Archive for Friday, June 2, 2006

Library expansion

June 2, 2006


To the editor:

I suppose until this time there's no agreed upon place to build the library in place of the present library at Seventh and Vermont streets. I agree the community needs a bigger library for a town of this size.

Really, the present library is in a good location where it is now. It is convenient for people coming to shop here in the city and stop in the library. The only problem is the parking space. We need more parking space, especially when the city swimming pool across the street from the library on Kentucky Street is open. People who go to swim park their car where a parking space is open in the library parking lot. This is always the problem for the people who want to go to the library and find no place to park.

In the Journal-World's Public Forum on May 18, Deborah Snyder mentioned the previous Furr's Cafeteria on 23rd and Iowa streets. I think it is a very good location to build another library. It's convenient for the people living south of the city. It's also close to the university and grade schools nearby and to the people shopping in that part of town. There's a very spacious parking lot. People won't mind building another library in that part of the city.

I hope the city planners will consider building another library in the previous Furr's Cafeteria lot instead of tearing down houses in the private properties east of Kentucky Street from Seventh to Sixth streets for downtown library expansion.

Bennie R. Tankersley,



Richard Heckler 12 years ago

I agree that invoking emminent domain is not the way to go. Usually it is not fair to the landowner. If someone does not want to move or sell get another plan.

lunacydetector 12 years ago

...but locating a library on the furr's property would be invoking eminent domain because it is a private property.

i'd like to have a library located where there's a kwik shop at 6th & wakarusa, i think the city should invoke eminent domain on that location - sounds pretty ridiculous, huh?

conservative 12 years ago

Lunacy, I think the suggestion of the Furr's property involves buying the property. It is currently sitting vacant and has been that way for a long time. The assumption that it could be purchased doesn't seem terribly far fetched.

Not that I'm for that move, just clarifying.

Kookamooka 12 years ago

It's interesting that in the rebuttal, the Fritzel rep said that they would NOT be invoking eminent domain BUT if you read the proposal they use the word "condemn". How does THAT work?

I happened upon an archived article on Larryville forum that desribes how Douglas County Bank and the city maneuvered around people interested in the historic houses in the 800 block between KY and TN to build the DG Cnty Bank building and parking lots.

The proposal that seems most sane to me is the Riverfront plan because it fixes the mistakes the city has already made, better utilizes a block that is nothing more than badly designed parking, honors the historic buildings already present on the properties (namely, the Reuter Organ Building and Abe and Jakes) and brings increased public access to an area of Lawrence that is currently under utilized.

Leave the lot next to the Art Center for a FABULOUS public garden with animated fountains and sculpturesk playstructures.

lunacydetector 12 years ago

conservative, the furr's property is not for sale at all. i know some quiet real estate insiders who gave me the scoop. i should've clarified.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.