Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

Community participation dealt bad hand

Re: “Library remodel deal gets a thumbs-up,” July 18: Whatever the project’s “house of cards” allegations, I do feel that the community participation option was dealt a bad hand, one that was produced from a staff-shuffled, compliantly stacked deck.

That is to say, why couldn’t pro-June-ballot-choice community members have been given a broader, more clearly spelled-out list of alternatives under staff’s “Funding Option C” description to vote on? Various, perhaps somewhat scaled back, capital project improvements and/or similar library services’ restorations could then have been decided by voters without their having to vote on whether to approve a parcel tax on themselves at the same time. Councilman Najarian seemed ready to see what $10 million from bond funding alone could do.

Now, whatever results other cities may have had with polls that show less than 50% of their communities would vote for both capital projects and library services at the same time, it’s hard to believe that Glendale voters — if given the chance — would not vote to use such a $10 million sum from bond funding alone for both, say, seismic upgrades, air-conditioning and plumbing improvements, etc., plus restoring full operating hours and other important library services at the same time.


On the other hand, they indeed might not want to vote to approve high-cost expenditures for two sun-baked replacement entrances on both the north and south sides of the library.

Harvey Pearson
Los Feliz