The Library Tax

[Robin Garr]

Ouch. Think I'll let that one lay for a bit ...

Okay, I was in Yellow Journalism mode with my adjectives, but no kidding, I think the underlying question is more than fair: Given that there's provision for logging in, and you have to have a LFPL card and use its long ID number and a password to log in, identifying respondents and guarding against multiple voting shouldn't be a problem.

Understood that we need more money, but it would be nice to see some evidence that LFPL is eager to embrace new technology with the tools it's got.

Ouch. Think I'll let that one lay for a bit ...

Okay, I was in Yellow Journalism mode with my adjectives, but no kidding, I think the underlying question is more than fair: Given that there's provision for logging in, and you have to have a LFPL card and use its long ID number and a password to log in, identifying respondents and guarding against multiple voting shouldn't be a problem.

Understood that we need more money, but it would be nice to see some evidence that LFPL is eager to embrace new technology with the tools it's got.

One thought: knowing the oddities of state government, I wonder if a "signature" is literally required, vs. a digital signature? It would not surprise me at all if they had to have a curly and generally unreadable piece of evidence that someone had gone to the trouble to sign the petition instead of clicking in and entering a name.

[Robin Garr]

One thought: knowing the oddities of state government, I wonder if a "signature" is literally required, vs. a digital signature? It would not surprise me at all if they had to have a curly and generally unreadable piece of evidence that someone had gone to the trouble to sign the petition instead of clicking in and entering a name.

Possible, I suppose, although I've been known to "sign" PDF and Word documents and return them electronically by pasting in an image of my signature that I wrote in through my PDA, and no one's ever been the wiser.

I'd still like it if the Library page had explained the reasoning behind the rule, rather than merely flatly stating that E-mail and online responses would not be accepted.

OK, confirmed that, indeed, a "pen and paper" petition is necessary to satisfy the requirements for a petition to be valid for this purpose. And, per Robin's question, the library designs it's web site in house. Finally, they will be adding an explanation of the need for a signed petition to the site. So, if that dispels any concerns anyone had about any of the above, you can go to their web site (http://www.lfpl.org) and download a petition and sign it. My offer remains to be the collector of petitions if anyone wants to fax any to me (send an email for my fax number).

It seems to me that in the last Mayoral election our mayor for life made a promise that the librarys would be improved and new ones built with no increase in taxes. Also Ralph Hiner was on the Joe Elliot show a few weeks ago and said that there is a way to do it with bonds without raising taxes. Seems like the tax rate is high enough. I for one will vote NO.

Last year I was involved in hiring for some general skills positions for my employer. For various reasons, these jobs were only posted online. During the interviews, we discovered that nearly half of the 100+ applicants did not own computers themselves but had found the job information via the public library computers.

That is fine...But our Mayor said that he would improve and build new libraries without rasing taxes...Seems like he need to keep his promises and also listen to the OTHER plan that would do the same without raising taxes that are already high.....

Here's my take on the "New Tax"...

Having been raised in Southern Indiana,(and they have a fine Library System over there) I used to be able to take "advantage" of the fact that I could get a Louisville Library Card and use every service that is available just because I worked in Jefferson County...
But, I would be able to DEDUCT all of the city/county/or whatever taxes that were taken on my pay-check because I claimed Indiana residency...

Now, it appears that after all of those years of "free use", an extra $60(That's alot of money to most folks)will be taken away from me on a yearly basis.

I have moved across the "MIGHTY OHIO" . And even though I don't really use the library much any more(YOU KNOW...EVERYONE WHO HAS A COMPUTER AT HOME HAS Most OF THE REFERENCE MATERIAL AT HAND). In my mind, that's a lot of money to give up for some library users unscrupulous time on the internet...(I've Seen it with my own eyes..)

I'm all for childrens reading programs, and providing the community with new volumes of published material. But if you go to the downtown branch on the second floor and see how those computers are being used (You can still get to what ever you want, Filters and website blockers be damned)then you may have a second opinion.
I would say that a good 90% of them are being used for what I would call "NON-Essential"use.
I don't like the idea of providing an outlet for "MOJO Louisville dating"..Singles chat rooms or who knows what else

I DO Understand the need to expand and redo a few of the facilities, but I feel they are asking just a little too much...There are a few other pressing needs in our fair city...(Stepping down from soapbox now)

I live in Oldham Co so I don't have a dog in this fight. (Well, not a BIG dog) I do frequent my neighborhood library on occations and the bank of computers there are often in regular use. While I don't spend a great deal of time looking over peoples shoulders I've haven't noticed any abuse or frilvillous use of them. I have been surprised at the seemingly constant stream of people that utilize the library computers. I guess not every one has their own at home.
I would refer people to read Cary Stemle's article in this weeks LEO re: the library tax. It may not change your mind but it will give you some additional insight into both sides of the issue. (And is another example of LEO's good reporting if I might add.)

The issue to me is not the libraries...But the tax and the other plan that is out there that is not even being talked about. Also with a Mayor that talked about this exact issue in his reelection campain that he would improve the libraries and build new ones with no new taxes....Then now to see his sorry face doing commercials on tv in support of this new tax....

I am a liberal, I am a big fan of our libraries, I very much appreciate the intentions behind this new tax, and I also don't think the city's tax rate is too high right now. However, something smells. What really gets me is why can't the libraries be properly funded through the general budget? And if libraries are really important, why can't the overall tax rate be increased? And why can't bonds be issued for building the new suburban libraries?

I really do have this icky feeling that something is being foisted on us without there being adequate community input in advance of this effort. Also, I guess my recent dimming of my feelings toward the mayor may be contributing to this feeling. I'm not sure the guy (who's really becoming a major corporate brown noser) really has the best of intentions with respect to our libraries.

I'm also a proclaimed liberal, but I'll be casting a no vote on this one. It seems that the bond issue is just not being explored. This tax is purported largely to be for bricks and mortar, but it is not time limited, so it will go on forever, well after the bricks and mortar are built. The new tax will free up the previously allotted budget money from Metro government. Why not keep that money headed to the library and reduce the amount of the new proposed tax? This whole thing just smells funny.

And for the record, I don't think that anyone is against a public library system. But you have to choose the most economical way to fund it.

Kind of funny in all of the ad's for the library vote...no one mentions that o by the way you taxes will go up....gee they must have forgot to mention it...

Kind of funny in all of the ad's for the library vote...no one mentions that o by the way you taxes will go up....gee they must have forgot to mention it...

Ever since Mondale politicians won't go there.

Anybody listen to the Joe Elliot show last night on WHAS Radio. The Mayor was on plugging the new tax. Joe Elliot is not a fan of it and I am not in favor of it also. He played a political ad that the mayor used in his last election run in with he states that we will get new libraies and firehouses all with no increase in taxes. Also what really gets me is that the 16 million that the city now provides the liabraries will go into the General Fund...BIG COOKIE JAR...if the new tax is approved. That tax will gerate about 40 million dollars a year....So why dont the city keep the 16 million in for the liabraies and lower the amount to the liabrary tax to 24 million....24+16=40 Million. Then the new tax rate could be lowered. This was asked to the mayor with a typical no answer...meaning he talkied for about 2 minutes and never really answered the question.....This taxe really smells bad....