The thing that surprised Alds. Michael Schumacher and Judy Compton the most about their call for a binding referendum on the proposal to build a new, $37 million Central Library was how many e-mails they received from people all over the city in support.

"It's one of those moments where you feel there's something in the air," Schumacher says. "I've had enough contact by people who were opposed to (the library). They're not being heard."

But if Schumacher is hearing from a representative sample of Madisonians, it hasn't translated into action at city hall. Besides sponsors Schumacher, Compton and Paul Skidmore, no other council members have voiced support for a referendum, and a budget amendment on the idea failed on a voice vote at the city's main financial committee, the Board of Estimates, at its Oct. 12 meeting.

The lack of support for a referendum may be a sign of the political power of the library proposal itself, which at least at this point looks like a good bet to succeed. Mayor Dave Cieslewicz made the proposal for the new Central Library in his capital budget a few weeks ago, and while the City Council will have its say on that next month, there are few people on or off the council who have publicly opposed the Central Library so far.

In some ways, opposing a new Central Library has all the appeal of opposing apple pie, but many council members have also been swayed by the current library's state of disrepair. It would cost at least as much to modernize the 45-year-old building as to build a new one, officials say, and there are also historically low prices on new construction. If the council does add the Central Library project to the capital budget next month, construction could begin as early as next year, and the library could be completed by 2012.

Even Schumacher admits he would have a tough time voting against the project if a budget amendment was made to do so, but he says the idea of a referendum sprang from a very real tension between the library project's wholesome appeal and the fact that it will cost a lot of money during a recession, a time when many taxpayers are being laid off or furloughed.

The project calls for $17 million in city borrowing, with the remainder coming from a variety of sources: $10 million in private fundraising, $4 million from the sale of the current library site and potentially $6 million in federal tax credits.

As Compton says: "I'm so torn because my economic development brain says 'This is a wonderful thing,' my love of Madison says 'This is a wonderful thing,' my love of libraries says 'This is a wonderful thing.' But my fiscal responsibility to my constituents says 'Maybe this isn't the time.'"

She adds that the $37 million cost of the library far exceeds what is spent on an average branch library as well as what would be needed to only take care of the current building's outstanding maintenance issues. By comparison, the city has spent $14 million on its eight branch libraries over the past 20 years and plans to spend $7.5 million more in the next five years.

Schumacher adds that proposing the referendum has been an opportunity to voice concerns about whether the city was innovative enough with plans for a new library.

"I'm not going to play hardball on this, but I am disappointed. We've got a lot of data, we've got a lot of pros and cons, but we never really fundamentally questioned the paradigm of the 20th century library system," says Schumacher.

Namely, he says, the city did not fully question whether having the "hub" of the city's "wheel and spoke" system on some of its most expensive downtown property was the best use of resources, or if there was a better way to deliver library services. Currently, the Central Library accounts for about 20 percent of library system visits, but houses about half of the system's materials, which are often delivered to branches for check-out.

After the chilly reception at the Board of Estimates, Schumacher and Compton are divided about bringing the referendum amendment back to the council, with Compton favoring a council-wide discussion of the proposal at its budget meetings in November.

Those who opposed the referendum in committee, though, say that no matter which way they vote, a final decision on the Central Library should rest with them and that a referendum would add unnecessary complications.

Ald. Satya Rhodes-Conway, a board member who represents the near northeast side, says it would be incongruous for the city to go to referendum on the Central Library without a clear policy for when that should happen for big projects.

"I can understand if you think that it's good policy to check with the voters if we're going to spend a certain amount of money on a capital project," she says, but adds that "I don't think it's fair to say the library should be put to referendum and other large projects shouldn't ... For example, should we have put the East Washington reconstruction to referendum?"

Rhodes-Conway adds that while referendums can make the lives of policymakers easier by taking the stress out of a decision, the yes-or-no format eliminates the possibility of compromise that can come from a council discussion - like whether a smaller-scale project might be more palatable.

Other council members say a referendum would not be able to get at the complicated nature of the library project itself, advocating aggressive communication and education efforts between council members and constituents as a better means of addressing the concerns of some city residents.

Far east side Ald. Lauren Cnare, for example, says the project is "so hard to understand. There's no referendum language that could fully describe the land swap, the sale, the New Market Tax Credits. … People need to understand this is not a palace downtown to hold books when everybody's supposed to be going to Borders. This is an important part of what makes us a city."

That is also Cieslewicz's view, though he has a distaste for referendums in general.

He points to lower voter turnout in spring elections and the limited amount of information available to the voting public as reasons to avoid them, but even beyond that, he says a politician's duty involves more than just fulfilling the wishes of a majority of constituents. Rather, he says, politicians are elected to amass as much information as possible and then make a decision that's best for the future of the city, even in the face of opposition.

In the case of the library, Cieslewicz cites factors like creating much-needed construction jobs, capitalizing on the reduced prices for construction during the recession and the possibility of getting federal tax credits as reasons for supporting a project of its size in this budget cycle.

"We should even be willing to vote for something that is unpopular sometimes," Cieslewicz says. "I don't think the library is particularly unpopular, but I think we can do that, make a judgment about what's in the best long-term interests of the city. I think we should have the courage to do that."

Add or View Comment

Login to post your comment. If you don't have an account, you may register for one.