Why are study rooms sitting empty at the new Central Library in San Diego?

Room 853 on the eighth floor of the new Public Library in downtown San Diego sat empty today as clients were told that no study rooms were available.

Room 854 also sat empty.

Note the sign in room 853 saying, "Please do not open the windows." The windows open!? Is this the reason that I wasn't allowed to use the rooms? Is the library afraid someone will open the window and step out on the ledge? Or worse, step off the ledge?  Can't the library simply lock the windows if it's afraid someone will try to commit suicide here? 

Here's what the website for the library says:

Study Rooms -- 20+ rooms to choose from
Capacity* 2-6
Onsite booking for up to 2 hours, first come, first served basis at the 1st floor Computer Service Desk.

On Feb. 18, 2015 I went to the front desk and mentioned that study rooms were sitting empty while clients were being told that no rooms were available. I was told that only a group of six people could use the rooms pictured above.  (The library website contradicts this claim, clearly stating that 6 is the maximum, not the minimum, number of individuals allowed in these rooms.)



To emphasize her point, the clerk held the room 853 key card right in front of my face for over 30 seconds. Eventually her arm got tired (I was impressed with the stamina of her arm muscles; I think she works out) and she set the card down on the counter in front of me and indicated that I should keep reading it until I understood it. I took a picture of it.  I'm pretty sure I understand it.

 I mentioned that the taxpayers built the library and that the public was not served by having the rooms left empty.  A different employee retorted that the library had been built mostly with donations!

Of course, the taxpayers are paying the salary of this employee who apparently believes that the public should have no input into how the library is used.  Does this woman not know that once donations were accepted by the City of San Diego (and the donors had received their hefty tax deductions), the money belonged to the public?

I doubt that Robin and Gerald Parsky demanded that room 853 be reserved for them in case they might want to drop by with a group of friends and a burning desire to sit in a cold place.  (It turns out that a concrete room exposed to the elements on two sides doesn't get much benefit from the library's heating system.)  Rather, I think we have lazy library employees who use any excuse, no matter how false or ridiculous, to turn away questions about how the library is utilized.

I wrote to San Diego Public Library's Cynthia Shutler, Supervising Librarian, Central Library, 619-236-5880, cshutler@sandiego.gov.  I'll report on her response.

by Maura Larkins

The public has a right to know about the dismissal of Larry B. Anderson

By Kathleen Sterling

The public has a right to know about the dismissal of Larry B. Anderson, yes, however what about the investigation report which triggered the dismissal of the Gonzalez et al team (Brown Act case - Sanderson et al vs. Reno et al, the Coleman et al vs Reno et al)? How about the settlements for the TCHD vs. Citigroup, Scripps, and the Hammes cases? Each one is very important as the former CEO Anderson hooked his lawyer friends to garner lots of public resources - Did we win any of them? In the grand scheme of things probably not, but rest assure the Procopio law firm and those Anderson favored gained much from the billable hours. How much was spent by the taxpayers to settle any of those cases?

Great article in the Coast News by Kirk Effinger: People deserve answers on high-profile dismissals

Kathleen Sterling: Thank you Mr. Effinger - the public has the right to know - Tri-City gets an "F" in transparency. I'm hopeful your added visibility, and the interest of persons like Mr. Page and Cozad, the public will be ignited to help what I've always believed - When Tri-City is truly transparent - the public will rally and we will all WIN!!!

PIRG: States Lose $40 Billion a Year to Offshore Tax Havens

PIRG: States Lose $40 Billion a Year to Offshore Tax Havens
AFL-CIO
02/11/2013

A new report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) reveals that state governments lost $39.8 billion in revenues because corporations and wealthy individuals are using offshore tax havens to avoid paying their statutory tax rates. We've seen the devastating effects that offshoring jobs have had on America's workers, and offshoring has long been talked about in terms of lost federal revenue, where $150 billion a year goes unpaid, but little focus has been given to state losses from the practice. Federal and state tax laws allow companies to claim that at least some portion of their profits were earned in other countries, particularly those whose tax rates are low or nonexistent.

According to PIRG, such offshoring is both damaging to the states and unfair:

Tax haven abusers benefit from our markets, infrastructure, educated workforce and security, but they pay next to nothing for these benefits. Ultimately, taxpayers must pick up the tab, either in the form of higher taxes, cuts to public spending priorities or increased national debt.

While the federal government is gridlocked and has little chance for changing these tax laws right now, PIRG says it is much easier for the states to attempt to recapture this lost revenue and offers up several legislative options that could make state revenue collection more fair:

1. States can “decouple” their tax system from the federal tax system.

2. States can require worldwide combined reporting for multinational corporations.

3. States should urge their federal representatives to reject a “territorial” tax system, which would further erode state revenue.

4. States can require increased disclosure of financial information about corporations’ business presence in other countries and how they price their transfers with their own foreign subsidiaries; as well as to explain why large disparities exist between the profits corporations report to shareholders and tax authorities.

5. States could withhold taxes as part of federal FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliant Act) withholding.