The Montclair Library Board of Trustees announced today that Bellevue Avenue Branch will close Monday, January 24, the Montclair Times reports.
Trustees cited an $800,000 reduction in municipal aid in the decision, saying they can’t afford to keep Bellevue Branch open any longer. They also voiced concern about maintaining staff at the main library on South Fullerton Avenue.
The sudden announcement came as a surprise to some, including a recently formed group, Save Our Bellevue Avenue Branch, who had met last week and were encouraged by Mayor Fried’s attendance at the meeting. Possible uses for the Bellevue Branch had been released in a preliminary report produced by a task force named by the library’s board of directors.
Tell us in comments if you think they made the right call.
And yet they spend money on new carpeting. Very smart.
In this economic times, I’m not sure two libraries are necessary, but this is still very sad. The Bellevue Branch is a beautiful library.
It is beautiful, Nellie, I agree.
How does this library board thing work and why does the town have no control over how the library spends it’s money? Same with the MPA. We give them funds….and then they can do what they want with those funds? Not that I’m suggesting we can afford two libraries – it’s just not possible to see where the money goes is it?
Add another one to the list of vacancies in Montclair.
Shouldn’t be long before this council decides to sell the property to pay for operating costs.
The sad thing is, if we didn’t have to make the annual bond payments on the unnecessary new school, we would have been able to fund both libraries at the 2007 level of funding and would still have had an extra $600,000 per year to play with.
What a fine job the unelected and unaccountable BOE are doing. Same goes for our town council, hell bent on streetscapes and trips to China as their town sinks further into the abyss.
I’ve never been to the second branch, but it’s always sad to see a library close. I like the Fullerton branch a lot, and donate my books there. Sometimes I read there or use their WiFi.
They replaced the carpet because it needed replacing. Lots of kids and old folks go there, if they tripped and got hurt, the town would get sued.
It’s a pity that a wealthy section of town like Upper Montclair can’t have a library.
It’s one thing to replace the carpeting. It’s another to spend what they spent on it so it could be ‘wayfinding’. To the library board’s credit, they are simply following in the footsteps of the town council and the BOE in their thinking that capital spending isn’t really spending at all. Come on, we get to pay for this over many many years. It’s only pennies per household, no?
$161,530! That seems like a fair price, no? Many commercial carpet installers will install high quality carpet for 50 cents per square foot. How big is our library? I don’t think it’s 300,000 square feet. But the point is moot as long as the constituents are sated. And sated we are.
Now we only get the comments tab for a brief moment before it collapses to the ad. The Baristadeal is no deal at all.
Eh…it’s 22,000 square feet. $7.35 per square foot. Wonder what it would have cost if they stuck with what they used to have, one color throughout. And doesn’t this limit your ability to expand or contract sections as the collections change in size? Eh, what do I know. We should just trust our leaders to make the correct decisions.
It’s very sad that we have to close a library because, as a town, we can’t manage our funds. Yes, we can blame our council and the library board and the MPA, but ultimately we should be at some of these meetings with pitchforks.
“ultimately we should be at some of these meetings with pitchforks.”
Been there, done that. They know better than you.
Bebopgun — noticed what you’re talking about — looking into it now.
The timing seems fishy to me. This is a political move by the library board, and probably some council members (behind the scenes) to close the library now, on the heels of the managers proposed budget. I am imagining they want some sort of public out-cry, so that they can justify wasting valuable money to put back into the library. The fact of the matter is, in these times, especially now with the 2% cap, we can’t afford two libraries. People will now have to drive across town to use the library, or use MSU’s library. The kids will be fine, as they all have school libraries and librarians. It’s the sign of the times people. Get over it. I personally think it would make a wonderful Barnes and Nobles… Create some tax revenue for once. Anyway, should be interesting moving forward as I see this a political move… not a very savvy one at that.
Library funding
The state determines the amount of funding your library gets from a formula I believe based on property values. The council has no say in how much is raised to fund the library.
The trustees in most cases are conscientious elders of the community that have spent hours and hours volunteering their time to different causes. The libaray is usually near and dear to them and making decisions like this one usually hurts them more than most people realize.
The closure of library is not usually under their jurisdiction.
Bottom line is, the money’s not there. People screaming for cut backs well you better watch out what you wish for.
“The kids will be fine, as they all have school libraries and librarians.” The kids will be fine, as will the seniors. But many of the schools no longer have librarians. These were cut last year.
Now when can we do something about the bennies?
BTW Montclair is not poorly managed. Jerry Fried told me so himself. I still have the email.
“It’s a pity that a wealthy section of town like Upper Montclair can’t have a library.”
Name one other town the size of Montclair’s that has 2 libraries? Or 3 swimming pools? Back in the day these things existed so the rich and white folks of Upper Montclair did not have to mix with the poor and black and brown folk in the south end of town. It’s not 1950 anymore. We can all share one library. And one pool. If we can even afford that anymore.
All good now Liz. Thanks for checking. (thank you for the baristanet bargain)
Herb wrote:
The state determines the amount of funding your library gets from a formula I believe based on property values. The council has no say in how much is raised to fund the library.
Herb – The state law you are referring to establishes a mininum. While there have been some attempts to reduce it recently, AFAIK it is still:
“an amount equal to one third of a mill on every dollar of assessable property within the municipality” (a “mill” (sometimes spelled “mil”) is 1/1000)
any amount over that included in a town’s budget is determined by the municipality’s governing body.
Stu is spot-on at 12:59… hopefully they will have a little more foresight and not jump on the ‘sell the assets’ bandwagon. I mean, even had they simply mothballed the Grove Street school it would have helped us now! Just because your asset isn’t giving you any benefit NOW doesn’t mean that it won’t LATER.
Lately my CD has been earning a whopping .75% … should I just go out and spend that money instead, since my return is so stinky? Or let it continue growing at its sluggish pace, since I know I’ll eventually need that money?
d’oh!
Here’s a thought.
Sell the Bullock school. Sorry kids, but it’s the best asset we’ve got. (Maybe the Deron School would buy it! Maybe we could get back our old building for cheap!)
Make Mt Hebron 5-8 since they have the room, and send the Bullock 5th graders there. They could use the Bellevue branch for overflow!
The K-3 Bullock kids could go to Nishuane since their enrollment seems to be decreasing.
4th graders go to Hillside.
Edgemont and Renaissance get left alone.
Other options that could follow on later…
Shift all middle schools to 5-8.
All grammar schools would then have room for a pre-k program.
(Not that I didn’t love the Pre-K but we would save on that building’s costs and expense and the critical early learning years would be addressed.)
Personally I would rather have middle school be 7-9 because it just seems to me that the kids grow up much too fast these days anyway. (Yes our moms said the same thing about us. But still.) 6th graders seem so young compared even with 7th graders!
p.s. I realize I am one of the few who still puts two spaces after a sentence. It is a hard habit to break.
So sad. But we can spend hundreds of thousands redeveloping So. Park St., or on Belgian blocks, or $1.2 million on a quiet zone. And we wonder why our kids can’t read.
It’s always a pleasure to read the comments here, which are about as witty, amusing and stimulating as a post nasal drip… And I never cease to be amazed by people’s ignorance… The “sad truth” is that we have ONE library in two buildings, and NOT “two libraries.” In terms of what we “can’t afford,” I’d ask you… Where will it end? Maybe soon it’ll be determined (by a “specially appointed task force”) that we can no longer “afford” Montclair High School and the Municipal Building??? Maybe we should sell Edgemont Park to a developer who’ll build high-rise condos??? Of course, I don’t expect a reasonably intelligent answer from anyone here… that would be too much to hope for!
Sell the Bullock School? To whom? Are you OK with getting pennies on the dollar for it?
In over 40 years living here I’ve never been inside this branch. I’ve always went to N. Fullerton because I just assumed that it had more to offer. Anyone know of a town our size to have two libraries? Sad but its that time to tighten the belt.
LIBRARY BOARD MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TOMORROW, TUESDAY, FEB 25 @ 7:30PM.
If the same folks who were enthusiastically raising money for the branch and featured in a Montclair Times article not so long ago were shocked at the closing, then everyone else should be. And, only those who visit the libraries know what an asset they are. No need to pass judgment on what is necessary, or not, from the clutter of your computer area in the self-imposed solitude of your home, cynical suburbanite.