Before going any further let's put the "new" main library idea to a vote of the city's residents. This is too important an issue to leave to our disfunctional council.

Wasting money on a new main library that nobody needs is a terrible idea from every angle.

So, not just a new library but a new council chambers and a new child care center. But, hey, it's ok because we'd save $1mm on a temporary facility. And the thorough needs study somehow managed to overlook the only current non-library occupant of the building, the historical society, which has been downstairs approximately forever.

Did the residents who wanted more meeting space know that the recreation building, with plenty of meeting rooms, is a few steps from the library?

And sure, let's add housing, because a few more units will make a significant dent in the housing shortage, and there's no possible downside with using a public amenity in this manner. Why not create even more housing by renting out city offices at night? I'm sure you could fit at least 100 homeless people with sleeping bags into that space, and the additional cost would be negligible.

Has Arrillaga's wealth so besotted our city's decision makers that they have essentially lost all reason? Looks that way.

I have previously expressed my hesitancy about the need for a new main library and my position remains unchanged.

Whenever the City creates new buildings I am intrigued by the idea of a housing component. Affordable housing is an idea worth further consideration. I would like to add to the housing discussion the idea of Single Room Occupancies (SROs) for certain emergency workers who live outside of the area: police, fire, ambulance. This might provide a means for creating additional resiliency in our community in case of a catastrophic disaster and offer more flexibility in work shift hours. Just a thought.

steve taffee

The "free" money from Arrillaga is going to cost menlo park $20million for the portion required by Arrillaga plus about $3million in development and cequa fees and additional start-up costs in personnel, plus $2million annually for interest on money borrowed to cover cost.

So yes. Let's go to the voters on this.

Why don't we just cut to the chase and put mini houses in Burgess Park and all the greeen areas around the city buildings? We could fit out the Rec Center with pull-down beds. Really.

The city campus desperately needs a long range plan. The library could be sited properly in that.

The city should not have housing onsite. That would resulr in new layers of staff of types the city doesn’t now have.

For housing, start negotiating with federal govt for land the usgs is going to vacate and xone it fro residential, not mixed use so housing gets built. The city could procure land and the. work with nonorofits like Habitat for Humanity to build housing

I can't believe this continues to barrel ahead with no real need. The existing library is a very nice building and never overcrowded. The collection is not great, I can't remember the last time I found a book I was looking for without having to wait for them to bring it from another town.