Opinion: Editorial

No late fees for library funding

Remember that time your dad went out and bought a new big-screen TV without asking mom? Even though it was March Madness, and the old TV your parents had been using since their wedding shower had finally bit the dust, she was pretty pissed dad didn’t even think about how to pay for it.

Well, Mama Schumacher caught Papa Cieslewicz before he could get that big boy into his car, and right now they’re talking it over in the checkout line at Best Buy.

Yesterday Ald. Michael Schumacher, District 18, introduced an amendment to delay construction of the proposed Central Library until at least $4 million of the $10 million in private fundraising necessary for the project can be secured.

Mayor Dave Cieslewicz opposes the move, mostly because delaying approval of the project could cause the city to miss out on low-interest federal stimulus loans and low construction costs. If we wait to secure private donations, Mr. Cieslewicz argues, we may end up losing money as construction costs climb and those low-interest loans dry up.

While it may be true that withholding approval could end up costing the city money in the long-run, Mr. Schumacher is correct in identifying the risk inherent in breaking ground without the necessary funds in place. At the beginning of this year, we watched as the Overture Center — another vaunted public-private partnership — saw its endowment disappear and was forced to put itself up for sale.

For a dollar.

While the new Central Library will probably not end up in the same situation, probably is not good enough for a project approaching $40 million. To commit $27 million to a project we may not be able to complete would be folly. And though they may have said the same thing about Alaska, there is no black gold under the corner of West Washington and Henry.

Although the Library Foundation is confident it can raise $10 million in private donations by 2012, the economic climate suggests otherwise. Mr. Cieslewicz is completely correct in identifying the current business atmosphere as an opportunity to obtain good borrowing rates and to solicit competitive construction bids. Unfortunately, the same economic squeeze that is causing bankers and builders alike to cut their rates is also tightening the pocketbooks of donors large and small.

The UW Foundation reported a 12 percent decrease in donations over the past year, and many charitable organizations are seeing similar drops in funding. To not only expect that trend to reverse itself within a year and a half but to wager on it $27 million and what is sure to be a large hole in the ground verges on reckless.

While we would not be opposed to lowering the threshold set by Mr. Schumacher’s amendment from 40 percent of the private funds, we agree to the measure in principle. It would be unwise to begin a project of such magnitude until we have, at the very least, demonstrated that we have the ability to raise the necessary funds.

There is much to like about the library proposal. Mr. Cieslewicz has worked hard to make the building both a destination for the downtown and an economically feasible initiative. Also, if Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, has his way, the roof is going to be pretty sweet. However, even though that TV looks pretty good from where we’re sitting, it might be best if dad waits until he’s sure his finances are in order before hauling it away.

After all, mother knows best.

Have a thought? We welcome your input, but please be polite and stay on topic wherever possible. Your comment may be deleted if it is inappropriately off topic or promotional or if it is unnecessarily rude or contains personal attacks. We may delete comments for other reasons as well. Just keep it simple and focus on your points as respectfully as possible.

We allow and encourage comments employing satire, wit and irony to make points. Do not flag comments just because you disagree. Flagged comments will be immunized from further flagging unless they stray far from the guidelines and do not add to the discussion. Before flagging a comment you think is offensive, consider your time might be better spent rebutting it than censoring it.

blog comments powered by Disqus

3 older comments

user-pic

So shouldn’t an editorial by the “editorial board” have been looked over by a person or two before being submitted? Hate to be a nit-picking douce, but with the quality of the Herald’s pieces dropping substantially recently, someone has to. Let us play a quick game of find the typo: “And though they may have said the same thing about Alaska, there is no black gold under at the corner of West Washington and Henry.” I could have just copy pasted the whole article and started adding completely unnecessary “sics” instead.

user-pic

Dude, you misspelled “douche.” Coincidence?

user-pic

Haha, yup. Thats what I get for posting a comment at 1 in the morning. Massive foot in mouth, my description of myself as a nit picking douche* now fits me to the t. But, the point still stands, I’m an individual representing no one. They are an editorial board representing what is supposed to be one of the finest student run newspapers in the country.

Donate