Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37
The tragic news that the Carnegie Library system will likely be shutting down several branch locations has provoked outrage — and rightly so. (Brian O’Neill has said all I could ever say about this civic embarrassment in a terrific column earlier this week.) And because there’s a mayoral election coming up, two of Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s challengers have blasted the mayor for not doing enough to prevent it. (The city provides only $40,000 a year in direct funding, some critics grouse.) I’ve also heard plenty of muttering about lapses on the part of library management.
But let’s be clear. Whatever misjudgments library excecutives may have made, they are likely dwarfed by a misjudgment the rest of us made a decade ago.
And the blame surely isn’t with Ravenstahl: The libraries are funded through the Regional Assets District tax, which was created, in fact, partly to provide a more stable funding source than local governments were likely to furnish. Yes, the city only shells out $40,000 a year … but that actually ain’t bad, given that it’s under the thumb of two state financial-oversight boards. And the RAD tax — a countywide 1 percent sales tax — funds them to the tune of $16.7 million a year.
The RAD could provide more. Except what we’re really seeing here is the consequence of yet another economic bubble bursting. Dotcom mania and real-estate mania passed Pittsburgh by. But now we’re paying the price for sports-mania … and the highly speculative investments we made a decade ago in order to feed it.
In the late 1990s, you’ll recall, the Steelers and Pirates were demanding new playgrounds. And when a 1997 referendum to pay for construction by raising the sales tax failed, local officials — led by Mayor Tom Murphy — hit on a new idea. Why not use Regional Assets District money to finance stadium construction? The RAD fund was already paying out $10 million a year for sports facilities — so why not add another $3 million or so to it each year?
At the time, there were a few of us who thought this was a bad idea. The RAD tax, in our view, was supposed to benefit parks, arts groups … and libraries. Wouldn’t we be diverting necessary funds from those groups to build new luxury boxes?
But the other side argued that hey, sports are cultural institutions too. I recall one Post-Gazette sports columnist — I think it was Bruce Keidan, but I could be wrong — arguing that he never used libraries, so why should his tax dollars go to support them? That was a not-uncommon sentiment at the time, and I sure hope those folks are happy today.
But in any case, the supporters argued that libraries and other groups wouldn’t even feel the pinch. As one account of the period notes, “the RAD pool had been growing steadily over the past several years, reflecting a generally robust local economy. Therefore [supporters] argued, there would be more money for everything, including the new stadiums and the convention center.”
It’s clear now that much of the late 1990s/early 2000 economic prosperity was an illusion. But at the time, we chased priorities not much different from a hedge fund manager buying an $8,000 wastepaper basket. We invested in circuses when everybody had enough bread. And now that the economy is struggling, resources people need — like libraries — aren’t going to be there for them. That extra $3 million might come in handy these days: It’s more than twice the library system’s current shortfall. But too late — the money being spent on stadiums isn’t discretionary. It’s a legally binding contractual obligation.
But look on the bright side: Maybe you can pick up a few extra bucks scalping tickets on Sunday afternoons. And the Pirates are bound to win someday — I bet you’ll feel much better about your job prospects when that happens.
This space makes no apologies for Luke Ravenstahl. But if it’s fair to blame any mayor for what is happening to the libraries, the guy to point the finger at is Tom Murphy.
This article appears in Oct 8-14, 2009.
I was under the impression that percentage allocations to assets could be adjusted and that’s why CLP got flat funding this year while some other assets got funding cuts. The argument has been made to RAD that some facilities, including sports facilities, charge admission and thus should receive less. This in an attempt to change allocation rates.
Warsaw — the RAD board basically makes two different kinds of grant: those they have to make, and those that they make at the discretion of RAD board members.
Sports facilities are what the RAD folks call “multi-year assets.” These are allocations that are set in stone — construction bonds were issued with the expectation that this revenue would be coming in for three decades. I’m no lawyer, but I’m not sure there’s any way the RAD board could change that funding at this point. Like I said above, we made this commitment a decade ago, and we’re going to be stuck with it now.
The libraries are what RAD calls “contractual assets.” These are facilities — parks, libraries, and a couple other institutions — that RAD is legally obliged to support at a certain minimum level. Other institutions are funded through “annual grants,” which are made at the discretion of the RAD board. Unlike the sports sector, this is a part of the budget that RAD can control, so not surprisingly — these are the places that get cut.
I can’t remember off the top of my head if RAD is funding the Carnegie at the minimum level, or somewhere above that. But in any case, I don’t know of any way in which the sports-related funding can be cut. If I’m wrong about that, I hope somebody (paging Chris “Null Space” Briem) will tell me so.
http://www.radworkshere.org/interior.php?pageID=43
Thanks for more info, Chris.
Chris – this post doesn’t show up on your recent posts list, only when you click on archived posts. Can you guys put it on the list so more people can read it? Thanks
CAVEAT LECTOR: I acknowledge that I received the following information second hand and have not been able to verify it.
As a sidenote to other RAD assets charging admission, at a post agenda meeting of city council, I believe on Sept. 15th, CLP Director Barbara Mistick was pleading the library’s case, when someone in the room (I don’t know who) mentioned that the libraries and the parks are the only two assets that RAD funds which do not charge admission fees.
Apparently Patrick Dowd then says to her “Why don’t you?” Dr. Mistick’s response was that it is against the law in Pennsylvania for public libraries to charge admission fees to their locations and still be certified as public libraries to receive state aid. Mr. Dowd’s response to this was something like “Really? When did that happen?” or “Really? How do you know that, has that always been true? Again, it was something to that sentiment.
Now, I don’t know if by “charging admission” Mr. Dowd was thinking about charging a fee to get a library card, which many people who attended the public forums this summer were in favor of as a way to raise funds, or if Mr. Dowd actually wanted to know why the library doesn’t charge a fee to walk in the door.
Uh-oh.
Now I keep waiting to see ticket booths at the entrance to South Park.
The person I got this from watched the video of the meeting that same evening on channel 13. Anyone have access to old meeting footage who can check on this?
Uh oh is right. Besides layoffs and closings + reduced hours, CLP administration announced an increase in fees and fines starting next year. No further information out on how much and for what.
It’s not a big deal and probably a good idea to charge a small amount for non-basic services e.g. interlibrary loans, which cost a lot of money. It’s a huge deal if basic costs of using the library go up.
Um it’s supposed to be Free To the People. That’s no small deal, that’s completely radical these days.
I mean, it’s actually DEMOCRATIC.