Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

The Folsom City Library


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
380 replies to this topic

#16 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 16 February 2004 - 05:29 PM

Perhaps the fire stations should be another trhead entirely. In addition to the Natoma and Blue Ravine-Prairie city stations, the Old Oak Ave. Station was relpaced by a new one on the new Oak Ave., and I'm not sure about the status of the one on Blue Ravine near Oak Ave. Parkway. Seems someone has told me taht one was scheduled to close. Does anyone know? So, when the Glenn Dr. one opens, that will mean that at least three of the four operating stations will have replaced existing stations, two of which were less than 20 years old. It does seem like a lot of moving and rebuilding and we will still have the same number of stations for 70,000 people as we had for less than 20,000. Makes you wonder how response times will be kept low with the ever-increasing traffic and expanding geographical limits (is there a fire station planned for Empire Ranch?).

#17 Bob Holderness

Bob Holderness

    Netizen

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 February 2004 - 03:30 PM

I've never understod why some of our Folsom residents are opposed to expanding our library, or how they morphed that opposition into a city council recall campaign. Our city council has adopted a prudent plan to locate the new main library on the southwest side of Folsom City Park on a location now occupied by an old, under-used ball field. In doing so they've showed extraordinary prudence, and will probably save the taxpayers about $4 million. How bad can that be?

#18 tessieca

tessieca

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,292 posts

Posted 17 February 2004 - 05:10 PM

It's not often that I agree with Bob, but I do on this one. This is probably one of the city council's better decisions. As an aside, the Prairie City fire station is closed due to mold.
"Sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident, teachers' unions have a long history of working against the interests of children in the name of job security for adults. And Democrats in particular have a history of facilitating this obstructionism in exchange for campaign donations and votes." . . .Amanda Ripley re "Waiting for Superman" movie.

#19 KForster

KForster

    Newbie

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 18 February 2004 - 09:04 AM

To give some perspective on why some older residents are opposed to the new library site (not the new library) is because we are losing what little open space we have on this side of town. I don't see why we can't have a park and a new library. Now we have to watch our park being cut in half and our town history built over. I understand new residents who have to look up the park site on Mapquest don't have these same feelings of attachment but maybe that will help them understand.

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 Candy Apple

Candy Apple

    Superstar

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts

Posted 18 February 2004 - 09:48 AM

There seems to be a lot of misinformation going around.

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 KForster

KForster

    Newbie

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 18 February 2004 - 01:25 PM

My comment about the cost of making the fire station a suitable site costing "a couple lattes" per Folsom registered voter was referencing the cost of tearing down the building to build a library that will be big enough to serve our ever-growing community - not the entire cost of the library building itself. That cost will need to be incurred no matter what the site. There are about 29,000 registered voters in Folsom (Total population over 60,000) I was trying to put into perspective the amount of money we are saving by moving the site. It is comparably small when looking at a community of our size.

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 Ahnold

Ahnold

    All Star

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts

Posted 18 February 2004 - 02:03 PM

Hi I'm new to posting to the forums but I've been avidly reading a lot of these posts and finally felt that I needed to contribute something!

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 john

john

    Founder

  • Admin
  • 9,841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Prairie Oaks

Posted 18 February 2004 - 02:46 PM

KForster and Ahnold,

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 Candy Apple

Candy Apple

    Superstar

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts

Posted 18 February 2004 - 03:06 PM

EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion. NO ONE DISPUTES that!!!

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 camay2327

camay2327

    GO NAVY

  • Moderator
  • 11,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 19 February 2004 - 01:52 PM

One of these days, the fire station near city hall will have to be renovated. When that
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!!!


A VETERAN Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life". That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. -Author unknown-

#26 Candy Apple

Candy Apple

    Superstar

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts

Posted 19 February 2004 - 03:13 PM

I was told that the asbestos problem was already taken care of recently.

#27 camay2327

camay2327

    GO NAVY

  • Moderator
  • 11,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 20 February 2004 - 07:56 AM

Candy Apple, I would like to know if it was or not. It would have to be closed down for some time to take care of the problem.
A VETERAN Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life". That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. -Author unknown-

#28 Candy Apple

Candy Apple

    Superstar

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 08:05 AM

I guess the best way to find out for sure would be to call the Public Works Department at City Hall. Robert Goss is one name there. They could probably tell you or refer you to someone who could.

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 tessieca

tessieca

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,292 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 09:56 AM

I last heard that they were only going to take care of the asbestos when they demolished. If they were to renovate for any reason, that would be part of the process.
"Sometimes on purpose and sometimes by accident, teachers' unions have a long history of working against the interests of children in the name of job security for adults. And Democrats in particular have a history of facilitating this obstructionism in exchange for campaign donations and votes." . . .Amanda Ripley re "Waiting for Superman" movie.

#30 Terry

Terry

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 12:31 PM

I don't believe there is an asbestos problem with the fire station building next to City Hall. From what I understand, asbestos was not permitted to be used in construction and building products beginning in 1978. Since the fire station next to City Hall was constructed in the early 1980s, there shouldn't be any asbestos in it. And if that's the case, there shouldn't be any asbestos abatement to be performed when it's demolished or renovated.

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