Friday, November 16, 2018

Michael Kimmelman’s Unfortunate Suggestion That Amazon Invest In NYC’s Public libraries (per Eric Klinenberg)- See: “Amazon’s HQ2 Will Benefit From New York City. But What Does New York Get?”

There are a lot of people alarmed and/or already woeful about the announcement of the imminent arrival of an Amazon headquarters in Long Island City, Queens, even people who have not fully thought through everything there may be to get alarmed about in connection with the book industry-disrupting and imagination-defying growth of Amazon.*  One of those people quickest out of the starting gate with such opinions, is New York Times architect critic Michael Kimmelman.  See: Amazon’s HQ2 Will Benefit From New York City. But What Does New York Get?
(* See: National Notice- Interesting to Think That it All Began With BOOKS? Except That Amazon and World’s Wealthiest Man (As We Know Jeff Bezos Today) Didn’t Exactly Begin That Way. . . )
The arrival of Amazon is a huge topic so people will have to do a lot of thinking about it and it is too much to expect that everyone is going to get all their best thoughts together quickly.  This time, Kimmelman, who has done some good work in the past, has some worthwhile observations, but he also falters somewhat unfortunately with respect to his key recommendation.
                               
On the perspicacious side, Kimmelman wonders how well a huge tech company like Amazon will fit in in New York City:
    . . .  the tech industry isn’t culturally urban. Its insularity, secrecy, its bedrock libertarianism and algorithmic notions about progress, land use and corporate independence have never easily meshed with the slow, open-society, regulatory-heavy, greater-good mission that defines city living. Disruption is a virtue and instrument of efficiency in tech circles. But it isn’t repetitiously welcome where protections and a focus on collective welfare remain abiding democratic ideals.
As the title of Kimmelman’s essay implies and as he, in his essay, then directly states, for Kimmelman the, “The question for city residents is what these companies give back.”

That’s hardly the only question, but Kimmelman presents one particularly unfortunate suggested answer.  He suggests that Amazon make “self-interested” investments in NYC public libraries per the thinking of “Eric Klinenberg”:
In turn, Amazon, which dominates the book market, could, up front, make self-interested commitments in local school programs and, as Eric Klinenberg, a sociologist at New York University, advocates, in public libraries, our most vibrant, multipurpose community hubs.
In other words, Kimmelman clearly sounds as if he is dangerously suggesting that Amazon engage in exactly the kind of public/private partnerships that library administration officials repetitiously crow that they are eager to promote now-a-days, projects that unfortunately commercialize the libraries and are all the more and especially dangerous when the private corporation `partners’ in them are acting `self-interestedly’ . .

Where do we start?  Do we start by saying Amazon, the great disruptor, has already been “partnering” with NYC library administration officials to promote more reading of digital books (in the subways)?  Do we wonder at the fact that Kimmelman, bypassing others (for instance John E. Buschman and Ed D'Angelo), is constituting Eric Klinenberg, “a sociologist at New York University,” as the new automatic go-to expert on what is desirable with respect to public investment in libraries after Klinenberg’s just publishing a book that he just recently put together in short order as the result of his being approached for a “collaborative project” on NYC libraries by the Revson Foundation?—  While Mr. Klinenberg describes the Revson Foundation as a “fierce champion of public libraries,” the foundation can probably more accurately be described as deeply involved in promoting (with behind-the-scenes funding) the current notion of selling libraries and turning them into shrink-and-sink real estate deals, their book collections drastically reduced, the talents and contributions of librarians dramatically deemphasized.

Do we point out that what the Revson Foundation promotes as the new libraries of the 21st Century future is all tied in with the neo-liberal, capitalist, private-market orthodoxy that promotes public/private partnerships between libraries and benefactors like Amazon?  Do we point out how Amazon’s ethos of, and roots in, data collection and its ties to the military, going back and forward, is gratingly at odds with the tradition of libraries as the havens of privacy as free speech requires?  That's what's makes their acting `self-interestedly’ far more scary if they partner on library investments.*
(* Next we are bound to hear that Queens City Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer, who oversees libraries- and their sell-offs- and who has made himself initially visible opposing Amazon's arrival, will fold his opposition to Amazon when Amazon promises such library investments because Van Bramer doesn't believe that concerns about Booz Allen or surveillance in the libraries is real enough to worry about.)
Kimmelman once wrote a very important column of his own lambasting the NYPL's Central Library Plan following in the footsteps of Ada Louise Huxtable’s very last column, published just weeks before her death (Wall Street Journal: Undertaking Its Destruction, December 3, 2012), in which she railed against what they were doing to Manhattan’s central libraries and the elimination of books.  Mr. Kimmelman (New York Times: Critic’s Notebook- In Renderings for a Library Landmark, Stacks of Questions, January 29, 2013) likewise scorned how the “potential Alamo of engineering, architecture and finance would be irresponsible,” the result of “a not-uncommon phenomenon among cultural boards, a form of architectural Stockholm syndrome.”   We think he also got caught up with the fact that what was happening to the libraries, with its real estate deal underpinnings, was something very different from what was being touted.

When it comes to Amazon, however, Kimmelman seems to have some more catching up to do. . .

. . .  By the way, not too long ago, Forbes ran an op-ed arguing that Amazon should simply replace libraries with Amazon retail outlets–  “Amazon Should Replace Local Libraries to Save Taxpayers Money” (out of embarrassment Forbes quickly took the piece down): At least Kimmelman is not going so far as to make that exact same argument.

Sunday, November 11, 2018

Tuesday Election Results For Three NYC Ballot Proposals- Analysis Of What That Means And Why You Want To Be Put on Citizens Defending Libraries’ Short List For Emails and Communications

Tuesday was Election Day and there is much to analyze.  In New York City one of the significant things to analyze about local results concerns changes to the New York City Charter that will have an effect on city governance and the way that proposals for approval, including real estate projects, move through the city system.  That obviously could affect libraries which the city tends now to regard more in the category of pawns on the chessboard of real estate development, rather than for what they offer in terms of societal benefits.

The three proposals were all approved (on the real estate site "Curbed).

Like most ballot proposals, they were all worded to sound good to people strolling into a voting booth.  Nevertheless, the thinking about how desirable each of them was varied substantially, even though one of them was dubbed a  “campaign finance reform.”  The one that most concerned informed community activist groups (except for bicyclers who view the current Mayor as being on the same page with them), was a proposal that would, in a Trojan Horse fashion, give the Mayor more control and influence over the Community Board Planning process by putting the Mayor in change of the flow of additional planning resources to local Community Boards.

The best way to consider what the proposals might mean for future is to go back and look at some of the analysis offered prior to the election.  Citizens Defending Libraries endeavored to send out information to inform all our petition subscribers to inform them of various positions and analysis so that they could decide about their votes. . . . MoveOn (through whom we communicate with the bulk of our petition signers) blocked our email.*—   MoveOn communicated that advocating a position on the proposals (or offering information as we were?) Violated its regulations.—   This is a good reason for our Citizens Defending Libraries signers to want to be put on our short (more nimble) email list that doesn’t bog down in the vicissitudes of waiting for and getting MoveOn approvals: If you want to be on our short list, send an email to Cemac62 [at] aol.com saying that you request to be on the Citizens Defending Libraries “short list.”





(* MoveOn suggested that to comply: "Sorry we can't let this one through due to NY's regulations regarding elections and ballot initiatives. Maybe you can post something more vague telling people in general how to support libraries and linking to Facebook for more info?")
Also, for analysis and discussion of the potential impact of the charter changes that were on the ballot you can listen to WBAI’s morning show last Tuesday (wth Michael G. Haskins), where Citizens Deafening Libraries co-founder Michael D. D. White discussed them with Alicia Boyd of Movement To Protect the People (in the WBAI archives for Tuesday, November 6th, advance to the 7:25 AM slot of the two-hour program- about 2/3rds of the way in- that starts at 6:00 AM).

The emails we attempted to send out to our petition subscribers will lead you to the analysis of the proposal that may help you as you works to confront development proposal going forward:

Here is the text of the email that was blocked by MoveOn even as we worked hard to conform to their regulations:
Subject: Defending Libraries: Voting on Tuesday's City Charter Proposals- Information Available

        (IMPORTANTPlease email us to be added to our short list of contacts to get urgent information more quickly than through MoveOn.   Our emails often take more time than we would like to get through the MoveOn clearing process than we would like.  We apologize for all the times that urgent MoveOn emails can’t get to you in time.)

        (NEW RULE!- MoveOn Tells us when you pass along your MoveOn emails you should delete the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom or someone else could accidently unsubscribe you from our mailing list.- One more reason to ask to be on our short list!)   


This email is arriving to you late because MoveOn blocked our original email (which was to go out Saturday).  MoveOn informed us that it did so because MoveOn regulations didn't permit an email that appeared to be making specific recommendations on Tuesday's NYC ballot initiatives- As such, we can only inform about the analysis offered by others and their analysis (which is actually what we were doing).

          So, we can tell you that if you look at the somewhat varying recommendations (and analysis) of Save The Inwood Library, MTOPP– The Movement To Protect The People, The New Yorkers For A Human-Scale City Alliance, Transportation Alternatives and Noticing New York, you will see every possible variation of recommendations on how you might vote on each of the three ballot proposals.  Varying with some of the others, The Save the Inwood Library group argues against term limits for community board members, which seems to align their analysis on that with Noticing New York.  The Inwood group also favors voting for the campaign funding change that is proposal #1.

          Transportation Alternatives will give you a different viewpoint cheerleading for all three of the proposals and figuring that term limits could somehow be a great cure for how community boards not represents the public properly.

More analysis, recommendations, and other points of view and deeper analysis can be found here:

    Noticing New York: How To Vote On The Three City Charter Reform (Reform?- Really?) Proposals on The November 6, 2018 Ballot! (NO, NO. . . & MAYBE. .?), Saturday, November 3, 2018   

See also our Citizens Defending Libraries Post:

    Want To Know How To Vote On The Three City Charter Proposals on November 6th?: The answer is NO, NO. . . & MAYBE. .?- Covered in Noticing New York.  
   
That’s where we point out the thoughts Noticing New York includes pertaining to libraries and the need for charter and community board reforms.

REMINDER: To keep up-to-date between emails monitor our Citizens Defending Libraries Facebook page or our Citizens Defending Libraries Twitter feed (@DefendLibraries), and there is also our Citizens Defending Libraries YouTube Channel.

Thank you for reading and passing along* this email, and thank you for defending and caring about our libraries and public assets.

Carolyn McIntyre Citizens Defending Libraries

(* REMEMBER THOUGH- NEW RULE!- MoveOn Tells us when you pass along your MoveOn emails you should delete the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom or someone else could accidentally unsubscribe you from our mailing list.- One more reason to ask to be on our short list!)
MoveOn also blocked this earlier attempted email to our petition signers:
Subject: Defending Libraries: Voting on Tuesday City Charter Proposals- NO, NO, and MAYBE?
    (IMPORTANT:  Please email us to be added to our short list of contacts to get urgent information more quickly than through MoveOn.   Our emails often take more time than we would like to get through the MoveOn clearing process than we would like.  For instance, because of such delays our pre-election email reminder to vote with important related links didn’t go out until AFTER (long after) the election.  We apologize for all the times that urgent MoveOn emails can’t get to you in time.)

    (NEW RULE!- MoveOn Tells us when you pass along your MoveOn emails you should delete the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom or someone else could accidently unsubscribe you from our mailing list.- One more reason to ask to be on our short list!)  

Do you want to know How to vote on the three City Charter Proposals on November 6th?   The answer (NO, NO. . . & MAYBE), is covered by Noticing New York (with huge indebtedness to MTOPP– The Movement To Protect The People–  and the  The New Yorkers For A Human-Scale City Alliance) in this article:

Noticing New York: How To Vote On The Three City Charter Reform (Reform?- Really?) Proposals on The November 6, 2018 Ballot! (NO, NO. . . & MAYBE. .?), Saturday, November 3, 2018.

See also our Citizens Defending Libraries Post:

Want To Know How To Vote On The Three City Charter Proposals on November 6th?: The answer is NO, NO. . . & MAYBE. .?- Covered in Noticing New York.

That’s where we point out the thoughts Noticing New York includes pertaining to libraries and the need for charter and community board reforms.

The three proposals and the recommendations?

    1.    On “Campaign Finance Reform- Reducing the amount of contributions to politician’s campaigns and increasing the amount of matching funds.”  VOTE NO.

    2.    On “Creation of New Community Engagement Agency.”   VOTE NO.
  
    3.    On “Term Limits on Community Boards.”  MAYBE VOTE YES (but THINK ABOUT IT!!- see . . . The Noticing New York article)

REMINDER: To keep up-to-date between emails monitor our Citizens Defending Libraries Facebook page or our Citizens Defending Libraries Twitter feed (@DefendLibraries), and there is also our Citizens Defending Libraries YouTube Channel.

Thank you for reading and passing along* this email, and thank you for defending and caring about our libraries and public assets.

Carolyn McIntyre Citizens Defending Libraries

(* REMEMBER THOUGH- NEW RULE!- MoveOn Tells us when you pass along your MoveOn emails you should delete the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom or someone else could accidentally unsubscribe you from our mailing list.- One more reason to ask to be on our short list!
   

Saturday, November 3, 2018

National Notice Updates and Republishes Citizens Defending Libraries Post About Amazon’s Huge Growth Beginning With BOOKS– Except It Didn’t begin There: Think DARPA Instead (per New Op-Ed In the NY Times)

National Notice, written by Citizens Defending Libraries co-founder Michael D. D. White, took over and updated a previous Citizens Defending Libraries post: Interesting to think that it all began with BOOKS! Amazon, With Bezos Now The World’s Wealthiest Man At Its Helm, Tops $1 Trillion!

The update: Interesting to Think That it All Began With BOOKS? Except That Amazon and World’s Wealthiest Man (As We Know Jeff Bezos Today) Didn’t Exactly Begin That Way. . . (Saturday, November 3, 2018)

The updates?  They stem from a new op-ed in the New York Times about the connections between the tech industry and the military.  There’s lots to learn about the connection of Amazon’s wealthy founder Jeff Bezos and his seriously connected grandfather, a key senior figure involved in starting up DARPA (the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which started the Internet, which . . .   Oh well, you'll just have to read the National Notice article for more, but one of the subjects it gets into while considering books is surveillance and it will get you wondering further about the perhaps not so accidental reasons for Amazon’s unusual success.

Want To Know How To Vote On The Three City Charter Proposals on November 6th?: The answer is NO, NO. . . & MAYBE. .?- Covered in Noticing New York.

Do you want to know How to vote on the three City Charter Proposals on November 6th?   The answer (NO, NO. . . & MAYBE), is covered by Noticing New York (with huge indebtedness to MTOPP– The Movement To Protect The People–  and the  The New Yorkers For A Human-Scale City Alliance) in this article:
Noticing New York: How To Vote On The Three City Charter Reform (Reform?- Really?) Proposals on The November 6, 2018 Ballot! (NO, NO. . . & MAYBE. .?), Saturday, November 3, 2018.
Noticing New York includes some thoughts pertaining to libraries:
We have also seen the calculated re-composition of the [community] boards and their committees in advance to prepare for and ensure the vote results the real estate industry wants in instances such as the proposed sale of public libraries for real estate deals.  But does the institution of term limits ensure any improvement with respect to what needs to be fixed?: Only sometimes in some particular instances, and other times it can have the opposite result.

    * * *
What community boards and other New York City boards of influence (the Landmarks Commission, City Planning Commission, boards of the three city public library systems) might benefit from is diffusing the appointments to those boards among more elected officials who the public is likely to be able to identify and hold accountable when their interests don't get represented.   . . .
 
 If nothing else, more diffused power means that when moneyed interests want to put the fix in they have more elected officials to corral and buy off and it is harder for them to operate for long stretches in secret.  It is also likely to provoke a few more real open debates on a few more things before votes rather than discussions before votes being as scripted as they almost always are now.
The three proposals and the voting recommendations?
1.    On “Campaign Finance Reform- Reducing the amount of contributions to politician’s campaigns and increasing the amount of matching funds.”  VOTE NO.

2.    On “Creation of New Community Engagement Agency.”   VOTE NO.

3.    On “Term Limits on Community Boards.”  MAYBE VOTE YES (but THINK ABOUT IT!!- see . . . The Noticing New York article)