people are nuts.
wow. i usually agree strongly with most of the opinions i read on this site. however, with this post, and the comments that have followed, i don't think i could possibly disagree more strongly.
the costs of educating children (and, yes, that includes so-called extra amenities like music, art, and library programs) *should* be shared by the entire society because educated children benefit the entire society. the flip side of this, of course, is that uneducated children, or under-educated children are a liability to the entire society.
believe me, i don't like paying taxes either, and i especially don't like it when the money i pay is misused. but i am so completely sick of hearing people whine about having to pay taxes for services that they don't personally take advantage of.
we just went through an entire presidential election during which people constantly crunched numbers and talked about under which administration they'd save a few thousand bucks a year. myopic. self-centered. dumb.
these are big picture questions, folks. a five-grand a year break in your taxes might result in societal changes that could impact you negatively to the tune of tens of thousands a year. or, as we have seen recently, our homes and stock portfolios losing 30% or more of their value.
there are massive intangibles involved in these questions. griping about having to fund an ice arena or better library program fails to consider the societal benefits that come as a result of having well-educated, active, well-rounded kids as members of our society. also, consider the property value benefit of the reputation of having a great school system, park district, or library or other city services. people view the city as more desirable, more people want to move/build here, and property values go up.
complaining about taxes is something that's almost guaranteed to be met with agreement by most people listening. it's a great way to find commonality and get people riled up, and it's sometimes justified.
but not always.
Anonymous @ 4:11,
I see the only item of substance in your last post has been more than adequately addressed by Anonymous @ 6:59.
Enjoy the rest of your evening.
Anonymous @ 9:16,
Where does the spending on "educational amenities" end... and sheer indulgence of those always willing to find new ways to spend other people's money begin?
The fact remains, this community provides all of what you have discussed and more, at considerable cost to those paying for it.
And, don't think for a moment that Ms. Van De Carr and the library board don't have edifice envy in a big way...they've simply found another angle of approach.
This isn't about providing "educational amenities" to the "under-educated" children of Park Ridge...nor even the already well-educated children of Park Ridge. This is about using a certain demographic as an opening to again attempt the building of a new library and/or addition to same.
Sometimes the answer to a request for more spending...even for the chiiiiiildren...is an unqualified "no".
Good morning,
Yes, I would love to have
a library that looks like
Niles or Des Plaines but
that's not going to happen.
Please alert the staff there at our library that:
1. The city is broke.
2. The state of ILL is broke.
3. The Fed is also out of funds.
So - its time to stop dreaming
about money growing from our trees here in happy town.
We must learn to live within our means. We must accept that all current levels of government
don't care about us.
Bailouts is the key word and it does not include our library
which is sad.
First a new trucks, then a new police station, now library talks, how about a new city hall while we look into how much money we can spend without doing a damn thing to bring in more revenue without raising taxes?
Here is a concept......first priority is filling retail space to generate some revenue and make our city a place for nearby towns to come and shop, eat and spend money instead of us having to go to their town.
Second would be to elect a new Mayor in April!
Third would be for the new Mayor to listen to the people he/she represents and to clear as much dept as possible!
Forth would be in 2011 for a few new ald's.
Now we can look into all these new buildings and freebies because if it is done right we should be generating more revenue than today.
Field of Dreams was a movie people.
Great!! Let's go to pay for usage on all non-necessities!! Count me in. It would be a net gain for me. Now, let's all reach agreement on exactly what are and are not necessities.
Perhaps while getting signatures for a police station referendum we can have people sign for a referendum on this matter.
I honestly didn't know that non-residents could use the library programs. Back when my son was younger, I always had to show my Park Ridge Library card, (which I couldn't get without a pr address), in order to sign him up for anything there.
I suppose times have changed...
Anonymous December 4, 2008 11:47 AM, I guess you missed the bruhaha about the homeless who would hangout at the library if a PADS opened at SPC. Libraries welcome the homeless, which means people using libraries don't have to have specific addresses anywhere. You should check out this link, http://nslsstaff.org/services/
fastfacts/results
_archived.aspx?surveyID=1360
Anonymous December 3, 2008 9:16 PM:
Any time somebody starts babbling about the "massive intangibles" that come from government spending, I know they are either "net users/abusers" of government services (instead of "net payers") and/or that they need the remedial version of "Government Economics for Dummies."
Massive taxing and borrowing to pay for all those immeasurable "massive intangibles" that allegedly provide the equally nebulous and immeasurable
"societal benefits" is one of the reasons this country's in such an economic jam while our taxes keep going up.
In case you miss those annual studies, the kids in the United States aren't all that "well-educated" compared to many other countries who spend less of their GDPs on "education"; and however "active" our kids are doesn't seem to preventing obesity or contribute to their overall physical fitness. As for "well-rounded," that's another one of those immeasurables that the teachers' union leadership and our overpaid public school administrators like to throw around to avoid accountability.
And although District 64 was ineptly managing its finances and cutting "extras" for the past decade our property values soared, but now that the District is awash in cash because of its big tax increase our home prices are falling.
The two biggest things that make Park Ridge a desirable community are its location and its upscale single-family home character. And both of those conditions are far more objectively measurable than your collection of warm and fuzzies that don't even begin to make any sense until you're on your second "Big Gulp" size Kool-Aid.
I know they let people come in that aren't members, I just thought that if you wanted to participate in one of the programs, which is what I thought they are asking for the extra $ for, you needed to be a Park Ridge resident and member of the library.
The two biggest things that make Park Ridge a desirable community are its location and its upscale single-family home character. And both of those conditions are far more objectively measurable than your collection of warm and fuzzies that don't even begin to make any sense...
dave,
it's completely your right to limit your concern to the more tangible/measurable concepts. however, doing so doesn't make the intangibles go away or diminish in importance.
while what you say about national education standards and obesity is true, the numbers look much better here in park ridge vs. the national average. and while that's got a lot to do with a kid's family and home situation, it's also got plenty to do with the community.
what we spend money on as a community sends strong messages to our children. having library services that go above and beyond the minimum of lending books, having a park district that encourages lots of different interests, and having programs like the wildwood nature center to foster an interest in nature and the environment sends an implicit message to our children that we value these concepts highly.
it's important to do so. this community can afford it. our property taxes are high, but they're not out of line, especially when you compare them to other affluent suburbs like oak park, evanston, highland park, etc, etc....
that said, i'm not in favor of a new or expanded library building. i agree that it seems like mere 'edifice envy', given the libraries seen in des plaines, arlington heights, etc, etc... and i don't think it's necessary.
and, i will also agree that this announced move of putting the offices in a trailer does seem like grandstanding in an effort to make a symbolic point.
so, while you may have some valid points about prior mismanagement and current grandstanding, i do believe you miss the mark with your ridicule of the 'intangibles' involved with raising kids. i don't think it's necessary for you to snidely dismiss my points in order to make yours. they're not diametrically opposed.
oh, and as far as your personal comment:
Any time somebody starts babbling about the "massive intangibles" that come from government spending, I know they are either "net users/abusers" of government services (instead of "net payers") and/or that they need the remedial version of "Government Economics for Dummies."
derisive language like "babbling" and "remedial" aside, i'd honestly have to crunch some numbers if i wanted to determine whether i'm on the "net payer" or "net user" side.
i try to take advantage of the programs that my tax money funds as often as i can. i'm also a resident and homeowner that pays property tax well into the five figure realm.
but, again, reducing the discussion to one in which numbers in a ledger determine red/black, net payer/net abuser misses the mark. it's not smart to assess every aspect of life from a pure accounting standpoint.
do i take my kids to the library for entertainment? sure. but taking them to the library instead of borders or a movie theater sends strong messages to my kids and makes an afternoon of entertainment also something that fosters a sense of community. we see friends/neighbors, meet other neighbors we didn't know, and interact with them in a setting that offers an alternative to the consumer of corporate goods/services experience that is all too pervasive.
so, sure it's about taking advantage of what the city offers, and about not spending money elsewhere. but it's also about growing roots and fostering a sense of belonging to a community.
and while you may again dismiss that as "babbling" about intangibles (probably due to my endless kool-aid guzzling), it's still valid and still important. it's a value i plan on instilling strongly into my kids.
frankly, i believe the privatization of america, the loss of that sense of community, and the reduction of every relationship to one of consumer-business are elements that have contributed to massive social decline over the last 30 or so years. you may view going to the library to take advantage of their programs as 'freeloading' or whatever, but i view it as trying to reverse that trend.
anon 2:11:
Thanks for your post. I agree with the general message and I would only add what I have been trying to say throughout the thread. I have to understand that some of these services are not going to apply to me or are for things that I have no interest in taking advantage of. That does not mean that they are a complete waste of my tax dollars.
If someones argument is that the city should not be in the business of providing or subsidizing non-necessary services (again I ask who decides what exactly these are) that is fine but let's at least apply it with some consistency. If one believes that library programs are not necessary based on a certain set of criteria then how is an ice rink?
right. it's a very slippery slope.
how about salting/plowing the roads? those here who cry foul about library programs would be the first to howl and moan if their roads didn't get plowed or garbage picked up. but aren't those services also available through private contracting? shouldn't all you homeowners who enjoy free road salting and garbage pickup be thanking your condo-dwelling cohorts who have to pay for that stuff out of their own pockets? their tax money is subsidizing your city services!
seriously, the question of where on the continuum of public/private we sit is one that will be endlessly debated, and it's a valid question. but, for me, i think affluent communities should err on the side of providing more services, especially those relating to education and recreation for kids.
think of it this way; kids are going to occupy themselves doing something for 'x' hours per day. if they're not ice skating/swimming/reading/at the library, then what are they going to be doing?
at least when they're taking advantage of these amenities, they're not exposed to alcohol or drugs, they're supervised, and, again, they're doing something that's community-based.
take a look at communities that don't fund these sort of programs and see what their neighborhoods look like. maybe the net tax savings ends up being negated by the need to put more police on the streets and litigate more drug/alcohol/petty crime cases.
I don't think that slope is as slippery as you think.
I do not believe that plowing/salting the streets is the same as the library. All use the sidewalks, streets, etc. Not all use the library programs. Condo owners use the streets that same as the rest of us.
I agree that having a nice library and other city provided facilities, park district, etc, is beneficial to the community, to a standard of living, to home values, etc.
That said, these things are not needs, such as plowing and salt, they are wants. Simply stated, you pay for needs first, then responsibly fund some of the wants. If the community as a whole, (via the cc), doesn't want to spend more money on the library, then that's that. If the cc does not carry out the will of the people, (and we have an obligation to go to meetings, call them, e-mail them), then they will be voted out.
Looking so forward to April when Howard is finally gone...2011, the cc is next. There are good times ahead.
12/4/08 @ 2:32 PM:
I have to agree with Kovic on this one. The more you say, the more you sound like the master's thesis of some unfortunate sociology grad student.
Face it, you take your kids to the library instead of to a private venue to "interact" with friends/neighbors because the taxpayers won't subsidize you for interacting at Potbelly, or Starbucks, or the Pickwick, where the proprietors actually expect you to buy something in order for you to "interact"/loiter there.
Which means that every time you and your "friends/neighbors" foster your "sense of community" on the public dole at the Library or some other public venue, you're actually double-dipping into the public trough: You're being subsidized by both the property taxpayers and also by the people paying sales tax at the private venues.
Like it or not, "every aspect of life" is measured by some form of cost/benefit "accounting" - whether it's financial, social or emotional (to name just three categories).
But if you're really serious about looking for an "alternative to the consumer of corporate goods/services experience that is all too pervasive" in this country, you might give Cuba a try. They supposedly have a lot of sense-of-community building down there, and the freeloaders are called "Communists."
I do not believe that plowing/salting the streets is the same as the library.
i didn't say it was the same. i said that they all occupy spots on a continuum of services/amenities that the city could provide.
All use the sidewalks, streets, etc. Not all use the library programs.
not true. some people don't go out much. some don't own cars. others drive far less than some people.
Face it, you take your kids to the library instead of to a private venue to "interact" with friends/neighbors because the taxpayers won't subsidize you for interacting at Potbelly, or Starbucks, or the Pickwick, where the proprietors actually expect you to buy something in order for you to "interact"/loiter there.
no, i won't "face it", because that's completely wrong. again, it's not about money. are you incapable of grasping that? i am not in a position where i have to worry about money if i want to take my kids to potbelly or the movies, and, of course, we do also eat in restaurants, go to movies, and lots of other stuff. we don't choose our activities based on the cost, we base the decision on the nature of the activity.
i seriously feel sorry for people who are incapable of grasping the world without attempting to place a dollar value on it. it's really amazing. in 2008 corporate-owned america, if you're in public and you're not spending money, you're "loitering". how incredibly sad.
Like it or not, "every aspect of life" is measured by some form of cost/benefit "accounting" - whether it's financial, social or emotional (to name just three categories).
ok, i can accept that premise, but two of the "categories" you just named belong in the intangible category that you seem to be ridiculing. how does one quantify social or emotional costs or benefits, for example?
But if you're really serious about looking for an "alternative to the consumer of corporate goods/services experience that is all too pervasive" in this country, you might give Cuba a try. They supposedly have a lot of sense-of-community building down there, and the freeloaders are called "Communists."
i'm not even going to respond to that. it's just garbage. stupid name-calling. equating what we're discussing with "communism" shows that you simply do not comprehend the subject matter.
oh, and i hate to break it to you, but the party that likes to engage in this sort of rhetoric just lost in a landslide. the "commie" won. if one of us is moving abroad, it's probably gonna be you. maybe you can get "joe the plumber" to be your roommate.
Great comments and feedback - again.
I also enjoyed the true professional
approach taken by our newly appointed
city manger - James Hock.
Get those dept budgets in order boys!
Revise!!
Cut and trim where we can too.
Its a start!
The last guy would sit there and throw a tax increase at us all
without thinking!
Glad that Mr.Hock is using his head.
I also agree that we need a new mayor.
Maybe there is hope!
We walk by faith and not by sight!
Where are the three wise men when you need them......
"I also enjoyed the true professional
approach taken by our newly appointed
city manger - James Hock."
HUH?
What the hell are you talking about? I suggest you attend the next Finance and Budget meeting.
I was *hoping* that A 5:42 was being sardonic.
This is fascinating. We start with something which we all agree on, no new library, and from there it goes on to people being called freeloaders and (gasp!) communists!! I guess this is why the blog medium is so successful.
All this over library programs like reading to toddlers, or the summer reading program (I can't even imagine what these extravagant things cost). A person who takes their kid to the library is not a freeloader any more then a person who uses the ice rink, skate park, pools or soccer or baseball fields around PR.
When I was little my parents tried to teach me about sharing and that sometimes it is not just about me. Just because I do not choose use a program does not mean that there is no value to it. My neighbors are retired seniors who use the senior center on a regular basis. So I can either sit back and scream about how my tax dollars are going to support something I don't even use or I can understand that it provides a valuable service and is worth the use of public money.
Anonymous @ 2:47,
"A person who takes their kid to the library is not a freeloader any more then a person who uses the ice rink, skate park, pools or soccer or baseball fields around PR."
If they're asking for even more of those "programs like reading to toddlers, or the summer reading program", which are already provided, without offering to bear the cost of those additional programs, themselves, then yes...they very much are acting like "freeloaders", and I'd even qualify that description with "greedy".
Bravo to your parents for their having taught you "about sharing and that sometimes it is not just about me." Perhaps you'd be willing to help teach the "greedy freeloaders" that "it is not just about [them]" and they should try to show their appreciation for what is already being shared with them, instead of asking for more.
It is very clear to me that "we all" do NOT agree on "no new library". In fact, I believe it is because there are still a number of people who refuse to take "no" for an answer that we are now being treated to lamentations concerning "the pinch of limited event space" at the current library.
they should try to show their appreciation for what is already being shared with them,
just curious, bean, but do you show your appreciation for the city services or amenities that you benefit from?
if your answer is 'yes', how?
and....how do you know that the people you're speaking about *don't* show their appreciation? it's kind of a big assumption.
Anonymous @ 6:34,
You asked, "just curious, bean, but do you show your appreciation for the city services or amenities that you benefit from?"
I have and I continue to do so.
"if your answer is 'yes', how?"
In writing and verbally to those carrying out the programs provided for through the use of taxpayer dollars. ...and to my fellow taxpayers my apprecition is expressed first and foremost by paying my fair share, and then by not asking that my fellow taxpayers further subsidize my family's personal entertainment choices and selected "amenities" through expansion of programs already made available through the generous support of the taxpayers.
I have no way of knowing to what extent the "greedy freeloaders" have expressed their appreciation, but I'm fairly certain that anyone so shamelessly able to ask that more be provided to them, but paid for by others, aren't exactly the sort who appreciate, and I mean that in the truest and broadest sense of the word, what has already been "shared" and provided to them. It's a logical presumption, which is the more correct word.
In writing and verbally to those carrying out the programs provided for through the use of taxpayer dollars.
really? that's nice and all, but, "in writing"? if you don't mind my asking, which programs have you shown appreciation for in writing?
and, since verbally thanking those carrying out the programs seems to be so important, is simply thanking the librarians enough for you? i mean, that's pretty much what you're talking about, isn't it?
...and to my fellow taxpayers my apprecition is expressed first and foremost by paying my fair share
well, again, that's great and all...but we all do that. i mean, if we didn't, we'd be breaking the law. the people you're being so critical of also pay their fair share.
there's nothing wrong with lobbying for services that you, as a citizen want. you have no idea what form these citizen's requests took, whether it was a formal request or a casual conversation. yet you feel entitled to call them "greedy freeloaders".
are you saying that you'd never ask for more city services? further, are you saying that none of us should ever feel entitled to ask for anything more? that we should gratefully accept whatever the city graces us with and never be allowed to make suggestions for new programs or services for fear of people like you accusing us of being "greedy freeloaders" and asking the taxpayers to subsidize our families?
wow. that's really quite an extreme position you've staked out there. borderline wacko, in fact.
anon 7:34:
For what it is worth, I agree with you. I love these blogs but somethings seem to go to an extreme to make a point. I cannot for the life of me see how someone making a suggestion about a possible library program is a greedy freeloader. If anything I would expect the people running the library to say no, or phase out old programs for new to manage to space and budget, but to suddenly label fellow citizens who make a suggetion as greedy is, to use your word, extreme.
Anonymous @ 7:34,
You began, "really? that's nice and all, but, "in writing"? if you don't mind my asking, which programs have you shown appreciation for in writing?"
Yes, really. I don't mind your asking. I hope you don't mind my declining to answer with specifics.
You continued, "and, since verbally thanking those carrying out the programs seems to be so important,"
Do you think otherwise? I definitely believe that even publicly employed staff should be thanked when you have enjoyed the product of their efforts.
You went on to say, "is simply thanking the librarians enough for you?"
Certainly. I don't believe I indicated that the librarians should not be thanked for the programs they put on for patrons.
You added, "i mean, that's pretty much what you're talking about, isn't it?"
Certainly not. I'm talking about the "greedy freeloaders" who attempt to get even more for themselves from the taxpayer's pockets, instead of appreciating that which is already being provided by those taxpayers.
You then went on to say, "well, again, that's great and all...but we all do that. i mean, if we didn't, we'd be breaking the law. the people you're being so critical of also pay their fair share.
"
I'm glad you approve...however, you fail to more deeply consider that in fact, no, we don't all "do that." There are those who do willingly choose to break the law; however, there are also those who make hogs of themselves when something is being heavily subsidized or outright gifted to them by taxpayers.
I note with bemusement your choosing to ignore the latter portion of that statement I made.
You said, "there's nothing wrong with lobbying for services that you, as a citizen want."
Sure there is, when that lobbying is a shameless request to have your family entertainment provided for through still more subsidies from others.
You said,"you have no idea what form these citizen's requests took, whether it was a formal request or a casual conversation."
Actually, I do...because I have read the library board minutes...the notes of thanks and requests from patrons are regularly included in the library board reports...and I have engaged in conversations with other Park Ridge residents who have expressed their desire for expansion of the children's services at the library.
You said, "yet you feel entitled to call them "greedy freeloaders"."
The ones attempting to glom onto more "freebies" courtesy of the taxpayers? ...you betcha!
You asked, "are you saying that you'd never ask for more city services?"
Not at all. In fact, I regularly express my personal desire to see the city provide more road paving, more sidewalk repairs, more sewer lining, more relief sewer installation (according to the REAL priority list), more tree trimming, and more flood controls.
You went on to ask, "further, are you saying that none of us should ever feel entitled to ask for anything more?"
It depends upon what it is you are asking for...but I note, again with bemusement, your use of the word "entitled"...very telling, that.
You went on to say, "that we should gratefully accept whatever the city graces us with and never be allowed to make suggestions for new programs or services for fear of people like you accusing us of being "greedy freeloaders" and asking the taxpayers to subsidize our families?"
Not at all, if what you expect is commensurate with what you are paying out...and in Park Ridge one might expect to have streets in excellent repair, sidewalks in comfortably navigable shape, Uptown sidewalks that are regularly pressure washed, trees that don't lose limbs during high winds that add to the amount of power outages experienced, and sewers that don't back up at the first drop of a rainfall.
You concluded with, "wow. that's really quite an extreme position you've staked out there. borderline wacko, in fact."
I deeply believe that the first priority of government, when prioritizing expenditures of taxpayer dollars, should be the basics of ensuring a sound and healthy infrastructure...not whether or not Mr. or Mrs. Jones "needs" to have somebody else read to little Johnny or Jenny in a publicly subsidized library program. I also deeply believe that the library director and library board aren't nearly as interested in adding programs as they are in taking advantage of every opportunity to create the appearance for a "need" to add space to their facility. Call me wacko.
Certainly not. I'm talking about the "greedy freeloaders" who attempt to get even more for themselves from the taxpayer's pockets, instead of appreciating that which is already being provided by those taxpayers.
but what of the "greedy freeloaders" who *do* appreciate the programs already provided? the two are not mutually exclusive, as you appear to be implying.
asking for new or extended programs is not equivalent to not appreciating the programs already in place. in fact, one could make a case that those who *most* appreciate the existing programs are likely to be the ones who voice suggestions for how to expand or improve them.
I'm glad you approve...however, you fail to more deeply consider that in fact, no, we don't all "do that." There are those who do willingly choose to break the law; however, there are also those who make hogs of themselves when something is being heavily subsidized or outright gifted to them by taxpayers.
hmm. ok. ranting aside, i'm not sure what this comment has to do with paying our taxes. you said that you "pay your fair share". big whoop. so do i. so does everybody, including the "hogs" you keep going on about.
"paying your fair share" doesn't mean diddly. if you didn't pay it, they'd come after you.
The ones attempting to glom onto more "freebies" courtesy of the taxpayers? ...you betcha!
anyone requesting any city service could be accused of the same thing. whether they're suggesting expanding a worthwhile program or trying to "glom onto more freebies" is in the eye of the beholder.
an example; some people don't care about the environment or recycling. using your logic, they should be bitching about how their tax dollars are being used to subsidize people's recycling, and how it's a big waste of money. others would applaud the effort and would perhaps even push for expansion of the recycling program.
this holds true for your examples above. those that aren't as concerned about roads and sidewalks could lash out at you about being a wasteful gas-guzzling joy-rider. how perfect to streets need to be, after all? i don't see any sinkholes around town!
but reasonable people won't do that. reasonable people realize that it's not that the issues that are important to them are important and essential, and the issues that are important to others are "silly" or "subsidizing entertainment".
in other words, it's a difference of opinion about what should be considered "essential" or "necessary" services, and another difference of opinion about how involved/uninvolved governments should be in providing these sort of services. that doesn't mean either side is bad or wrong, stupid or freeloading, or [insert derogatory epithet here].
using such extreme language achieves nothing and does your cause a disservice by marginalizing those who might agree with you.
you know, i happen to agree that it's unnecessary to expand the library, but what i take issue with is the utter contempt, spite, and animosity that's displayed by some people at the slightest disagreement with even a small portion of their belief system.
at the merest suggestion of dissent, the name-calling begins. "communist!", "freeloader", etc, etc... that is not the way to go about convincing people that your position is the correct one.
now, you may not be interested in that, bean. i don't know. perhaps you're just interested in venting your spleen in a forum where you don't have to look the person in the eye.
but you really should consider that part of living in a community is compromise and loving thy neighbor. i'm honestly sorry that you're so angry about this issue and i hope that you can achieve some sort of inner peace about it.
i don't think we're going to get anywhere by continuing this discussion, so i'm done talking to you about it for now.
i wish you and your family a safe and happy holiday season.
Anonymous @ 9:20,
The "logic" of your last post leaves me gasping with laughter...Truly!...you are funny when you aren't wholly self-serving!
This "extreme", "borderline wacko" particularly enjoyed the part about your admonishing people for name-calling...
In any case, make no mistake about it, I've never had any problems "venting my spleen" while looking someone directly in the eye...and while you did your best to try to characterize my strong and unequivocal opinions on this issue as "angry" and absent of "inner peace"...in fact, the exact opposite is the truth.
Having a consistent philosophy of how a community is and is not responsible to its individual members provides a tremendous amount of peace, because then one doesn't have to attempt to twistedly justify one pet-cause over some other pet-cause when faced with a tight and dwindling pool of pet-cause supplies but a seemingly endless supply of pet-cause promoters.
Of course, if you don't have a consistent philosophy, then you have to begin parsing and compartmentalizing your arguments...as you demonstrated in your above post...with airy pronouncements of "loving thy neigbor" and wistful longings for "compromise", wrapped up with a ribbon of "difference of opinion."
As I stated earlier..."some of us have opinions "of what is or is not a necessity" that are formed from reality-based thinking and consideration of the issues.
Others of us...mmmmm...not so much."
I fear you fall into the latter category of thinkers, despite your having delivered your position in a recognizable noun - verb (predicate) construction...and I don't blame you one bit for backing away from the conversation.
Enjoy your holidays as well.
Think this has gone to far.
Let's give it a rest unless we have anything more wise to say then this back and forth aguing.
As I stated earlier..."some of us have opinions "of what is or is not a necessity" that are formed from reality-based thinking and consideration of the issues. Others of us...mmmmm...not so much."
in other words, "my opinions are right, yours are wrong. period."
wow. that's great. really leaves room for discussion. that's exactly what i'm talking about. it shows a complete and utter disrespect for the views of others.
if that's how you approach a discussion, what option do people have other than backing away? why would anyone even bother talking to you?
oh, and if you'll read back, i called your *position* extreme and borderline wacko. not you as a person. unlike you, who called the people involved freeloaders and other insulting names.
that's it. i'm done now. you may have the last word.
Anonymous @ 10:06,
You've decided my statement can be boiled down to an exceedingly simplistic, "in other words, "my opinions are right, yours are wrong. period."
It's unfortunate that you cannot grasp my statement in a fashion that leaves room for both opinions being valid, but some opinions being more well-founded than others...
You went on to complain, "wow. that's great. really leaves room for discussion. that's exactly what i'm talking about. it shows a complete and utter disrespect for the views of others."
First, I believe the more apt description would be "disdain", as opposed to "disrespect"...and I must admit, I do disdain airy headed musings about "nicey-nice" public policy positions because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...because sometimes "greedy freeloaders" should be told "no" in the bluntest of terms.
There is room for discussion for those willing to take the time, make the effort, and offer something more soundly based than vague and inadequate attempts at persuasion through words and phrases such as "compromise" and "love they neighbor" and "differences of opinion"...
You further stated, "if that's how you approach a discussion, what option do people have other than backing away? why would anyone even bother talking to you?"
It is very much how I approach discussions...it tends to be an excellent method for separating the wheat from the chaffe...and I have found that those who don't back away are far more worth the effort and challenge to me for further engagement...
You began your closing with, "oh, and if you'll read back, i called your *position* extreme and borderline wacko. not you as a person. unlike you, who called the people involved freeloaders and other insulting names."
Right. Because it's not me, the source of my position, who is "extreme" or "borderline wacko", it's just my position...which you seem not to connect to me...which, if you did, could then lead you into some uncomfortable state of confusion at having to face your own juxstaposed "logic"...while also leaving your own guilt exposed for the same offense you attempted to admonish others for committing. I understand that parsing arguments and compartmentalizing thoughts is a necessary activity for some people...a "survival mechanism", if you will...
You have decided yet again to take your ball and go home by saying, "that's it. i'm done now. you may have the last word."
Thank you...and unless you again fail to keep your word...I have fulfilled your last directive.
And to MIKE,
Debate, by its very nature, consists of "arguing" back and forth...and it sure beats telling people just to "shut up" when you don't like what they're saying...not that you've ever done that, MIKE, have you? ;)
I didn't use the term "freeloader" but in reading subsequent posts I got the sense that it was used as shorthand for a lot longer description, like: "a person who is unwilling to pay the fair value of what he is using and, instead, wants to be subsidized by others."
I was referring to the same kinds of people myself when I used the term "'net users/abusers' of governments services" - so "freeloaders" is definitely a more succinct form of that description as well.
What this debate seems to boil down to is one between more government and less government. I happen to be on the "less government" side of that debate: For example, irrespective of price, I'd rather see people renting their movies from the local (taxpaying) Blockbuster than borrowing them from the (tax consuming) Library.
And because I believe the basic business school axiom that "you can't manage what you can't measure," it becomes axiomatic that the more "intangibles" your operations have to deal with, the worse your operations management is going to be.
So the more we judge our local government operations - such as the Library - on "intangibles," the more financially mismanaged they are likely to be; and the higher are taxes will go to pay for that mismanagement.
Dave:
I understand your argument as well as Bean's but what I cannot get over is what I perceive as inconsistency.
We have programs all over the PR community, Chicago community and state that operate and are judged, inpart on "intangibles". If you look at all the sports and activity related programs at the rec. center and through the Park District they all qualify based on your argument. I will grant you that most of these programs require a fee but I will also argue that they are not self funding and require the support of our taxes. You will those who support these programs (including me) talk about community and team work and promoting general physical fitness and health but all of those are intangibles. What about the wonderful summer camp programs offered in Park Ridge? Again there is a fee but not they are not self funding. My duaghter had gotten so much out of her summer camp experiences, but you could argue that it is nothing but a babysitting service while both parents work that is subsidised by your tax dollars.
There is a parade tomorrow for Main South (which I am looking forward to). There is a cost in tax dollars to have that parade. What do we get out of it? You guessed it - intangibles!!!
So unless you are advocating a complete pay for usage that makes all programs self funding, then most us would qualify as freeloaders.
It goes back to what one of the other posters referemced - opinions. I am not willing to label people who choose to take advantage of tax subsidized programs that I do not use as freeloaders. I realize that there are programs that I use that others do not choose to take advantage of.
what i notice is that these 'small government' types usually only pull out that argument when discussing programs that they don't personally approve of or benefit from.
for example, look how quick all the 'less government' types approved the iraq war, whose costs are approaching a trillion bucks, while they cry foul about funding things like head start and programs for disabled children, whose costs are tiny in the big picture.
as far as i'm concerned, those on the 'less government' side should keep on resorting to the type of name-calling, arrogance, and marginalization that has been displayed here, 'cause that's just been working out *so* well for them as of late!
Everyone, be careful out there with this bad weather.
Tis the season to get silly too.
Be safe!
Anonymous December 6, 2008 1:58 PM:
To address your "inconsistency" point, my comments were limited to the Library programs because I thought this was a Library discussion.
But my position is the same as to those other programs you mention, even the ones that actually do charge some kind of user fee if it's insufficient to cover the full cost: They should be "self funding." If these programs are so good, why shouldn't everybody who uses them be charged "full price" - the entire cost" - for them? Why should there be ANY "freeloaders"?
I don't use the Community Center, but I don't mind that my taxes go toward the basic cost to keep it open and operating. But why should I subsidize somebody's exercise class - and why should they subsidize mine, if I chose to sign up for one?
But if you really believe a majority of residents want to subsidize you and the other users of these programs, I'd be willing to accept the results of a referendum to see if a majority of the voters actually want to continue to subidize the cost of all these programs. Would you?
Dave:
I would be more the willing to accept that. As I mentioned before, I would guess your suggestion would be a net gain for me. I too do not use the rec center with the exception of the outdoor pool in the summer time. I also do not use the ice rink.
There seems to be a movement to get the police station on the ballot so why don't you have folks sign the petition for your suggestion as well?? Go gor it!!!
Until then, I plan on being a member of the community, understanding that my taste and usage in programs is not the same as some other peoples, but believing that people do find value, even in the programs that I do not use.
By the way. Perhaps you should consider a more efficient petition method as it would appear there will be many more issues you would want as a referendum in the future.
I don't use the Community Center, but I don't mind that my taxes go toward the basic cost to keep it open and operating. But why should I subsidize somebody's exercise class - and why should they subsidize mine, if I chose to sign up for one?
why? because encouraging people to be active and exercise, or get outside, or read books is something that benefits the individuals involved, and the community as a whole.
why should someone who doesn't drive subsidize your two-car driving habit by paying for road salt, road maintenance, and plowing?
why should someone living in a condo who pays association fees for garbage pickup subsidize your garbage and recycling?
why should a childless couple subsidize the education of other people's children?
why should people who don't utilize the baseball/football fields, pools, skate parks, or playgrounds subsidize the recreational activities of other people?
same answer. because having those things available for those who will use them benefits the community as a whole, even if they don't equally benefit every individual member of the community.
Unbelievable how simple minded some of you goofs are. Guess some of you can't see past your own nose when it comes to picking your neighbor's pockets.
The most surprising part of this entire debate for the Crew has been to watch a bunch of whiners claim they actually have a right to demand their personal entertainment be paid for by other people.
We can't wait to hear from you sponges tomorrow. We really wonder if any of you -- yea, we're going to say it, freeloaders -- have a clue what you are talking about.
The most surprising part of this entire debate for the Crew has been to watch a bunch of whiners claim they actually have a right to demand their personal entertainment be paid for by other people.
whether you agree with it or not, PRU, are you really saying that people shouldn't have the right to make that sort of "demand"? (i don't believe 'demand' is an accurate description of what we're talking about here, but, for the sake of argument, let's go with that term).
are you saying people do not have the right to ask for what they want from their local, state, or federal government? isn't that a basic right under the first amendment?
i mean, isn't this entire website all about requesting (or "demanding") things from the local government?
what gives you "the right" demand things from the PR government while claiming that others don't have the right to ask for what *they* want?
are you special in some way? are you entitled to special rights or privileges that others are not?
or is this yet another instance of "well, what i want from the government is well-founded and justified, and what others want isn't."
man oh man. lord save us from people who think their beliefs and opinions are the friggin' be-all-end-all Truth with a capital 'T'.
Anon@7:32 --
Yours is the mindset that has contributed to much of the financial disaster Park Ridge and the rest of the country is facing.
Your inability to measure necessity against self absorbed entitlement comes through loud and clear.
Come back tomorrow, genius, and get to work justifying your "right to ask" for more taxpayer funded entertainment with reality. We can hardly wait to watch you justify having your neighbors paying for guest authors to read to 3 year olds on a par with street paving and salting.
We're looking forward to the fun.
Post a Comment