Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

As a preface to this blog, I am pleased to tell you that I now have the luxury of time to write again. I started this blog in 2013 and over the years I have written many pieces. For the last two years, taking care of my husband of 89 years and fulfilling my council responsibilities left no time to write. I retired from my council position this December. That action has provided me with time to do one of the things that I love and that is to write again. Look for more consistent and frequent pieces about Glendale.

Many years ago, for at least 40 years ago, my children and I used Velma Teague all the time. It was the only library us south and west Glendale residents had. As the children grew, they soon had access to other libraries and Velma Teague faded as our resource.

What is Velma Teague today? It is small and outdated. It has no room to expand or to accommodate another generation of readers who rely on computers and phones.

Suddenly and unexpectedly, the city’s Promenade space became available. Did you know that the Promenade features a unique history walk featuring 59 images relating to the history of Glendale imbedded in the sidewalk? Each vibrant mosaic offers insight into the evolution of Glendale. 

The majority of council sees this as an opportunity to move the library out of its old, cramped space into a larger space that can bring it into the 21^st Century while meeting the needs of economically disadvantaged children. It is an opportunity to provide them with the tools they need to succeed in an ever-advancing digital economy. The city council views this proposal as an opportunity to provide our children with learning to meet the demands of the highly technical world we live in today.

Not only that but the new larger space can accommodate and encourage more programming of classes and learning experiences for our children. It seemed to be a win-win for all.

Not so fast. Remember the group that sported green T-shirts emblazoned with “Save Murphy Park”? They were opposed to the city hall remodel project, convinced that it would destroy the park. This very same group, against anything the city council proposes, is at it again. This time, it’s save the library. One would think from some of their rhetoric that city council was banning books!

Their two major arguments against removing the Velma Teague building are first, its enormous sentimental value. I ask to whom? 99% of Glendale’s residents don’t know it exists and have never used it. It is not a historical building as there have been several iterations of this library over the years. Its sentimental value is limited to the small group of activists desperately searching for any reason to override the direction of the city council.

Last year I started to clean out our home after 50 years of “stuff” had accumulated. Some of it had sentimental value but if I had saved it all we would still be drowning in an overabundance of “stuff.” Sometimes you just have to get rid of things, if for no other reason than to make room for the new. It’s so nice to use uncluttered rooms with space to accommodate new looks and new gadgets. Velma Teague is exactly the same. Sometimes you get rid of the old with perceived, limited sentimental value to make room for the new and often more useful items that can enrich your life. A new Velma Teague holds the promise of enriching the lives of a new generation of children.

The second reason our merry band of nay sayers say they don’t want to see Velma Teague removed is that city council has a nefarious plan to enlarge the amphitheater. Here are a few facts that they deliberately prefer to ignore. The plans for the remodeling of city hall, the amphitheater and council chamber have been approved and are final. The budget is set. The only changes in the budget that have come forward are an increase in the cost of building materials or unexpected glitches that have been found in the old building that required an unbudgeted remedy.

Have you seen or heard senior management come forward with a plan to increase the size of the amphitheater and an accompanying request for more funding to cover that expansion? The answer is ‘no’. It hasn’t happened and it isn’t going to happen.

Just for a minute, can you imagine Murphy Park, wide open and newly landscaped without that intrusive old building? Imagine Murphy Park, enlarged for an even more spectacular Glendale Glitters when it returns to that location? Without that building there is suddenly more room for people and the events that attract them to downtown Glendale. As I said previously, it’s a win-win for the children and a win-win for the downtown merchants.

What will happen? Now I will use my crystal ball. The dozen activists will win this round, and Velma Teague will stay as the proud, old lady in her tattered finest. We know that Councilmembers Tomalchoff and Turner oppose any plan to remove Velma Teague. Add newbie Councilmember Conchas to the pro Velma Teague faction. All these councilmembers have to do is turn one more councilmember to gain the majority. My guess is that they are gunning for Ocotillo Councilmember Baldenegro. He is a smart, common sense, compassionate guy with the genuine best interests of his constituency at the forefront. Whisperings have started that if he doesn’t support keeping Velma Teague where it is, he can look forward to a recall in his future.

I think that would be enough to get him to change his position. A recall filled with lies, smears and innuendos comparing one to Hitler or Al Capone, no matter how untrue, is something no one wants to face.

So, after all the political sound and fury, I suspect Velma Teague will stay where it is and the children of the Ocotillo district will be the losers, having gained nothing for their future well-being. It will be a sad ending to a project that could have provided these children with enhanced opportunities to move into the digital age.

Suffer the children.

^{© Joyce Clark, 2024}    

^{FAIR USE NOTICE}

^{This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.}