The Folsom City Library
#16
Posted 16 February 2004 - 05:29 PM
#17
Posted 17 February 2004 - 03:30 PM
#18
Posted 17 February 2004 - 05:10 PM
#19
Posted 18 February 2004 - 09:04 AM
I also am not convinced of the money-saving aspect of the site change. For the price of a couple lattes for every Folsom registered voter we could make the fire station site workable. How much more is the park site going to increase construction and architectural costs to make the building "blend" into the surroundings? I also read that the size of the children's and adult reading rooms had to be reduced in order to fit on the site. I think the fire station site has quite a bit of greenery around it and could be made just as aesthetically pleasing and still be a family destination.
Also, just to clarify, there are two petitions going around. One is a recall petition and the other petition is to save the park from being built on and to preserve all memorials in the park.
#20
Posted 18 February 2004 - 09:48 AM
The fire station building is 10,000 sq. ft. The existing library building is 7000 sq. ft.
It would take more than "a couple of lattes" to bring the fire station building up to what is needed for a library to serve the population of Folsom today, PLUS the need to tear it down would add an enormous cost AND expose an asbestos problem.
The new library design WILL NOT DESTROY, TAKE OVER, CUT IN HALF, OR BUILD OVER the city park. The new building will replace an eyesore of an old, seldom used softball field ONLY!!!!!
The central round open plaza entrance looks through to the park side open plaza entrance. The wings of the building have windows that give vision to all areas of the park, gazebo, train, civic center and ball field.
The design is beautiful and will enhance the park area AS WELL AS THE WHOLE CITY OF FOLSOM!!!. NO MEMORIAL WILL BE DEGRADED!!
Since it is said that some areas of the design "had to be reduced" to fit the park site it means you have not seen the preliminary design. COMPARE IT TO THOSE "REDUCED" AREAS IN THE EXISTING LIBRARY.
THE PEOPLE FINDING FAULT WITH THE NEW LIBRARY BUILDING AND THE PARK LOCATION SHOULD BE THE PEOPLE TO FEEL ASHAMED!!!
The city of Folsom will KEEP THE PARK, have a beautiful new library building, as well as a Senior Center and other things in the old Fire headquarters building, and ALL AT A SAVINGS TO THE TAXPAYERS OF FOLSOM!!
#21
Posted 18 February 2004 - 01:25 PM
If the library must be built in a park, how about park sites in the city that don't have funding to be completed? How about other city-owned properties?
As far as the field being rundown and unused I still disagree. I drive past that field at least four times a week and I have seen people using it almost every afternoon it hasn't been raining. My husband played softball there this summer. While some residents apparently don't look at the park as a whole, I do and don't want to see it built on. I feel the memorial ballfield should stay as it is. I will be circulating the Save the Park Petition to see how many people agree since the city council (excluding Ms. Howell) refuse to open this up for discussion.
Nobody is saying not to build the library. I couldn't agree more that the library quarters are way too small. I became a lifetime member of the Friends of the Folsom Library when the library was almost homeless and moved to its current site. I have supported the Friends of the Folsom library and circulated petitions for them in my neighborhood when they needed help convincing the council that our community was indeed interested in a new library. I hold no ill will towards the Friends of the Folsom library. I just disagree with their choice of a site.
Finally, I WILL NOT BE ASHAMED FOR HAVING MY OPINIONS.
#22
Posted 18 February 2004 - 02:03 PM
I agree with KForster that they have no reason to be ashamed to express their opinion! That is what these forums is all about, no??
That being said, I really don't agree with much else that KForster said, for the following reasons:
1. In the absence of Mr. Farley's opinion on this matter (god rest his soul), who better to express his views than his family, who has stated that they are not opposed to the new library or the effect it will have on the ball field.
2. There are two ball fields in the park - the one closest to city hall always seems to be in use this time of year but the one next to it, which is Farley field, is seldom used except for night softball. There are plenty of other fields in town to replace Farley field as a sporting venue.
3. I've had an opportunity to see the conceptual library plan and I think it will be an incredible improvement to the park! In fact it seems to be designed to bring the park atmosphere in on all sides of the building without disrupting the rest of the park - heck, it's just built on the existing parking lot and ball field - it even leaves the gazebo in place!
4. Why not put it there?? There's a traffic light at Stafford for people to be able to walk and drive to the site safely. I don't know what the deal is with the fire station site but why tear down a building just to put another one there? Aren't they planning to use it for a senior center or something like that? How can that be bad?
5. If either of those petitions comes before the voters I will happily vote against both of them. I fully understand why the old-timers desire to leave things alone, and they fear change, but this is progress and apparently long overdue! Why drag the council folks down over this? They're just trying to improve our city aren't they?
I think some of you folks may be too close to this issue to see the forest for trees here.
Just my opinion! I look forward to seeing how this plays out.
#23
Posted 18 February 2004 - 02:46 PM
Your views are extremely important! We need more new members like yourself to speak up... *especially* if your views are against the norm. You are absolutely right, your opinions are certainly valid, and should be heard.
The great thing about this forum is it gives you more opportunity to express your true, gut feelings... not so easy to do when you have 2 minutes in front of city council... that in itself is really intimidating!
#24
Posted 18 February 2004 - 03:06 PM
Unfortunately not ALL opinions can be correct. We can only agree to disagree.
In the case of the library site neither opinion is TOTALLY wrong, just different in prospective.
In this case, I think most people know in their hearts which side of this controversy benefits Folsom the most. Unfortunately, no one wants to back down and that could cost Folsom a lot.
Only time will tell.
#25
Posted 19 February 2004 - 01:52 PM
happens what do you think it will cost the city when they have to close the building down for months to take all the asbestos out. It will cost a mint!!!
Sooner or later the asbestos will cause problems and it will have to be taken care of !!!
We will save now, but we will surely pay big time later, along with possible law suits!!!
#26
Posted 19 February 2004 - 03:13 PM
#27
Posted 20 February 2004 - 07:56 AM
#28
Posted 20 February 2004 - 08:05 AM
I first heard about it when there was talk of demolishing the building which is what was said would would open up the asbestos can of worms.
Wasn't a school in El Dorado Hills or someplace else closed down for a while for the same problem to be fixed?
Let us know what you find out.
#29
Posted 20 February 2004 - 09:56 AM
#30
Posted 20 February 2004 - 12:31 PM
If this is incorrect, someone let me know. Where did the "asbestos" issue on this building come from? Maybe a red herring????
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users