Add Metroparks on the pile of levies

There are only three board members on their board?

I LOVED Toledo's MetroParks, better than any large city I've ever been too and in my opinion worth what you pay for them.

But since moving to Michigan they only make those who use them pay for them. I had to pay an annual fee for a pass into the State Parks of 10 dollars and 48 dollars for a tri-county park pass, none of which I am complaining about.

Let those who use them pay for them, don't just slather the burden too every taxpayer.

So there is a City Parks and a Toledo Metro Parks levy. Hmmm.

Can someone with more time on their hands add up the annual cost (per $100,000 home) of all seven levies now on the ballot? I'm sure that total number will not be publicized in our local media outlets...only "it's only $27 more a year" per issue types of stories.

You should be able to pull up the levy estimator for any property in Lucas County on AREIS. (If not now, then very soon.)

I don't have the address offhand for a $100,000 property in Toledo, but I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to find and pull up a sample home.

(I only bring that function up, because I think some people aren't aware of it. Not because I think you need to go out and look up data. It is a useful tool that could stand to be publicized more.)

I love the metorparks too (as I state). I just don't understand why...in a recession...the replacement has to be 3 times as big as the levy it is replacing. It would seem that an assured win would be "hey, you love the parks and we're just replacing what we already have with an equal amount."

Also, it's been thrown in with all these other levies. Granted this town votes to tax itself into oblivion, but (in a recession) another $27 per $100,000 home? On top of "just" $__ for this issue, that issue, 4 other issues?

Public parks in Michigan are not entirely funded by admission fees.

If I recall correctly, the biggest source of park funding in Michigan comes from the State Parks Endowment Fund, which is funded in large part by the mineral rights/revenues from public land.

My guess is that it needs to be larger because of the massive drop in home values over the course of the last 5 years. As a result, the amount a levy generates has dropped accordingly. I don't know if the Metroparks can be classified as a need, but they certainly add value to the City. There are only a handful of governmental entities that add to property values; parks are one of them.

The city park system in Toledo is pretty pathetic compared to other cities, but the Metroparks consistently receive great reviews - by residents and visitors alike. It would be a mistake to lump all levies together in a 'no' vote. I do not often visit the Metroparks, but I love that they are available to me.

It looks like the levy estimator on AREIS hasn't been populated yet. Perhaps once all the ballot initiatives are available?

Usually, it's available every election season, so that you can see what each proposed levy would cost any specific property owner.

The thing about the Metroparks is that in reality it is supposed to provide a "natural" environment. A place of quiet and nature. I’ve found it interesting to see more electronic toys popping up at the Metroparks over the years (I’ve only bought more electronics when I had surplus cash). I’m not suggesting that they should live in the dark ages but… it is a place intended to provide a respite from the machines, cell phones, video monitors that plague us everywhere we go. A few times this year during my runs I noticed a park employee (or maybe a volunteer) at Wildwood riding a motorcycle through the dirt trails. I found that really odd. I hope the motorcycle is his own and he has permission from the parks to monitor the trail on the motorcycle and the expense is not the tax payers.

I use the library and Metroparks but I think they are forgetting their purpose. The Lucas County Library is in direct “competition” with Blockbuster (defunct) and Family Video as well as online movie services and theatres. Additionally, they are “competing” with music providers and book stores. I know that sounds strange hearing “competition” but I guarantee you that Family Video is doing 1/20th of what the library is doing. If I do not feel it is my duty as a tax payer to pay for “Chuck, Bertha and their 3 kids” to rent Toy Story 3 at Family Video why should I be paying the library so Chuck and Bertha have access there for free.

It seems like a continuing effort to build a larger and larger infrastructure to “serve” the good of the public on behalf of the Metroparks and library instead of staying lean and letting private companies handle people’s entertainment. As this infrastructure continues to grow you will always see a hand out for more money in the name of “helping and educating others.” I mean... you must be greedy if you wouldn't give more support to the library or Metroparks right?

A few years back voters approved a levy for aquisition. The MetroParks has aquired a great deal of land, all of it Oak Savanna habitat, which is globally threatened, rare and expands the Oak Openings ecosystem. Additional land means additional expense to maintain the land and make it accessible for users.

Because ecosystems are always evolving ecologically, and because the Lucas County residents have expressed a strong desire to maintain the Oak Openings as Oak Savannah habitat, there will always be ongoing maintenance to preserve the habitat.

Because it is rare I support this preservtion. If the Metroparks were to try to restore land to Oak Savannah I would object. Dr. Arthur Shapiro, University of San Francisco Dept of Evolutionary Biology calls restoration ecology like "plowing the sea".

Whats neat about the forested metro parks is that even if they get no funding they can just shut off access to them and not much will change, birds will still come nest, dead trees will still fall, new saplings will still grow. I think they would kind of become a preserve instead of a park. I am sure that long long time ago before anyone came and settled here the area did just fine without funding or someone being paid to "look after" the trees. I am not sure whether the cash supposedly needed to operate are justified, they could always try to do more with less, for the existing land that they have, unsure if they are planning on acquiring more land or not.
All that being said they are probably one of the shining jewels of the county for wholesome activity. They provide great recreational, learning experience for many all around in and out of the city and state.

I am ALL for supporting the metroparks, and will gladly vote for and support the levy. But that's just me! :)

Sure upso - now that you are racking in the dough with salad dressing you have become a philanthropist! :)

Its not that way at all Linecrosser. The Oak Savannah habitat would disappear over time. Non native plants, trees and shrubs, many of which are agressive, would quickly take over. Barberry, and many others are a problem now. It takes constant vigilance and effort to rouge out the non natives. I forget how many of gallons of Garlon the MetroParks uses every year to kill unwanted trees and shrubs. But it was a lot.

Ecosystems evolve, particulary now in the age of man with man moving plants from one continent to another. They do not remain static.

oh man molson, i wish! :)

No false modesty! You started slowly...grew the handlebar mustache...now, you can add the monocle, the top hat..... :)

haha

A great post Dannes. I visit local library 2-4 times each week. Via my own observations, it seems the majority of patrons are there to play video games and checking their facebook accounts. I've also noticed plenty of people browsing the movie video section.

Those materials provide little or no educational value. However, the library provides such materials to "buy votes." Of course, all in the name of "serving the community."

I used to visit Metro parks more often than I have during the past couple years. They are nice, but asking for additional funds during this time doesn't pass the smell test imho.

Library and park levies at times have squeezed a vote from me. However, an across-the-board "NO" vote is a simple explanation for how I'm going to vote this fall regarding levies.

"Whats neat about the forested metro parks is that even if they get no funding they can just shut off access to them and not much will change, birds will still come nest, dead trees will still fall, new saplings will still grow. I think they would kind of become a preserve instead of a park. I am sure that long long time ago before anyone came and settled here the area did just fine without funding or someone being paid to "look after" the trees."

That's funny but inaccurate. Your statement lacks knowledge about nature and the human impact on land.

Not all parks and preserves are forested lands. In Lucas County, we have prairie, wet prairie, marsh, oak savanna, and other types of habitats that are not forested. Linecrosser, you need to get out more.

A naturalist who has never been to Lucas County would know that our parks are not all forested lands. Lucas County is one of the top counties in Ohio for butterfly species, and that's mainly because of the Oak Openings Region, which runs from West Toledo through Sylvania and out past Toledo Express Airport. It takes more habitat types than just forested land to support that many butterfly species.

So letting things go is natural, eh? No, it's not. Not today.

The Nature Conservancy manages Kitty Todd Nature Preserve, which is another gem in the Oak Openings Region of Lucas County. How did they restore it back to oak savanna, prairie, and other natural habitats? By letting things go? Nope. They slashed and burned. The land was in an unnatural state because it was "let go." It was choked with too many woody plants and invasive plants.

When the Nature Conservancy cleared the land that became Kitty Todd, rare plants that had been dormant for decades began blooming. When the land is "let go," other plants flourish in the unnatural state, crowding out the plants that used to comprise the natural habitat. And that can negatively impact other species, such as birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians. Not all birds build stick nests on tree branches. Not all birds like forested landscapes. Obviously, we don't have as much prairie habitat today compared to 500 years ago.

Controlled burns, mowing, clear-cutting, and selective logging are some of the methods used to manage lands today, including here in Lucas County. Fire is a part of nature, but humans dislike raging fires. Controlled burns and mowing keep the invasive plants from taking over. Human activity introduced the invasive plants. If left alone, woody plants take over the prairie and oak savanna habitats in a choking fashion, which changes the ecosystem and not always in a good or natural manner.

More than a decade ago, The Nature Conservancy labeled the Oak Openings Region "One of the 200 Last Great Places on Earth."

Back in 2000, a billboard along Route 20 near Secor Metorpark read: "The Oak Openings Region, a Natural Wonder Disappearing Near You."

Kitty Todd and maybe other places sell these interesting and informational items:

Toledo's population according to the U.S. Census Bureau:

Lucas County's population:

Over the past 40 years, Lucas County's population has not declined as dramatically as Toledo's population. Obviously, some Toledoans have moved into other communities within Lucas County. That means what?

While Lucas County's population has declined, the amount of developed land within the county has increased dramatically. Anyone who has lived here for more than 15 years knows that by simply driving around the county.

Here are two images from the above documentary that showed land usage in the Toledo area in 1981 and in 1997. It's a big change in only 16 years.

I wonder what that land use image map looks like today for Lucas County, 15 years later.

People will say that buying land for park usage prevents that land from being developed and paying taxes. Well, a lot of land has been developed in Lucas County over the past 30 years, and yet we have five county-wide property tax levies on the ballot this November. Developing for the sake of developing is not working here. I could understand the point if Lucas County's population had increased dramatically over the past 30 to 40 years.

Over the past few decades with Lucas County's population declining, and the amount of developed land within the county doubling or tripling in size, I think that means many vacant properties exist with Toledo. Not exactly a newsflash.

The decay of the urban core is one factor contributing to suburban sprawl. Stupid political decisions, poor schools, etc. in Toledo causes people to flee the urban center and chew up the countryside. Plus, it's probably easier and more financially rewarding for developers to work farm land and sandy land than try to develop within Toledo.

How one votes regarding the Metroparks levy is a personal matter. I would prefer people gain a basic knowledge of nature in their immediate surroundings. That doesn't mean taking up dragonfly watching or identifying trees in the winter time. Just obtain some awareness.

I think the best book to read is A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold, published in 1949. It's a good book for an e-reader. It contains many essays. The first section of essays discusses the flora and fauna changes that occur throughout the year in one area. This also called phenology. One essay called the Land Ethic is still used by land managers today. Aldo's writing is some of the best that I've ever read.

"Considered by many as the father of wildlife management and of the United States’ wilderness system, Aldo Leopold was a conservationist, forester, philosopher, educator, writer, and outdoor enthusiast."

Jr you said human impact on land, why I said shut off access to them. Maybe they would still evolve with invading species, but then if a tree falls in a forest and nothing is there to hear hear it does it cost the taxpayer money? Ok poor humor, but nothing lasts forever does it.

linecrosser, it seems that you're thinking that the "human impact on land" = what results from humans walking through the property.

There's a lot more to it than that.

holland and jr posted some pretty specific details above and said it better than I could.

Go back and re-read the stuff they wrote about invasive non-native plants (which humans plant and bring to the region) and other ways that humans impact the land...without necessarily being physically present on said plot of land.

The Metro Parks levy is the only one I will support. The rest can shove it where the sun don't shine.

^ yep, what he said. I've worked around the Metroparks in various volunteer capacities and I know they run a lean operation. One of their conservation principles has been to use the smallest vehicle possible for whatever job needs doing, which means the staff rides around in golf carts sometimes instead of automatically using a pickup truck.

The rangers are now expected to do a significant portion of their patrols on bike or on foot -- better public contact AND saves on the gas bills. Can you imagine other entities (county or city) asking their employees to do the same, as a policy? We'd be in good shape if we could just get city vehicles to turn off the diesel engines during their lunch and rest breaks!

I also like the fact that the new Metroparks director maintains his peace officer status and he can be a ranger anytime he's needed in that capacity.

Let me play the Devil’s advocate… I bill him by the hour.

Why have public parks at all? Won’t the free market step in fill the void? Simply sell the parks and lower everyone’s taxes. The money from the sale of the metro parks would be tens of millions of dollars and could be used to fund infrastructure and whomever we sell them to would pay property taxes.

I’d pay $500k for the right acre of land out at Side Cut park or $200k-$300k for a 10-15 acres out in Oak Opening. Wild Wood would make for a super nice upscale gated neighborhood. Swan Creek Park would make a great corporate headquarters estate like REIT/old Dana over on Door.

If people want to see nature, then they should pay for it themselves and not expect the rest of us to pay. My family has a kick ass play structure with slide and a big pool all set in a beautiful yard with mature trees. If you want the same, pay for it yourself.
</sarcasm>

Sensor maybe we should take that house from you and put in a nice family of 12 section 8 folks, they deserve it more than you.

They can have it, I'm moving out to a nice estate at the park formally called Side Cut once it goes up for sale. I wonder how much county could make on the logging rights to Oak Openings? I’m guessing there is fortune in hardwood out there. The sand dunes would make a great sand quarry too. Save the tax payers a fortune.

"Wild Wood would make for a super nice upscale gated neighborhood."

That's true. At least about 10 years go.

In 2003, the Boy Scouts sold 52 acres of their Camp Miakonda land in the Sylvania area to a high-end residential developer for $4.4 million.

Hmm... are you saying there's a side of upso we don't know about here?

moustache + monocle + top hat = progressive era financier

handlebar moustache + monocle + top hat = steampunk financier

I thought it meant he should watch his back lest he be kidnapped by an evil madman creating a lifesize version of Monopoly.

I thought it meant he should watch his back lest he be kidnapped by an evil madman creating a lifesize version of Monopoly.

That was what I was going for...or something along the lines of, with a little more facial haircare and appropriate attire, we could have our own Uncle Moneybags (minus the money, of course) right here...

But back to the orginal post....

I'm sorry if I came across as too heavily "oh boy, more taxes" on the OP. I love the metroparks and I support them and use them. I just think that this levy request comes at an inopportune time for them considering (a) the overall economy and, more importantly, (b) it is swimming with 6 other levies, all of which add up to an inordinate amount for taxpayers.

I hope people do support them, although I'm still slightly displeased with the increased millage. If it is as MTR suggested...depressed property values...will the replacement millage go down in 10 years. Doubtful, but I'm willing to overlook that because of my own knowledge of them and what people have said here (i.e. they're good with the money they have, they do important work, they don't actively seek to waste money--sending people out to walk/bike instead of ride gas-hog trucks, etc). It's still "nice to have, not need", but I don't think the additional money will go to waste. Unlike, say, at TPS...

Maybe upso can buy Swan Creek and turn it into his evil lair with big cats running around and crocs in the creek.

Back to the thread about upso's evil empire...

Look at what he did to Mountain Dew.

No moustache + monocle + top hat = Mr. Peanut

Does any of this extra millage that is being sought by the metroparks going towards salaries? I haven't seen that in any of the articles about any of the agencies seeking more millage this November. I would question that because I suspect the median income for Lucas County in the last 10 years has dropped. Anyone know if it has?

So, what you are saying, is that the library should provide materials and/or services that fit YOUR needs and/or wants, which you show up to fulfill 2-4 times each week...

But, they should not provide any services or materials that you deem to be lacking in educational value, in order to cater to the needs and/or wants of others, which may differ form yours. You say for them to do this would be "buying votes" from the people that use those meritless services (which is an ironic notion, since it would appear that even after meeting your needs 2-4 times per week they have failed to earn your vote...)

Do I have this right?

I think that you are missing the element of selling out literature in favor of pop culture, which I caught a whiff of.

Sohio: I did not read a direct connection between the library earning a vote and the larger concept expressed in the commenters post that he/she would be voting an across the board "no," seemingly without regard the the prior observation that, in his/her's opinion, that the library had moved away from a prior focus.

While I see what you are doing there, and it is pretty clever.... it doesn't pass the "words in mouth" test.

Nothing "clever" at all. I am not trying to play any tricks. I respect 6th Floor's right to vote as he sees fit. If an across-the-board "NO" is how he wishes to vote, so be it. This is why we have elections. Your reasons for voting yes or no are none of my business.

Whether or not their assertions are related to their actual vote is open to interpretation, I suppose. But 6th and Danneskjold suggested, as you put it, the library is "selling out" literature in favor of pop culture. Or, as Danneskjold put it, we are paying for people to "rent Toy Story 3." Danneskjold opined that the library was "forgetting its purpose" and 6th said that movies [feature films] are of little or no educational value. Even if these are not the reasons for their votes, since they showed up in a thread about tax levies, I took them to be tied together. It seemed to me to be either an implicit or explicit justification.

And either way, my point still stands. The library is a public collection of information and culture. Them having a copy of TOY STORY 3 in addition to "educational" films is really no different than them having a copy of CATCHER IN THE RYE in addition to educational books. 6th didn't say exactly what he uses the library for, but since he goes 2-4 times per week (which is more times than I have gone in the past year) he is obviously finding something of value there. So are the people looking for movies.

As for the argument that they compete with retail outlets, I consider that apples-and-oranges in both operational models and customer base [and as far as theaters go, I don't recall ever seeing a first-run movie at the library...]. But that aside, we have had libraries in this country practically since the beginning...yet somehow, book stores, record stores, video stores, and print newspapers thrived anyway (that is, until the internet took over, and incidentally it hasn't been kind to libraries either). Family Video's own website claims they are "opening new stores all the time." This in spite of the stiff competition they get from public libraries.

We all pay for the library with our taxes, so, in fact, the library has somewhat of a duty to "buy our votes" by offering something of value to every segment of society. The library has always offered records and films. The difference I have seen over the past two decades or so is that their collection of music and films has grown and improved. Who is to say that an "educational" book is of more value than a novel? That a classical album is of more value than the Beatles? Or that an educational documentary is of more value than a feature film?

Vote NO for the library because times are tough, or you think they already get enough money, or you don't like libraries, or you don't use it, or whatever. That is fair. But I find it disingenuous to say the library is "forgetting its purpose" just because some people use it for things YOU find frivolous. That is not fair.

That was the only point I was trying to make.

Who is to say that an "educational" book is of more value than a novel? That a classical album is of more value than the Beatles? Or that an educational documentary is of more value than a feature film?

Well said.

I meant clever as a compliment. I really can't disagree with the longer version.

I won't bother to go into the details ( such as the Metroparks policy of using the smallest gas consuming method of transportation necessary to complete each task ). But I will say the following: They run a mean, lean operation. Waste is a dirty word. Salaries are in line with and comparable to other public park systems in Ohio, such as Cleveland's. They survey their users to determine what park users want and if the the metroparks are fullfilling its mission. The levy is needed.

I have only one gripe with the Metroparks. It is that the higher ups have no real knowledge or understanding of what a public botanical garden is, how they function or what purpose they serve. The Toledo Botanical Garden is part of the Metroparks portfolio. It is a well respected member of the American Public Gardens Association. The Toledo Botanical garden maintains nationally accredited and internationally known collections of rare plants. http://www.publicgardens.org/

TBG participates in the All-America Selections plant trials each year. These trials provide information about new plants, both ornamental and vegetable, so that gardeners have the best plants from which to choose. http://www.all-americaselections.org/ For 2012 TBG won third place in the US and Canada for its AAS vegetable garden. So shallow is the Metroparks' understanding of TBG that I doubt you will read any mention of this truly prestigious achivement in any of their literature or on their website. I believe the new Director is now making an effort to better understand public gardens and TBG.

Having voiced my criticism of them however, I would like to point out that whether or not you visit a Metropark or TBG you benefit from them. There are metroparks projects which are currently shelved. There are many unmet needs at TBG, some infrastructure and some new gardens, such as the proposed children's garden.

Your property values are higher. Your air is cleaner. Your general environment is enhanced by the green space provided. The employees are dedicated and hardworking. They waste no money.

"Your property values are higher."

Really?

holland, back in June, you said your home value dropped 22 percent, according to the Lucas County Auditor. Our home value dropped 24 percent, and we live two blocks from Elmhurst Elementary School, which, according to ODE school ratings, is one of the gems in the Toledo Public School system. That seems contrary to the theory that a good public school increases property values.

I could be wrong, but one reason why property values increase is because people want to move into the area. Toledo's population has declined by nearly 100,000 people in the last 40 years.

In my opinion, if we didn't have the Metroparks system, property values would be even lower.

Oh, OK. Sorry. I thought you were accusing me of something. I'm not used to getting compliments, as you can imagine.

Agreed.

Sohio: We all pay for the library with our taxes, so, in fact, the library has somewhat of a duty to "buy our votes" by offering something of value to every segment of society.

Actually that isn't true at all because too many Americans rely completely on gov handouts.

If the library asked for a sales tax to fund its operations your statement would be more accurate. However, the library is wise enough to know people would be less likely to vote for something that directly comes from their own wallet.

Metroparks probably increase property values to adjacent properties. I don't believe it matters at all across an entire metropolitan area.

True. But that is really a separate issue. And I fail to see how the fact that some people in this country get by on government handouts has anything to do with my point that a library has a responsibility to competently serve the community that funds it.

A sales tax wouldn't change it, since the most poor among us do not pay that either; but would still technically be able and allowed to walk to the library and browse the materials at no charge. And use the bathrooms.

You say the library is "wise enough" to know that people would not vote for a sales tax? What are you basing this on? Does the library have the legislative power to engineer the vehicle of its own funding? Has a public debate over changing the funding policies for the library ever come up, to give the library a chance to to state their position on this?

6th floor. I believe that the entire area that the Metroparks serves benefits property tax values. After all, when a new company looks at relocation, the parks system is a benefit on the positive side of the balance sheet. Employees moving into the area wouldn't think it necessary to purchase a residence immediately adjacent.

Also, if a metropark (or anything else, for that matter) raises the property value of adjacent property, doesn't that bring up the mean and/or median property value for the whole area?

Or, does it not? I'm not sure...

Sohio, how are poor people directly not paying sales taxes? They still have to purchase things such as household items which include sales taxes.

Holland, we are just going to have to disagree about this. As usual, I think your ideas about this are extremely flawed.

I don't think Wildwood Metropark, or any of the Metroparks in NW Ohio changes the property value of a house or lot on Lagrange and Central one cent, and tens of thousands of similar examples exist.

If a Metropark was built @ Monroe and Detroit it would it raise the value of your house?

So according to your logic, creating a Metropark between Moody Manor and Greenbelt Apartments would improve property values in that neighborhood, yours, and every other neighborhood in this region, too? I can visualize all the St. Vincent's employees going there to relax during their breaks.

Maybe an additional 2,000 parks and botanical gardens throughout the city would completely raise the Toledo median home price above 500k?

Only if all the slums were torn down and parks built in their place would a park increase value to the rest of the neighborhoods housing. Parks may increase interest in people looking for someplace to move to, I am sure it would not increase the value of a house 10 miles away with section 8 housing between them and the park.

And as I usual I think you're a social freeloader. Social freeloaders want to keep their money in their pockets but benefit from, without financially supporting, soft infrastructure, hence they procalim that soft infrastructure has no benefit to them, whether that soft infrastructure is the library or children's services or mental health services or any other quality of life service.

LC where do you propose the slum dwellers live after you tear them down?

Holland, as usual, you are making some large leaps of logic attempting to prove your invalid points.

If anybody is freeloading, it's the people making their living from these levy dependent entities. They should be embarrassed about asking for additional funds while the area's economy suffers and property values have fallen.

What about homeless people? Or people living in shelters? People on food stamps? Do they buy household goods and pay sales tax? Because I can tell you they most certainly DO go into the libraries.

And as for homeless people, the library cannot kick them out unless they cause a disturbance or break the rules.

What about minors that have no income?

I'm not sure why I am even debating this with you in the first place, since your premise was utter nonsense from the start. The library does not "ask" for a certain type of tax or taxes to be the source of their funding. The library is not a legislative body; they do not write tax policy. They can only "ask" for tax levies as they see fit.

None of us have to "agree to disagree." A better way to go is for somebody to find some numbers and put them out in the open. That way we can debate facts, instead of opinions.

For instance, I found this:
http://www.toledoblade.com/Education/2012/07/29/Library-study-puts-price-on-services-value.html

But I can't seem to find a similar article or study for the metroparks...can anyone else?

I would love to see some hard numbers on whether or not a metropark (or parkS) has a worthwhile effect on property values. 6th says they do not...the only answer I have for his assertions here is "do you suppose a metropark LOWERS the property value...?" But see, that is just my opinion too. If we had some numbers we could debate those and rely less on opinions and anecdotes.

By the way, I misspoke. People on food stamps DO pay sales tax on household items; they do not pay sales tax on certain food items bought with food stamps that are normally sales-taxable.

My other point stands.

Regarding utter nonsense. I feel similarly about your OPINION about this topic. The funny part of it is that you were the one that asked me the initial question, quoting my posts, etc...not vice versa.

I think it bears noting that the libraries [personnel expenses] in 2011 were almost 5x the amount of expense for [materials] according to the library’s annual report. In fact personnel expenses accounted for a full 59% of the entire library budget while materials were a scant 12% - that does not seem like a great value to me. I have been unable to locate any salary information for any library officials. Although I find the people working there pleasant it does not seem that the workload is very demanding and now with many of the services being automated such as book checkout and online requesting you would think that the money that was invested for these technologies should drive efficiency and start reducing personnel expenses which is an absolutely essential although unpleasant responsibility for an organization that is dependent on tax money from citizens who are making severe cutbacks in their personal lives. Much of the “to do” about the library’s need for more funding concerns cutting back hours. As far as I am concerned their hours are fine and give any citizen plenty of opportunity throughout the week to get there.

In addition there are 20 libraries in Lucas County. Seems like that’s quite excessive when you consider we have a top notch public transportation system in TARTA with fares that are subsidized by tax dollars as well. Why any citizen can get across town for less then the cost of a cigarette or two.

Tarta Fares
Adults and children 6 and above: $1 or 1 token*
Call-A-Ride: $1 or 1 token
Senior citizens age 65+: 50¢ (with TARTA ID or Medicare ID)
Persons with disabilities: 50¢ (with TARTA ID or Medicare ID)
Seniors/Disabled Call-A-Ride: 50¢
Children under 6: Free (with adult, limit 2)

• Yeah, I know this response is all over the place but I’m voting NO to all this crap though I will review each individually. They keep trying to make these services bigger and bigger and our city is quickly catering to people with NO F'in money! Come live in Toledo... Free B town unless you're one of the unfortunate suckers who actually have a job!

Keep it small, keep it simple, fill the need for less! The library is not intended to be Rave Theater, Best Buy and Barnes and Noble despite Sohio's string of logic.

Links mentioned below...

http://www.toledolibrary.org/images/documents/AnnualReport.pdf

http://www.toledolibrary.org/pageselector.aspx?16000

I did ask you the initial question, which you never did answer. You deflected by throwing up a straw-man (government handouts and sales taxes). Which is what you do every time someone on this board challenges you to back up your statements. But that is OK, I guess.

Danneskjold,

It has nothing to do with my "string of logic." A Library is what it is. I did not invent libraries. Ours in Toledo was founded in 1838; more than 150 years before Best Buy or Barnes & Noble came to town, and the collection they maintain is in keeping with the concept of a public library. That has nothing to do with my personal logic or opinion...that is fact.

As for Rave theaters, I still fail to see how the library DVD collection competes with a theater showing first-run movies...

Thank you for the numbers, though. I do agree that 12% seems like an oddly small slice of the pie for materials.

Theaters and Libraries, both have been seriously affected by the internet. What relevance either has in today's society remains to be seen.

I cannot disagree with that.

While I agree that libraries have taken a hit from the internet, I can't agree with theaters. Movie rentals/sales have certainly dried up due to the internet, but the movie theater experience isn't threatened by computers. The fact that we are seeing billion dollar movie after billion dollar movie hit the screens should be all the evidence we need there. But that's neither here nor there, as the point about libraries still remains.

As for the argument about property values and the metroparks, I'll try to merge a few of the arguments into one: 6th is right that a metropark on one side of town does nothing to change the property value of a house on the other side of town. But Sohio is also right that the increase in value from the homes around the metroparks raise the mean value of all homes in the area. That doesn't mean it affects a house three miles away, but it certainly affects the statistics of the area as a whole (hence, the mean).

I don't know if a library's relevance in today's society remains to be seen: at least in the academic realm, most are seeing their gate counts rising. Those increased users don't seem to be questioning their relevance.

I suppose anyone questioning a library's "purpose" can pretty clearly and accurately define that purpose here for all of us to read, right?

And which libraries have "taken a hit" from the internet? It's improved access, which is the point of libraries.

By wife never goes to the libraries any more but does borrow books from the library by downloading them for a week or two onto her Kindle.

It takes a lot of unseen infrastructure ($) to make that happen.

Additionally, it's telling that somebody who has no understanding of the library's purpose or what it takes to run a library is commenting that "it does not seem that the workload is very demanding".

All libraries have taken a hit, the original intent of a library was access to knowledge whether open to a public or private. It's only a matter of time before everything is digitized and available from the home with exceptions for those too poor or unwilling to get a computer and internet access to get it.
According to the census http://www.census.gov/hhes/computer/publications/2010.html , there are more people getting access all the time, until the huge increase in home computer use they would never think to put movies and computer games into libraries its all an act to get people back into the libraries and keep them from being shut down and to justify their cost to the taxpayer. It's kind of like banks and ATMs, you can do just about everything from an ATM these days or from a home computer, sure there are some things you have to go into a bank to do, but the list is small and getting smaller, and banks are cutting back on employees because of it. Obama even stated it as one of the reasons for higher unemployment, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIBhg1v4bMo .
Looking at the census numbers, poor uneducated, black people not in the labor force living in the Midwest have the least number of computers in the home. What percentage of those would even use the library if it wasn't for videos and video games? Are they just trying to keep that demographic off the streets and give them some alternative to finding trouble elsewhere? The lowest percentage of computer owners on that census going by any single catagory is Total householders 25 years and older with less than a high school diploma at 44%. So I doubt they are going to the libraries to find books let alone going there at all.
Do I want libraries to go away? NO, they are necessary for those without means to have access to the internet, access to information, place for children to improve their education and it is a needed subsidy for low income folks to have access for those things.
One question I would have is aren't libraries and all the other things provided to public supposed to already be paid for with the current tax structure? What has changed in the last 40+ years that now make them unsustainable with even the funding from 5 years ago? Maybe some of the gains gotten from others in the public system are unneeded or to much of a draw on the current funding. Massive increases in expenditures during the good times may finally be catching up to them. While I wont go into salaries and pensions, we are talking about government employees who 50 years ago were basically civil servants (to serve the public) weren't guaranteed a huge wage but had job security and guaranteed decent retirement, now bring in more than their private counterparts and better benefits and retirement. It's not their fault of course its not their unions either they negotiate to get all they can, its the politicians who let them have what ever they wanted without looking out for the tax payer. It's damn hard to get the genie back into the bottle once its out, its would hurt these people a whole lot to even try. While those of us on the paying side cut more to be able to continue making it they want more to continue the status quo or more, they need to fail all these levies everywhere and force all the budgets to be combed over and remove everything that really can't be justified for what the original purpose of their department of service was.
I know this will probably get me flamed, get this thread removed from the front page, oh well. If these were all private companies or people doing these kind of things they would have already been investigated and prosecuted or fired already. Bob the politician and George the public sector employee along with George's union rep, come to the end of George's work contract, George says I want more, the union rep says he wants it all, the politician says well I can give you some if you vote for me. George says how about 10, union rep says how about 50, politician says how about 25, Union rep says deal, George you keep this guy in charge he gets things done and that will be 2 from you every month don't worry about writing a check I will get it from the politician before he cuts you your check, Politician says good deal, union rep says good deal, George says good deal, and the taxpayer who wasn't even in the room says WTF happened to my taxes?
Did George really need 25, did the politician think of who was going to pay? What did the union rep do that George couldn't do for himself? If a %increase for social security based on inflation is good for our seniors why isn't it good enough for the union employee? I'm sure this is rambling but all these thoughts came up when thinking of levies regarding public works increases.

Just because you keep repeating that libraries "took a hit" doesn't mean it's true.

But then, I assume Wikipedia is considered scholarly to you.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/computer/publications/2010.html
DOES this look like a Wikipedia page to you?

And if you think the library is as vibrant and busy as it was 10 years ago I assume you think that book stores are as strong as they were 5 years ago or record stores 10 years ago. If they had maintained the standard fair of 10 years ago and not added videos and games, care to guess how many people would still be going there today?

http://www.ala.org/tools/libfactsheets/alalibraryfactsheet06

"Visitation and circulation per capita have both increased in public libraries over the past 10 years. Per capita visitation increased 5 percent from the prior year. Visitation and circulation were highest in suburban public libraries."

What library didn't have videos 10 years ago? And before that, 16mm films? Where are you getting your misinformation?

And before you reply without reading, those stats about public library usage come from the US census.

Read that page, didn't see any links to the US Census, only polling data and ALA links along with other statistic pages, care to link to the actual Census page that is on? And your right movies have been available from library for a while now, my bad, but video games are relatively new. If they are being used more than good, I still predict a demise of the local neighborhood library. I hope I am wrong but then I never thought so many book and record stores would close either.

https://harvester.census.gov/imls/pubs/pls/pub_detail.asp?id=140

Published in 2011.

Video games are certainly used to attract teens to the library, but there are countless studies to show their value in literacy. At one point, a public library that was open to anybody was a very innovative idea.

I think the only threat to libraries is the war on intellectualism by certain political factions.

I've never checked out a video game or movie from a library, but we do use it pretty regularly for books. The Sylvania branch seems consistently busy, no matter what day we go.

Operate lean. Operate efficiently. Reduce cost. Take advantage of technology to reduce cost. When you reduce cost do not look for ways to spend more money. Allow that saving to filter back into the system and reduce the stress on tax payers. Continue to fulfill the mission of the library but recognize these are very strenuous times where families are making severe cutbacks.

Nobody is waging war on the library only asking all Government agencies to trim back.

Was the library serving its purpose in Toledo 20 years ago? If you answer yes then remember what the old library's such as Sanger on Central looked like. They served their basic purpose. I say these things as a person who does enjoy and find value in the library and recognize their value to the community.

With changes to the world as a whole, including technologically, how could you possibly compare the library today with the library of 20 years ago?

It's a lose-lose for the library.

Over the years, they have made capital improvements and have expanded their range of services and the breadth of their collection. This has included building new buildings, renovating old ones, and a major expansion to the main library. It has also meant adding formats to their collection that did not exist in the past (DVDs, CDs, internet service, etc).

Agree or disagree with these changes, they cost money. Taxpayer money.

That said, had the library not made these changes, and spent that money, had they not "changed with the times," so to speak, they would have outdated and undersized buildings, and an [at least partially] obsolete collection. The same people criticizing the library for these allegedly needless expenses would, in that case, be criticizing the library for not modernizing. They would use the library's obsolescence as an example of why they are not worthy of our patronage. So, they are damned if they spend the money, and damned if they don't, at least as far as these people would be concerned.

I am not saying it is necessarily anyone on this board. But there are people--who I know personally--who feel this way about the library and other such public institutions. They can't win.

The fact that we are even having a conversation about the viability of libraries is just plain sad.

Indeed.

Oh when you said in earlier post that it was the US Census that you got the information from I thought you mean the Actual US census that comes around every 10 year years, this census is done by the IMLS.
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Susan H. Hildreth, Director
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the nation’s
123,000 libraries and 17,500 museums. The Institute's mission is to create strong libraries and museums
that connect people to information and ideas. The Institute works at the national level and in coordination
with state and local organizations to sustain heritage, culture, and knowledge; enhance learning and
innovation; and support professional development. To learn more about the Institute, please visit
www.imls.gov.

Who do you think conducts this research? Where do you think these stats are reported?

I would say the Institute of museums and library services conducted it and it seems that it is reported by them, they are not part of the Census department, in fact you can see how when and who basically set up the current department that is reporting your facts here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Museum_and_Library_Services

The Census Bureau works with a lot of federal agencies. The IMLS survey is supported by the census. This is not unusual. I'm not sure if you're trying to make a point, other than picking and choosing which federal agencies you, personally, feel are accurate.

The reason it was posted was that it completely invalidates your original claim. Post facts, not misinformed conjecture, if you disagree.

That's different from the claim, "Your property values are higher."

October 11, 2012 Toledo Blade editorial supporting the Metroparks levy:

I guess the word "strengthening" now means declining by less than 40 percent.

The Blade writer should have been honest by saying:

"We know that property values have plummeted for many homeowners in Lucas County, but we believe that a fine park system slows the rate of decline in property values even though we have no evidence to support this absurd claim."

More credible reasons can be used to support the Metroparks levy. The Metroparks produced a brochure titled "2012 Metroparks Levy" that is more concise and coherent than the Blade editorial.

Strengthen, decline. Hmm. I still believe that if we didnt have a well run Metroparks system our property values would be lower. Does it help if I posit that they keep the floor values elevated? I really think the regional property tax values would be lower if we had no park system at all.

Perhaps I'm just too prejudiced in favor of them, in spite of their lack of understanding and support for one of their own public gardens, namely Toledo Botanical Gardens. I'd really like to see them embrace TBG and promote it. Hell, If they'd just acknowledge it and treat is as adding value I'd be ecstatic.

Holland: "Perhaps I'm just too prejudiced in favor of them."

Yes, you are, but we all have our own beliefs.

Further analyzing the library spending money to avoid obsolescence, instead of just claiming they "need" more money for technology, they should be forced to further reduce the amount of purchased printed materials.

They should have been reducing some of the obsolete forms of media LONG BEFORE any forced budget reductions. Since it's another gov entity with entrenched bureaucratic spending, they aren't going to do that by themselves. So, it's the job of spending conscious citizens who will voice disapproval and vote against levies, regardless what ends up being cut. Unfortunately, Toledo and Lucas County has a shortage of that type of citizen.

Since so many people regularly visiting the library use the computers, it only makes sense to begin eliminating the purchase of so many magazines and newspapers.

When the library decided to cut operating hours, why did they cut Sundays? Why did they cut evening hours? Those are the times when the majority of citizens are able to visit the library. That alone shows the incompetence and hubris of the library administration, and is also why I didn't bat an eye when pushing the "Against the Levy" button last week when I voted.

I am prejudiced. However that doesn't make me unable to look at facts objectively.

Also, you might be surprised to know that I rarely visit a metropark. I do know what their mission is and I feel it is critical to preserve and maintain the Oak Openings - Oak Savannah habitat. Hence I support that mission. Even if I'm not a trail walker, runner, dog walker, bicyclist or citizen naturalist I see the metroparks value for this region.

Someday when I slow down a little and can take the time to get out to a metropark I want that habitat to still be there. I want it to be there for generations to come. Once its gone, its gone. Habitat preservation is doable. Habitat restoration is terribly expensive and sometimes is just not possible. Preserve what we have - today. You'll get a better outcome for far less cost.

Holland, I enjoy that we have parks here. The primary reason behind my opposition voice right now is that I am against them asking for additional funds during an economic disaster.

I don't think a lot of people realize just how close many people in Toledo are from not being able to make ends meet. My opposition is to support them.

I personally don't believe their fear tactics about libraries and parks closing, lower property values, etc. We should demand that these library and park bureaucrats give up a couple cocktail parties and a few % of their salaries during these times.

Frankly, if they really cared as much about the community as they claim to, they would further cut their spending instead of asking for additional taxes.

I'm surprised the Toledo Public Libraries haven't hired 6th_Floor to head up their acquisitions department. His/her grasp of collection development is surely more widely informed than the pros.

I wish I was able to claim the end of the world when my personal funds were low and 60% of Toledo voters would vote to give me more money.

Toledo Public Library and hometown idiot "researcher" new slogan:

"Save our Library we want to have cake and eat it too." In case you ever forget that libraries should be able to operate free of any logical budget, "EVERYONE BENEFITS!"

In the name of public disclosure rules, although in very fine print, "Thanks for being suckered into have more of your money stolen so we can also have extra icing on our cake and annual cola increases."

"Since so many people regularly visiting the library use the computers, it only makes sense to begin eliminating the purchase of so many magazines and newspapers."
--I wonder if you have any research to back that up? I see plenty of people using print materials when I go the library (which is admittedly not too often). However, I do not pretend that I know just from walking in there and looking around when I feel like it what the statistics are for usage of resources. That is called anecdotal evidence and it is worthless.

"When the library decided to cut operating hours, why did they cut Sundays? Why did they cut evening hours? Those are the times when the majority of citizens are able to visit the library. That alone shows the incompetence and hubris of the library administration, "
--More speculation. How do you know all of this? For all you know, Sundays and evenings are the slow times for the library. A "majority" of citizens? Says who? I work nights, a LOT of people work nights. Like a lot of people, my days off are during the week, too, I work weekends. Retirees tend to be more active during the day, I have found. Or how about downtown workers on their lunch break? I'll admit: I have no numbers...I do not know when the busy times for the library are. And NEITHER DO YOU. So it is silly for either one of us to accuse the library of not knowing how to schedule their own hours.
One day you seem to accuse the library of being shrewd, calculating "vote buyers," the next day you accuse them of haplessly shutting out the majority of citizens that want to patronize them. WHICH IS IT?

6th, have you driven past any schools lately? With the levy vote looming, I just thought you could give us an update on what is going on with TPS. I know you drive past schools a lot and see firsthand what's happenin', so I thought you would be the man to ask.

It's funny that I'm a "hometown idiot" who lives in a different state and actually understands how libraries work.

More anti-intellectualism at work.

"With the levy vote looming, ... what is going on with TPS. "

Oct 17, 2012 - Toledo Blade - TPS drops to academic watch on report card

Good ole nearby Elmhurst Elementary rated "Excellent" once again. That's how us one-percenters roll. Good thing it rated an 'A' otherwise our home value may have dropped 50 percent.