I’ve shared a good bit about Proposals A and B, to be decided this Tuesday, August 5, 2025. People have asked me what I think about the arguments that have been pitched back and forth. What I think is simple: no matter what anyone prefers insofar as development of the property adjacent to the downtown library, Proposals A and B are not a serious or sensible plan to get there. On Facebook recently, in speculation about the likely outcome, I offered my take. It has been shared by a few people and I’m going to share it here:
I don’t know how it’s going to shake out ultimately but it’s clear how aggressively the whole question has been publicized (at least by one side) to obscure the real issue. This is about hypocrisy, accountability and stewardship of city assets. The framing of and talking points for these issues – useless parking lot vs. housing and “yay library!” vs. “don’t you TRUST the library???” – has illustrated how confident leaders are that an electorate does not pay attention to details.
It wasn’t too long ago that City Council contrived an internal “sale” between city departments, forcing the housing commission to cough up over $6 million for property the city already owned and had already committed explicitly for development as affordable housing. That was nearly a whole year of the affordable housing millage revenue gone and effectively shuffled back into the general fund when city leaders insisted that the property had to be sold for fair market value.
This year’s deal – leading up to a private-public partnership – suggests that it’s now totally fine to GIVE away an asset worth twice as much, not for a specific plan but for the vague idea of “don’t you love the library?” (Unspoken on purpose: “don’t you love the library AND whatever unknown private development that will be figured out later but don’t worry your pretty little head about it now?”) The deal is a bad one, nevermind how anyone thinks the space should be used.
Why didn’t they schedule this for a high turnout election? Why didn’t they structure a straightforward repeal if it’s so apparent that public sensibilities have changed around housing and development (given the overwhelming “mandate” they often note)? If there’s an appetite for a private-public deal muddling public assets with profit interests and the overarching goal is housing, why would the library be doing it, rather than allowing the city’s own housing commission to lead efforts with the library as a partner (the housing commission has ACTUAL expertise in developing housing)?
There are a whole lot of reasons to oppose this for how they structured it to “game” a less attentive electorate and leverage warm fuzzies for the library. The common thread with the [Comprehensive Land Use Plan] is less about policy and more about trustworthiness: one more thing that seems to be happening (on purpose) so that fewer people participate in what’s going on or even have a clear idea of WHAT is going on. These low turnout elections typically draw more skepticism so I think the results are really a test of how much early voting is able to increase participation and harness the kind of voters who will fall for “Yay! Library!”