I was in Montauk yesterday, and, as always, was impressed by what a unique and lovely place it is. I wanted to write about that today — y’know, something upbeat and charming. Unfortunately, after reading yet another ill-informed opinion piece about the John Jermain Memorial Library’s expansion plans in last Thursday’s Sag Harbor Express, I just can’t do charming. It’s not that Lorraine Dusky’s viewpoint was unreasonable — in fact, I agree with her main point, about it being our responsibility to protect the character of our community — it’s just that when talking about the library, she reiterates a few old arguments that I thought were long ago laid to rest.
A few weeks ago I wrote that it is inevitable that people will remain ignorant of the facts about any particular issue until such time as the issue becomes relevant to their lives. Only then, will most people make the effort to learn what they need to know in order to make a decision about the topic at hand. I said then, and still maintain, that I understand this and am OK with it. Why then, you ask, am I carping about the fact that Ms. Dusky’s column was not based on the best information available? The simple answer is that there is a difference between an ill-informed citizen and an ill-informed newspaper columnist, even if her column is named The Citizen. A columnist simply must make the effort to know as much as possible about the issues on which she opines. In my opinion, Ms. Dusky failed that test.
But, as I freely admit, she’s one of many who haven’t made the effort to become acquainted with the whole story, so rather than attack her arguments, I think it would be more useful to run through the major issues surrounding the library’s expansion plans and see if we can’t make sense out of them. To keep this post to a manageable length, I’m only going to deal with the most important issues, and will try to boil down the arguments to their most important points.
Let’s start with the question, one building or two? I don’t think anyone who is being honest will dispute that it would be better if the library were housed in one building. It would be less expensive to build and maintain, and more convenient for both patrons and staff. There, that was simple, wasn’t it?
That brings up the next question: where should this building be located? Personally, I’m fairly neutral on this issue until I start to consider what’s actually possible. Is it possible to expand the library at its current location so that it not only conforms to all State and local regulations for libraries, but also meets the needs of the community (the entire community — which includes the whole school district) now and for the foreseeable future? The once-upon-a-time organization called the John Jermain Future Fund once commissioned a plan from an architect named Elizabeth Martin to prove that this could be done. In fact, the plan proved just the opposite, relying, as it did, on such trickery as book stacks on wheels and public spaces that did double duty as meeting rooms and reading rooms. Our library already employs both those tricks — book carts used as stacks, which are confusing, awkward and inconvenient, and programs that take place in the third-floor rotunda which is meant to house the stacks and be a quiet place for reading and study. Neither of these ideas work well now, why would we plan a library that relies on them in the future? Worse, even with those tricks, her plan still called for a largish addition that would fill the open space behind the library. Given its size, this addition would have been plainly visible from all directions, dominating and detracting from the charm of the historic building.
Nevertheless, I’m not saying that it would be impossible to build an adequate addition at the current location, but it would require more land. Quite a bit more land if, say, we’re looking a hundred years into the future. In that case, the much discussed Morpurgo property alone would not be enough. I believe you could create an adequate library that would address the community’s needs into the 22nd Century if both properties immediately abutting the rear of the library were used. With that amount of space, an addition could be designed that was visually set off enough from the existing building that it neither dominated nor detracted from the original structure, while providing enough space to house whatever the library evolves into over the next century. It’s a great dream, but unfortunately, it will never happen, and you know why as well as I: the cost of purchasing the two properties would be prohibitive. That is, of course, if you could buy them. Unfortunately you can’t, because neither property owner wishes to sell. Endgame.
The Community Library Committee also mentioned that such a construction project would be disruptive to the neighborhood, and that the resulting larger and busier library would be inappropriate in a mainly residential area. No doubt, but those concerns are moot since we can’t even contemplate such a project, if we don’t have the land on which to build it.
Well then, why not just sell the old building and build a brand-spanking new library somewhere else, maybe down by the park? Once you’ve dispensed with the idea that the library can expand on its current site, then one would think moving would make perfect sense. As I stated earlier, a one-building solution would be both cheaper and more convenient for all. However, the observant Sag Hampton resident may have noticed over the last several years that there is a small but extremely vocal minority of (mostly) Village residents that are determined that the library shall remain in its historic home. Over the years they have offered many rationales for this, some quite loony — such as the idea that if the library moved 7/10ths of a mile down the block, that the entire business district would be abandoned by shoppers and turn into a ghost town a la Riverhead’s Main Street. But, to be fair, they have also put forth some reasonable arguments — reasonable enough that the Library’s Board of Trustees has decided that this group’s point of view cannot be dismissed.
And so, we come to the conundrum with which the Library, and the community it serves, is faced. We have a charming and historic building, which for a variety of reasons, simply cannot be expanded in such a way as to make economic or practical sense, and yet is so dear to many members of the community that it cannot simply be sold off, as prudent economics would dictate.
Under the circumstances, the Library Trustees have decided that splitting the library program between two buildings, old and new, is the only workable solution.
The community seems to be divided on this matter. As evidenced in Ms. Dusky’s recent opinion piece, there is a continuing belief in some parts of the community that in spite of more than five years of study by the Library Trustees, the Community Library Committee, and the Library Development Committee, they have all somehow overlooked an obvious, but unstated solution. Others seem to feel that if they just say it loudly enough and with enough frequency, that their personal idea of what should be done will carry the day, regardless of how myopic and self-serving that view may be. A third group seems to believe that there is some malevolent force at work, and that the Trustees are trying to “put one over” on the community in some way. Why the Trustees would do this, as none have a personal stake in the future of the library, other than as members of the library-using community, is left unsaid.
Happily, there is also an ever-growing group of citizens that have come to accept that while the two-building solution is not ideal, it is, in the end, the only solution that meets both the practical and political requirements of the community. I’m a card-carrying member of this group. While I don’t believe the two-building plan is the “best” solution
, I am completely convinced that it is the only one that addresses all the issues in some fashion. Yes, there are compromises, but conundrums and compromises always go hand-in-hand.
————————————————————
Currently listening to: O Valencia!
powered by performancing firefox
