To the editor:
Author’s Note: The public FY2025 figures included in this letter may not be actual.
A recent Berkshire Edge opinion column, “What kind of town does Great Barrington want to be?” raises a concern about the appearance of conflict of interest in the debate that transpired over the future of Ramsdell Library. It would have been appropriate for the author to disclose that he is a member of the Affordable Housing Trust that stands in competition with Ramsdell Library for Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds.
The author argues that, in a time of fiscal pressure, Great Barrington should reconsider “redundant services,” such as maintaining two library branches. A point is made that even “a larger community like Marblehead struggled to support just one.” This framing deserves closer examination and a look at costs.
At about $655,000 out of a $16.4 million town budget (FY2025), our libraries represent roughly 4% of spending—hardly “redundant services,” but a modest investment with broad community impact. It is reasonable to ask what meaningful savings would actually result from closing a branch, and at what cost to access, equity and community use.
Our two library locations serve distinct populations and geographies within our town. They are not duplicative amenities, but essential access points—particularly for children, seniors and residents who rely on proximity. Comparing Great Barrington to a coastal community with different demographics, density and infrastructure oversimplifies the issue and risks obscuring the real value our libraries provide.
When a public servant on the Affordable Housing Trust has a platform to sway public opinion against a public asset that is in competition for limited tax dollars, voters deserve to know the backstory and expect clear disclosure.
I am reminded of the article’s example: “Hartsgrove’s initial budget reminds me of a commercial office building developer who sought permits to construct an office tower near a regional airport. The developer knew, but the community did not, that FAA regulations limited the structure to 19 stories due to its proximity to the airport. The developer proposed a 26-story tower, knowing the community would vigorously object. After a series of public meetings with plenty of heated opposition, the developer “relented,” agreeing to reduce the building to 19 stories, exactly what the regulation permitted. The community claimed a win. The developer got his building.”
Is the author attempting to “get one over” on voters by turning them against one project in favor of his own agenda, because they may not know the complexities of fund allocation?
This is not to debate the virtues of the library. It is about maintaining public trust. Both affordable housing and our libraries are vital to the strength of our community. Each deserves to be considered on its merits, through a process that is transparent, impartial and aware that competing interests will attempt to shape the outcome. We should know the competition.
Donna Jacobs, Secretary
Great Barrington Library Fund
Click here to read The Berkshire Edge’s policy for submitting Letters to the Editor.
