Reflecting on the borough's library view

The information presented by Milford Borough is incomplete, or misleading. I support their intent, but unfortunately, they are missing the point. Many of us want the library. • I realize some members of the borough council do not like the (architect) Fred Schwartz’ design for the Warner Library. But what the borough fails to mention is that many people do. The design was arrived at through a series of open public forums, an architectural design competition, and unanimously selected by a jury of county residents and recognized experts. The jury, which included architecture professors from Penn and Columbia, as well as experts on library design, praised the Schwartz plan as outstanding and applauded its bold but simple plan. This decision was arrived at after years of study and is not based on our personal tastes. To imply that just because some do not like it, the process should be scrapped, as a flawed effort is not fair to those who did support the effort and did contribute in a constructive way. • The council members were invited to participate each step of the way. Only Ed Raarup took the time to do so. Many other citizens and business leaders did. • I served on the Architectural Review Board for nearly five years. Nothing in the ordinance precluded contemporary architecture for new construction. If anything, it encourages it. The borough hired a consultant to assist them in essentially killing the library - not an outside neutral arbiter. He was paid to do a job. Other experts vigorously challenge the (Peter) Benton report. If you read the report, Benton does not take issue with the key aspects of the Schwarz design, except in the end to say that Schwartz uses an “inappropriate idiom” as its model. Historic Preservation experts from Columbia and University of Pennsylvania never mentioned anything of the kind. We looked carefully at what the Board had previously approved in town - the Auto Spa, the Mattress Factory, the Post Office Redo (defacto approval), Drake’s garage, and the McLain buildings. Each is fine for their purposes. But no real strict standard that I can see. Somehow a new library, designed by a world-renowned architect with the latest in green technology, “must be stopped at all costs to protect our borough.” • The library board and building committee are made up of well-respected citizens from our county. This has been the most successful private fundraising campaign in the history of Pike County. The borough’s letter very carefully sets up this as a “we-they” issue as if some unnamed outsiders are coming in forcing something down our throats, and we, your loyal protectors, are keeping these monsters from getting their way. There is no we-they. Only we-we in this case. We all want a library. • The borough has gone out of its way to make this as difficult and controversial as possible. As a result, they have created the impression that some how this project is not worthy of Milford. The result is they may very well get their wish. Milford is a community with a wide range of buildings and styles. No one loves historic buildings more than I do. Each decision is on a case-by-case basis. We need to do something different. The borough - both the elected and appointed officials - owes us their best effort to make this library happen. We need it, we want it, and it will benefit our town, our county, and our citizens more than almost anything else we could do. If the board decides the building is “inappropriate” - which is their call - then the council can thank the board, and vote to permit it. The ordinance allows for this, and the borough has approved countless variances in its ordinances over the years- and for good reasons. Do it again for something everyone can benefit from. For us to succeed in these challenging times, we will only get one shot. Let’s make it on target. Edgar Brannon Milford