Today's Skip Lawerence Column in the Phoenix (no link included):
But what’s most revealing in them is rather how the Library is being utilized. Given its assumptions, the Gilkeyson Committee didn’t have to ask that question.
We do. And our own particular public is voting on the purposes of its own particular public library with its feet. Purposes that are reflected in the proposal. It’s to those purposes — and to the architectural plans that will embody them — that public discussion should be turning.
A wonderfully informing column that gave us an insight into the begging that went on in the early 20th century to get funding for the library. Not much has changed with the need for expansion. I think the above paragraph says it all. The library is being utilized for good purposes, vital purposes, by our community standards. It is also being utilized and accessed by car at a ratio of 3 to 1. That is where the rubber hits the pavement. I don't think that the people that oppose the cuyrrent plan are against "progress". They would like to see progress planned out a bit more than it is currently being done.
