Read on Twitter
Though I am probably preaching to the choir, New Orleans friends, there is a very confusing proposition -- Prop 2 -- on the ballot in Saturday's runoff election. In short, it's really bad. If it passes, it's going to cut the public library's funding by 40%.
The rationale for this is that the millage that accounts for half the library's funding is about to expire, so this renews it. Technically, that's true, but the millage doesn't actually expire for another year, meaning the city has another year to come up with a better proposal.
Another rationale for this is that the money being taken from the library will go to early education. In fact, only about 20% of it will go to early education. The rest goes into a nebulously defined "economic development fund."
Besides the fact citing the public libraries against early education is cynical, one could make a pretty good case that libraries are early education, anyway!
Another rationalization for this is the fact the library has a surplus. Again, while there's an element of truth to this, it's not so simple. The library has a small surplus from its last budget expansion. But this proposition will cut its budget nearly in half for 20 years.
Math is not my long suit, but a surplus of less than a year does not seem like it will stretch far enough to cover a budget cut of 40% over the next 20 years!
Also, it bears repeating this budget cut will be locked in for 20 years. This is not a temporary austerity measure. This is something that will last a generation (at least) into the future.
Yet another rationalization for this proposition is the fact we're experiencing a budget crisis and a pandemic. But this plan to gut the library's budget and relocate the money was first discussed in the public record in 2019, which means that reason isn't really credible.
A number of weird out-of-state players with names like "Stand for Children" seem to be funneling money into text banking and producing yard signs. While I cannot speak to the intentions of the org or the people working for it, the one I looked into is based in Portland.
That makes it part of a long and not very good tradition of people coming to New Orleans in the wake of disasters, gutting infrastructure, and remaking the education system and other public services with little to no thought for the experience of people here on the ground.
(I say that as a transplant, and as someone who hopes he is not speaking out of turn in making that observation.)
Basically, there is no reason being offered for this proposition that passes the smell test and quite a lot that doesn't, including the fact the Friends of NOPL @FriendsNOLA oppose it, as do library employees speaking anonymously because they are under a gag order.
Adding to the confusion, the library has sent emails that seem to urge patrons to vote for Prop 2. These emails claim that Prop 2 would renew library funding, while not passing it would result in a loss of funding.
Again, that is technically true, but it contains two significant lies of omission. One, it would renew funding at a 40% cut for 20 years. And two, if Prop 2 doesn't pass, the city actually has another year to put something before voters that isn't so, well, horrible, in a word.
Also, while I'm not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure the emails from the library violate the spirit if not the letter of the law, which forbids the city from using official channels to endorse candidates or propositions.
The library's Executive Director is a mayoral appointee, which is presumably why we are receiving emails that deliberately muddy the issue while every other stakeholder in this is opposed to the proposition.
@antigravitymag @NewOrleansDSA and @theadvocateno all came out against this. So did the nonpartisan Bureau of Governmental Research, which specifically cited the lack of clarity about where any of the money being taken from the library is going.
To my great disappointment, @The_Gambit endorsed this, but I addressed their reasons above in this thread, and I think they make a pretty flimsy argument.
I should say also that I like a lot of how LaToya Cantrell has handled Covid these last eight months. She's made difficult decisions that have saved lives, and she deserves credit for that. But she is simply flat out wrong about this. I can't see any good here.
If anyone with better knowledge can correct anything here, I welcome that. The lack of clarity about this is really vexing, so I tried to do a lot of research and figure out what was at stake. I hope I've done a good job and that this is useful if you are confused, too.
It feels strange to think wait, am I actually voting against the library if I vote against this? Short answer: you're not. There is a lot of misinformation about this, but I think the answer is actually very simple: No on 2.
