That money doesn’t not have to be spent on the library

It’s been a little while since I’ve criticized a Union-Tribune editorial. Oh, how I’ve missed it.

So, let’s get to it: Today, in another editorial supporting construction of a new Downtown library, the U-T quoted Mayor Jerry Sanders thusly:

“People are not going to have to make a decision between cops, other libraries in the system, fire fighters or anything else for that (central) library,” says Sanders. “That (money) will come from sources that can only be used for” the library.

Then the writer followed up with this about the last estimated cost of the project:

Of the $185 million, $80 million would come from the city’s downtown redevelopment agency, which, by law, can only use the money for downtown redevelopment projects, not for general fund operating expenses such as police and fire protection. An additional $20 million would come from a state grant that is available only for library construction. Another $20 million would come from city school district bond funds already approved by voters in return for leasing the top two floors of the library for a charter high school. And the remainder, including $10 million for the library’s first five years of operating expenses, would come from private philanthropy — money that was or will be donated for exclusive use of the new library.

The writer’s overarching point is generally sound. He (I believe the entire editorial board is male these days, unless I’m forgetting someone) is arguing that the library project is not a choice between a big Downtown library and basic city services. At least in terms of up-front construction costs, that is correct. None of the money that has been earmarked can be spend on police or firefighting or park maintenance.

But to say, as the mayor does in his quote, that none of the $157 million that’s been identified (including $37 million that the library boosters say private donors have pledged) can’t be spent on anything other than the Downtown library project is absolutely false. The U-T passively endorses Sanders’ comment, but then clarifies it, to a degree. Actually, we’re not even certain what the mayor really said. You’ll notice that the quote ends before it gets to the operative noun.

Let’s get this totally straight: The Centre City Development Corp. has pledged $80 million of Redevelopment Agency money (some $17 million of which has already been spent). No, you can’t spend redevelopment money on more cops and firefighters, but you can spend it on other capital projects in the Downtown area. You can build a park or a public plaza, for instance. Or you can landscape a blighted area. So, the U-T should have made a point of correcting what the mayor said, rather than citing his quote as support for an argument.

Also, the $20 million from the school district’s bond measure was not earmarked by voters to be spend on a high school in a public library. In fact, a high school is not needed Downtown as much as an elementary school, so one could really argue that not only can that $20 million be spend on other types of school projects; it should be spent on something other than this project.

This, of course, is to say nothing of the fact that we’re talking only about the up-front money. What about the long-term costs associated with operating a much larger library?

Look, it’s fine to argue that all this money should be spent on this project, but stop leading people to believe that all this money must be spend on this project, because it just ain’t true.