A public library, closed indefinitely. Will it be funded by the Fullerton City Council, or sold off as surplus propertyo a megachurch?
The Early March edition of the Fullerton Observer (End or Reopening of Hunt Branch Library?) reports that The Fullerton Public Library Board of Trustees met on February 25, and voted to recommend to the City Council that the Hunt Branch Library either be funded with $ 1.3 million for annual operations or be considered surplus property. Grace Ministries International (GMI) has been leasing the facility for the less-than-princely sum of $ 1,500.00 per month since its abrupt closure in 2013 amidst reports that library staffers did not feel safe so near the then-burgeoning homeless encampment nearby.
According to the Fullerton Observer account, it was none other than retired City Manager Chris Meyer who first proposed selling the library…
Another abject failure in the making, Fullerton style. Well done, guys.
From the outset, Chris Meyer’s inane spiel about a “renaissance” at the Hunt had an inverse relationship to reality, precisely because of empty-headed buffoons like Chris Meyer. And no one can talk about out-of-their-depthness without a tip of the hat to the tragicomic Joe Felz, a living embodiment of the Peter principle.
I can see you have some strong feelings here.
Chris Meyer is an outstanding Trustee. While his optimism in 2013 may not have reflected the Council’s actions in following years, it certainly isn’t worth the insult you just dished out.
And Dick Jones probably kissed a baby one time, so what. My assessment of Chris Meyer long predates whatever he entertains himself with in retirement.
I’m pretty sure the baby went down the drain along with the bathwater.
This really is a priceless piece of architecture. So if the City is going to put a price on it they ought to at least market it and see who else might want it.
Who knows, maybe they’ll even fund it as a library . . .
I can’t believe the City can’t come up with some public use for this facility even if it’s no good as a library site.
But it’s been treated with indifference and disrespect for years (bordering on contempt), including the indignity of a CLF enclosed dog park on the grounds.
No argument here.
Hence the recommendation: Fund it or sell it. If the city can’t treat the building the way it ought to be treated (irrespective of the question “why”), the city should find someone who will.
Well, the argument in the article is that that would void the gift. Is that part correct or incorrect, Ryan?
It’s incorrect. There’s no restriction on the property.
Have a chilling effect on future gifts? That’s a valid point. We’re waaaaaaaaaay past that for the last two major land grants to Fullerton’s Library system.
“…the argument in the article is that that would void the gift.” No, I never made that argument in the article. I am well aware that Chris Meyer and Joe Felz got the Norton Simon Foundation to release the the reverter clause (as Meyer himself wrote to the Rag). This release was granted, as I understand it, without any direction from the Fullerton City Council.
That’s not a really a fair statement, Matt. Are you inferring that charge wasn’t done above board?
Ryan, I wouldn’t call it underhanded, but it seems like a presumptuous thing to do with a city library without direction from a city council.
Why?
And why would the council provide direction?
Why should the council need to provide direction to change the terms of a gift of an entire library and its surrounding property? I think if the council had given direction to explore the idea as a part of a possible strategy to identify different uses for the facility, then it would be an appropriate action for city staff to take–just to open discussions about the idea with the foundation. I don’t think that city staff should be unilaterally trying to change a gift clause for one of the largest gifts ever given to the city without any direction from a council, even if the library board gave its prior approval (did it?).
It’s a point of view, Matt. I would expect the CM has quite a bit of latitude concerning contacts, but I’m not aware of what those boundaries are. Ultimately, I’d hazard to guess that NSF did what was in NSF’s best interest.
From what I recall, the issue came about after the March closure. Specifically, how long of a closure would trigger the reverter? The Trustees absolutely (again, as I recall) provided direction to resolve the question.
For everyone else, Fullerton has an Administrative Board for its library. It has full control of library property independent from the Council.
Ryan, I was led to believe that the reverter agreement discussion preceded the March, 2013 closure. Am I incorrect?
“Fullerton has an Administrative Board for its library. It has full control of library property independent from the Council.” So, the library could sell the Hunt right now, without any approval necessary from the city council?
Could? That’s debatable.
Should? Hopefully not debatable.
I don’t think you have Trustees willing to figure out what they can do. What they should do generally suffices.
I think the reverter was removed after March. I’ll see what I can pull from my notes.
Ryan, the minutes from the February 14, 2013 meeting of the Fullerton Library Board of Trustees include the following paragraph:
“President Meyer suggested that the bookmobile be turned into a mobile technology branch, which would be costly to revamp; request money from the Foundation to retrofit; the Norton Simon Foundation has released the City from the reverter clause; lease out the Hunt Branch which would cover the operational costs of staffing, maintaining equipment, etc.”
This meeting took place over a month before the Board voted in favor of an emergency closure of the Hunt Branch on March 28 of that same year.
Matt, the NSF release occurred in Oct (year prior). If memory serves, that’s the Leslie era!
The Leslie era was quite short (probably a record, in fact, if you don’t count Sebourn’s wife). Do you know the date of the release, and what precipitated it?
Oct 2012. I don’t know NSF’s motives, but frankly I wouldn’t be surprised if they simply just didn’t want it back. It may have been unsolicited, I really don’t know. I believe I was two months into it by then.
This would have been while the Ad Hoc was wrapping up, which includes the initial recommendations.