The Shakerite

‘Rite Idea: Vote NO on Issue 7

Editorial Board encourages Shaker voters to reject 1.9 mill library levy

Shaker Heights Public Library

Shaker Heights Public Library

Advertisement

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






The Editorial Board of The Shakerite encourages Shaker Heights citizens to reject Issue 7, the 1.9 mill levy for the Shaker Heights Public Library.

Issue 7 would generate approximately $1.5 million in funds a year for Shaker libraries. Although the Democratic Club, League of Women Voters and members of the board of education and city council support the levy, citing the strength of Shaker’s services and the need to grow them, there is substantial opposition. The anti-levy group, Future Shaker Library, argues that the library should “Stop, Study and Decide” before placing such an increase on the ballot.

Due to its relatively small tax base, the SHPL board of trustees should be focusing on reducing costs. Surprisingly, it has not fully evaluated the prospect of major improvements in efficiency, such as a possible merger with the Cuyahoga County Public Library system. A clear lack of information surrounds a possible CCPL merger, with both sides discussing miscommunication and and issues of governance.

Shaker Heights taxpayers currently pay $140 per $100,000 of property they own to the library. The SHPL states that this increase would add $67 to that number. If the library were to merge with the CCPL system, it could be beneficial to Shaker residents, who pay some of the highest property taxes in the state. Given the inevitable requests to renew or support additional school levies in Shaker, this benefit could prove invaluable.

The levy is, as a Future Shaker Library representative told us, “not typical Shaker style,” due to a clear lack of research. According to Robert Rua, the CCPL’s assistant director of marketing, the SHPL would have to sign a letter of intent regarding merger in order to initiate a feasibility study by the county, after which the SHPL could choose not to join the CCPL system. Not performing this step represents a lack of research by the SHPL.

In our interview with Chad Anderson, a co-chairman of the For Shaker Library committee and former president of the SHPL board of trustees, he cited several studies performed by the board and an eventual decision to place the levy on the ballot. Anderson cited benefits such as a flexible furniture plan, improved technology, a teen center, and more quiet study spaces. These updates are intriguing, but not essential.

Alan Melamed, a co-chairman of Future Shaker Library, has a clear message — the library levy should fail, and the SHPL should conduct further studies, including contact with the CCPL system, subsequently making a decision involving the community. When comparing both sides, Future Shaker Library’s proposal is more pragmatic and focused.

There are only so many taxes Shaker voters are prepared to pay. Although the district’s 2017 bond issue passed handily, we should be focusing on fiscal responsibility and ensuring the sustainability of our schools. Shaker’s libraries have earned awards for their quality, but it is the diversity and curriculum of our schools that attract residents.

Issue 7 supporters have stated the possibility of a CCPL merger as dangerous and harmful to the Shaker libraries. However, rejecting this levy would not say that Shaker wants to cut its libraries or turn governance over to another system. It only says that the SHPL should stop, study, and decide.

City council is making efforts to reduce Shaker property taxes and bring in new businesses, as seen in the creation of the Van Aken District. In keeping with this effort, the SHPL should explore all possibilities before seeking a tax increase.

A vote no on Issue 7 does not signal decreased support for Shaker Heights or its schools. In fact, City Councilman Tres Roeder and Board of Education Vice President William Clawson are among other elected officials opposing Issue 7. It simply means that the SHPL should take further steps to research more tax-efficient methods.

Voting no does not mean our community lacks appreciation for our library system. If we want to support a sustainable library with efficient systems and technological capabilities, we must tell the SHPL system no, for now.

We are not opposed to a library levy, but this one is neither responsible nor adequate. As members of our community, we call for the SHPL to perform further research on a possible merger with the CCPL system and to decide what is needed to update our libraries for the future.

The key word on Issue 7 is “future.” We either vote “for” Shaker library to continue what we have, or “future” to update our city’s services and resources.

Let’s make the future of our libraries better than the present.

 

Vote in the May 8 election for local and state issues, along with primaries for statewide candidates.

Before writing this endorsement, the seven members of the Editorial Board researched and interviewed qualified representatives from both sides. Upon meeting and comparing notes, the Board voted unanimously to publish an editorial rejecting Issue 7.

The board is led by Chairwoman Emily Montenegro and comprises Print Managing Editor Julia Barragate, Raider Zone Editor DC Benincasa, Opinion Editor Emilie Evans, Editor in Chief Grace Lougheed, Assignment Managing Editor Zachary Nosanchuk and Chief Financial Officer Greyson Turner.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comment using your Facebook, Yahoo, AOL or Hotmail account

comments

2 Comments

2 Responses to “‘Rite Idea: Vote NO on Issue 7”

  1. Judy Stenta on May 7th, 2018 11:12 pm

    Your editorial expresses my feelings perfectly – thank you!

    [Reply]

  2. Fran Mentch on May 9th, 2018 11:06 am

    Did you ask Robert Rua about costs associated with the CCPL letter of intent, and with the nature of the letter of intent. Would not following through with the letter of intent be considered breach of contract? Who would pay for the analysis of the merger? What are the costs associated with an empty building? Did you investigate the documents posted online about the conflict of interest that Alan Melamud has, did you review the list of campaign donors (this is a public record), did you review the document posted about the lack of local control and the CCPL director “checking the names” of people who signed a change dot org petition trying to stop the sale of the historic Telling Mansion?

    I hope you will do a follow-up article regarding these issues.

    Thank you!

    [Reply]

Comment above using your Facebook, Yahoo, AOL or Hotmail account. If you don't have an account with any of these websites, you can comment below with your full name and a valid email address.




*

Navigate Right
Navigate Left
  • ‘Rite Idea: Vote NO on Issue 7

    OPINION

    If I Die in a School Shooting

  • ‘Rite Idea: Vote NO on Issue 7

    OPINION

    Living on the Edge

  • ‘Rite Idea: Vote NO on Issue 7

    OPINION

    Shaker Library’s 1.9 Mill Levy Encounters Resistance

  • ‘Rite Idea: Vote NO on Issue 7

    OPINION

    Why High School Dating Sucks

  • ‘Rite Idea: Vote NO on Issue 7

    OPINION

    Students Are Talking: Is Anyone Listening?

  • ‘Rite Idea: Vote NO on Issue 7

    OPINION

    Yesterday, We Wore Black

  • ‘Rite Idea: Vote NO on Issue 7

    OPINION

    ‘Rite Idea: Tell Us Why and We’ll Comply

  • ‘Rite Idea: Vote NO on Issue 7

    OPINION

    Something New Under America’s Political Sun

  • ‘Rite Idea: Vote NO on Issue 7

    OPINION

    If We’re Lucky, Loud or Oprah, They Just Might Respond

  • ‘Rite Idea: Vote NO on Issue 7

    OPINION

    Be Safe, Be Respectful and Sweep Problems Under The Rug

The award-winning Shaker Heights High School student news organization
‘Rite Idea: Vote NO on Issue 7