Letters to the editor: 06/05/03

Library plan warrants additional study

To the Editor:

We live in an age of spin. We live in an age where self-interest and self-indulgence trump everything else. We live in an age when civil discourse and meaningful public dialogue are ignored in favor of accusation and invective. We live in an age where it is not enough to disagree; we must also be disagreeable.

Over the last few weeks the discussion surrounding the proposal for a new library has become increasingly emotional and overwrought. There are those who without shame would insult and accuse good and decent public servants of acting on secret or selfish agendas. There are those who would seek to manipulate and inflame public opinion not based on facts or reasoned argument, but on manipulative emotional pleas that are more fear mongering than anything else.

The current proposal regarding a new library is just that - a proposal. This proposal was developed over a period of years. The process was open. The meetings were public. The discussion was public. The details and progress of the discussions surrounding the proposal have been available to the public for at least two or three years.

The fact that the process and discussion were not reported in detail, the fact that the idea did not engage wide discussion or concern until now does not in any way imply that the process was less than open. It speaks more to the public's limited attention span and lack of involvement in the process of government.

There are legitimate concerns related to the current proposal. The concept of a joint-use facility should raise concern and the difficulties in making that work should not be glossed over, but the plain and simple truth is that the proposal before us was the result of a good faith effort by public officials to develop a solution to a problem in a fiscally responsible manner.

Those who would claim hidden and secret agendas ought to be very careful; that finger often points in both directions.

The recent public meeting was not, as some would cast it, a public hearing to determine if the project should go forward. It was, if anyone had actually been listening, an opportunity to hear the details of the proposal and to determine whether the project bears further study. In fact, the upcoming vote is not to decide whether or not to back the trucks up and move the library to SCC, but to decide whether or not to fund a feasibility study.

Those who would indulge themselves with invective and protest do a disservice to the community and public dialogue. What is needed is constructive engagement and participation to ensure that the feasibility study considers not only the benefits and risks of the current proposal but also alternative solutions to the problem.

I am sure, given the current climate, there are those who would argue against even studying the current proposal. These are probably the same folks who didn't bother to listen to or grasp some of the more arcane details of the fiscal consequences of this decision. These are the same folks who have falsely claimed that financing is not an issue.

Actually, financing and cost is at the heart of the issue. SCC's portion of the state bond fund is $6 million. Jackson County is required to match that money.

Currently the county has $4 million left to match. Whether that money goes to a new library at SCC, classrooms or some other need does not matter. What does matter is that those funds are committed. Any funds for a downtown library would have to come after the match funds are provided.

Given our current capital commitments and budgets, that would effectively mean funds for a new downtown library facility would not be available for at least five to seven years or without a substantial tax increase.

The current library proposal is an honest, good faith effort to find a solution to a vexing problem in a fiscally responsible way. SCC is going to get the money one way or the other. SCC President Cecil Groves and his staff have made a genuine effort to consider not just the needs of SCC but the community at large with this proposal. And while the proposal may have flaws and raise legitimate concerns, it is simply irresponsible to question the motives of those who developed it.

Throughout the current controversy I have heard time and again how important the library is to downtown Sylva. I have heard again and again how important it is to promote and protect downtown Sylva. I must admit that some of these arguments are convincing, and that in the best of all worlds a downtown solution would be the best solution.

But increasingly, when those arguments are being made, I hear something else I find very disturbing. Too often those arguments seem to suggest that the focus, interests, concerns and needs of Jackson County are limited to a three block area of downtown Sylva. How disingenuous is it to argue that access to the SCC facility would be tremendously limited by the need to travel the "dangerous and overcrowded 107 corridor."

Put aside for a moment the fact that a facility at SCC would offer 20 to 30 times the number of parking spaces available at any proposed downtown facility. Put aside the fact that a facility at SCC would involve less travel and less traffic for a significant portion of the county's population. What is most troubling is that the section of 107 called into question as being dangerous and unnavigable is wholly within the borders of the town of Sylva and subject to the town's zoning, control and planning.

Perhaps it is time we considered the fact that Sylva is much more than a small downtown area and that Jackson County is much more than Sylva. Perhaps it is time we considered the needs and interests of a broader constituency. Perhaps it is time we focused our energies and resources on promoting and improving the broader community.

The current library proposal merits study. The feasibility study should go forward. Representatives of the group who oppose the current proposal should be included on any study committee. These folks and the folks already slated to participate should make an honest commitment to study the proposal and alternatives objectively and arrive at a solution that provides an appropriate facility that is accessible and is funded responsibly.

Mark Jamison

Cullowhee

Concerned about stereo-typing

To the Editor:

At this time the world seems to be watching our towns and listening to the comments of some of our citizens with the capture of Rudolph. How sad for me to hear that all my beliefs and morals instilled in me by my family and neighbors are being questioned by others in our country because of a few misguided citizens.

I am proud to be from Western North Carolina and I certainly was not raised to harbor murderers nor criminals of any caliber, nor do these criminals have my sympathy. I must have been raised on the "wrong" side of the tracks in WNC from the comments I am reading and hearing from citizens there for my family did not raise me to kill anyone, nor applaud those that do.

I was taught to applaud hero's who show bravery, honor and respect, not misguided people who commit their crimes in the dark and then run to the hills. I understand from news reports that our hills are filled with these misguided souls and they hide as they should.

What our hills are truly filled with are hard-working, honest, family-oriented, respectable people who are quicker to come to the aid of a stranger or neighbor than in any part of the USA. Please do not judge the rest of us by the select few the news media seem to be pulling out from under rocks in our towns for comments; they do not represent the true citizens of Western North Carolina.

There is a reason WNC is called "God's Country," and it's not just because of the scenery. It's because of the citizens, also. To those who are making us look like inbred "Deliverance" descendents, as I was told growing up, "If you have nothing good to say, then keep your mouth shut and opinions to yourself." Thank you,

Debbie Holden Condon

Buford, Ga.

Commissioners should consider long-term effects of moving library

To the Editor:

Since the speaking time was taken at the hearing by officials on the future of the Jackson County Public Library, I will use this forum to speak.

Others at the hearing (especially those under age 15) spoke very well about the many problems that would result if the library were to be moved to the Southwestern Community College campus. The Sylva Herald spoke very well in last week's editorial about the undemocratic attitude of the commissioners, who stated flatly that their minds were made up before the hearing had even started.

Some speakers talked about the economic damage that would result if the library were moved out of the downtown area. This is a critical question, not only in the sense of direct dollar loss, but because it sets an unhealthy precedent for future growth in the county.

In the past, the county commission has expressed support for the principles of Smart Growth. In a rural area like ours, the emphasis of Smart Growth is to keep a strong, vibrant and diverse downtown area; to encourage pleasant and safe walking or the use of public shuttles; to encourage close-knit and well-kept neighborhoods; and to maximize farm lands, forest lands and open space.

The antithesis of Smart Growth is sprawl - houses and businesses strung out along large roads crawling across the landscape with no rationale or restraint. The county library is an important community institution. To build a beautiful and efficient library in the downtown area would give a big boost to smart development in the county; to move it out N.C. 107 to SCC would be a big step toward sprawl development.

I know it is difficult for a county commission to turn its back on a large subsidy, such as the one offered by SCC President Cecil Groves to induce the library to the college campus. However, I would join my voice with the many others asking the commissioners to think first about the long-term future of the county, become more smart and creative about finding space and raising money, and keep the Jackson County Public Library in downtown Sylva. It will be more work, but in the long run it will be worth it.

David Wheeler

Whittier

'Stop cannibalizing our town'

To the Editor:

Several years ago I visited one of those retirement communities for wealthy folks called Trillium in Glenville. There was a weeklong conference in progress - something with a name like "The Communities of the Future" with several hundred attendants.

I was curious enough to venture inside and found a lot of activity. Everywhere I looked I saw drafting tables and huge displays of "tomorrow's communities."

The conference director told me I was looking at designs for communities (or small towns) that would be built in Vermont, Florida and California in the coming years. He encouraged me to look around and asked me if I noticed anything unusual. I did. Some of them resembled the small town of my childhood. Some of them looked like Sylva in 1945.

"That is right," he said. "There is a tremendous move to return to the design of small towns that was prevalent in the 40s." He pointed out that almost all of the designs were built around a central park. In close proximity to this center I saw schools, churches, theatres, business establishments and a library. Beyond that were the homes - neighborhoods that shared a common attribute: They were all within a short distance of "downtown." These were communities where you could walk to everything.

According to the people I talked to - draftsmen and architects - the design of small towns took a wrong turn back in the 50s. With the coming of mass transit, advances in communications and technology, our communities began to expand outward. With the coming of busses and automobiles, distance was no longer a factor. People became accustomed to driving 5 miles to the grocery store or the doctor's office. Residents of a small town commuted to work, delivered their children to distant schools (or busses did it for them) and sought recreation in other cities. Gradually, we abandoned the closely-knit interaction of our small communities.

According to the people who are designing the communities of the future, they are responding to a basic human need that is as old as the comfort derived from gathering around a communal fire in primitive societies. We want to be together, or, at least, we want to move and interact within a familiar and compact world.

Rather than being the people in cars, isolated in their vehicles, frustrated by gridlock and stressed by all the problems attending traffic, as we speed from one chore to another, we yearn for the simplicity and safety of a small town where we can walk, shop, sit and talk. We want to return to a community that provides convenience, leisure and the gratification of being together. We are losing something important.

All of this brings me to the recent decision by our county commissioners to relocate our library. During the past 30 years, Sylva has lost many of the attributes that made it a community. Certainly, there is an irony in the fact that we are slowly removing the very features that many communities are trying to recreate. The Ritz Theatre, the old depot, Sylva High School, the Candler House and a dozen other landmarks - all are gone. The future of the most well-known courthouse in this state is uncertain. Now, the library is endangered, too.

Much of what has happened to Sylva in recent years reminds me of my old biology class in high school and the project involving an embalmed frog. While this frog was splayed on a mounted board, we carefully removed all of its vital parts and pinned them down outside the body cavity. The stomach went over here, the lungs over there, the intestinal tract up here, and yes, the heart somewhere out here... 4 miles away in Webster.

Unlike that frog, Sylva is still aliveŠ at least for the time being. I ask the county commissioners, Southwestern Community College and all of the other entities that think "bigger is better" to stop cannibalizing our wonderful town, stop removing its character, its history and its dignity.

I am told that in the words of one of the participants in the plan to move our library that it is a "done deal." It is too late, for the decision was made long ago. If that is true, I am willing to join any group that is dedicated to thwarting the process.

Gary Carden

Sylva

Mixing age groups at new library is a bad idea

To the Editor:

I have been reading with interest the comments concerning moving the public library in the "Letters" section of the paper. During this time I have rehearsed in my mind the things I have wanted to say to the people in favor of moving. (I'll leave out all the swear words.)

My two girls will be entering ninth and seventh grades this fall. Since they were in kindergarten, I have taken them to the library on Main Street for their reading material. Two summers they were in the reading program.

When they were a little older, I let them ride the bus with the library on its route, and I would pick them up after an hour or so. Since we have our own computer now, we haven't needed the library quite as much; however, we don't have the Internet and the library is our only source.

I wouldn't hesitate to let either of my girls ride the bus to the library in its present location. I would not feel that comfortable letting them ride the bus to the Southwestern Community College campus. That is, if school bus service was even available to the campus from the high school and Fairview.

I spent two years at SCC a few years ago, and I can say from experience that older library patrons and kids of any age don't mix with "college people." If my girls were walking down Main Street on their way to the library and met up with a strange man, most likely that man would be conducting business and would not be interested in the backside of who he just passed.

Speaking from experience, I know that a small percent of campus men actively engage in "roaming of the eyes," which often leads to attempted conversation and awkward stares. The college environment fosters this activity more so than the business district on Main Street. Quite frankly, my daughters are not ready for such behavior. The "lookers" would not know, or maybe not even care, that the girl they are looking at is only 14 years old.

I know that high schoolers have classes at SCC, but that is part of the school curriculum. If the library is moved, then they will no longer have a CHOICE, and that's what's important.

For those who say a new library will expand the material to include college-level matter, I say do what I did: Get a card from Hunter Library at Western Carolina University. It is much better than SCC's library anyway!

My idea of the perfect place for the library is (listen up all you pro-movers) the empty lot next to the Lifeway Church (the old Sylva Coal and Lumber). I don't know the particulars about this piece of property, but right now all that occupies it is a tree and a statue of bears. If a library was built here, there would be plenty of room for the building, the parking lot, and a well-built, covered foot bridge connecting the library to the park across Scotts Creek would be a nice addition. That way parents could play with their kids, check out a book to read, and do it without having to drive 5 or 6 miles. It would make the library more kid-oriented, and with all the emphasis on kids reading well these days, this is the perfect place.

I have one more thing to say and I hope those of you who are in favor of moving the library will pay attention to this, even if you ignore everything else I've said. If the library ends up at SCC, my children will not use it. I am not comfortable with the college atmosphere for children the age of my kids. When they attend SCC as students, whether still in high school or out, then I'm all for using the campus library.

But the public library should remain in downtown Sylva. If it does move, I will encourage others who feel it should stay to boycott. This is the people of Jackson County's library and their voice should be heard loud and clear. The majority should rule. Just because you have the power to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. It would be sad to build a new library and nobody use it. I'm afraid that's what would happen if it moves to SCC.

Thank you,

Rebecca Galloway

Dillsboro

Back to Homepage.