The KCLS annexation measure, and later Prop.1 (library location) were clearly worded. Sure, during the library campaign both sides promoted what they believed were important reasons to, or not to move it. Those promotions included size, design, cost, etc., but those promotions did not constitute policy, nor determine the end product of the efforts. I feel most people get that.

When you spoke of listening, it’s fair to say the “listening” was often reluctant and sometimes combative. Not all the ‘powers that be’ were happy with the community’s response to prevent the otherwise forced library move.  With some, a lot of political capital was expended as a result of what you called “listening.” When my son says he’s listening, but does so with arms tightly folded across his chest sporting a scowl, I don’t really feel he’s listening.  Maybe?

Early in your article you somewhat implied the same group which fought to give voters a choice in the library’s location is now fighting the design.  It’s not the same group. I co-authored the initiative petition and led its signature gathering effort, and then led the victorious Prop 1 campaign supporting the library’s current location.  I celebrated the results of both successful efforts. It was healthy democracy.

However, I’m not a member of ‘Save the Cedar River Library … Again’ that’s contesting the design.

I’m against any, and I mean any, effort that puts into jeopardy seeing a new, large substantially renovated KCLS library being completed. I’m pleased with the final KCLS library design. It will be a great beacon reuniting our community once again.

It’s time to move on. My efforts are now focused on a brighter future for our downtown, our annexed communities, and our small business owners. We have a lot of very important work ahead. I’m ready.

Stuart Avery,
Renton