--- The City says you are just expressing your opinion; why should I not believe the study completed by an independent consultant? ---

To illustrate why Newark residents should not trust the study completed by the independent consultant hired by the City, please take a look at the examples I shall provide below. Please note that this is one of the longest explanations. Save this one for last if possible.

Let’s start with how the argument in favor states: An independent consultant found the Police, City Administration and Library buildings lack seismic upgrades, rendering the Police building inoperable after a major earthquake and hobbling disaster response to Newark residents.

In February 2016, Group 4 compared three potential options:

• current site, new buildings, renovate library;
• current site, all three new buildings,
• all three new buildings at community center site

with the following criteria: Visibility/Access, Community Place-making, Parking, Operational Synergy, Flexibility and Cost. Architectural value, safety nor resident preference was a standard. Lastly, the reasoning for the criteria grades was questionable and easily undermined.
 

 

Visibility and access is one good example as the consultants and City staff repeatedly cited this “problem” at public hearings, likely to force the decision to build a new library. Concerns over residents knowing where their library is can be resolved inexpensively through obvious and new signage. Constructing a new library right next to the street is a far more complicated and needlessly expensive “solution” for the same problem. Additionally, the current location of the library was designed to allow easy access to a safe playground far away from a busy intersection. It is recessed near homes to avoid the loud traffic of rush-hour. These two benefits are provided because of its exact location.

Additionally, “community place-making” is more achievable by maintaining the Library within the parklike setting, rather than part of an empty “plaza” in between all three civic buildings.

The Library’s “flexibility” is fully utilized via gradual physical growth into the large spaces around the Library, facilitating reasonable expansions which provide for the community’s desire for new study and meeting rooms. Since the City Administration and Police Headquarters is to be constructed separately regardless of the option with renovating or building anew, they will not be affected by any of this. All three buildings are still at the same site and there is plenty of room for construction, therefore Option 1A merits an equal grade of excellent for flexibility with option 1B. This explanation can also be applied to synergy.

Evidently, the choice of criteria and their consequent grading designed to artificially favor the preferred option by the government.

Back in April, I asked for a complete version of the historical assessment through a Public Records Act request, but was told a copy could not be released yet as it was still a draft that was not finalized. That did not stop the consultants from claiming in February and April that the Library definitively lacked architectural significance because it was too young. Even once the report was supposedly finalized in June of this year, there were no changes. The assessment remained a single page and the Group 4 still refused to put any more effort into completely investigating the possibility that the Library would be eligible as a historical resource.

I took the liberty of sending the assessment to various architects, the majority of whom told me my suspicions were correct. The consultants failed to investigate Criteria G which allows for preservation in cases where a building is younger than 50 years. Additionally, the building merely needs to be important on a local level, a common scenario for which many young buildings have been preserved. (see following link) https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_7.htm#crit con g
Unlike what is claimed by the consultants, the building does not have to be important at the national level to be eligible for National Register of Historic Places. This topic is also discussed on the question of historical significance.

In the examples listed above you can see there are many examples illustrating the closeness between consultant findings and city preference. Fact is the City has a very odd definition of the term: “Independent”. Despite what the City may want, consultants hired by the City are not independent.

The rebuttal argument also states: The opponents concede that these buildings should be replaced – but offer no real solution – just opinion that has no basis in fact. Also we benefit from the many out of town shoppers that are attracted to Newark. Numerous area cities have the same sales tax and their sales are vibrant and grow annually.

The government merely makes promises to repurpose the library building, when it is likely the current building will receive no further renovations nor any future maintenance. Consequently, the City’s incentive to demolish the Library and sell off the land would rapidly increase over time. Make no mistake, this is the city’s preference.

We did not deceive residents by claiming constructing all new buildings is significantly cheaper than renovating our library and building a new Civic Center.

We did not deceive residents by saying the Library has no historical significance.

We did not deceive residents by saying the Library was inefficient and cramped.

We did not deceive residents by making them doubt the current safety of city buildings.

The City already had the choice to pick the preferred solution by our group: Option 1A. Just because the City refuses to respect its own heritage in protecting younger municipal buildings is not an excuse to disregard resident preference and how much value countless Newark speakers have offered for our current library at every Council hearing.

I hope you will join us and other Newark residents in voting “NO” on Measure GG on November 4, 2016. We deserve better from our elected officials. One of the few powers we have as residents is at the ballot box. Do not waste our opportunity to get a better deal by supporting a deeply problematic proposal.

Take me back to the Table of Contents