Blogs > Sun Insider

News and quick-hit commentary from around mid-Michigan ... from the Morning Sun.

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Library millage goes down to defeat

Here are the results by precinct of the Chippewa River District Library tax proposal, 2.6 mills for 20 years:

Precinct....... Yes.. No
1-Ganiard.... ... 92.......148
2-City Hall .....153 .......90
3-Pullen ........ 101.......109
4-MPHS .... ....156 ......155
5-Kinney ........124.......156
6-Vowles ........142......106
7-Fancher .........59........42
McGuire 85 ......38..... 82
McGuire 80 ..... 19...... 29
West 90 ........... 84...... 124
West 95 ........... 116..... 235
Isabella ........... 28....... 170

TOTAL YES: 1,112...... 43.5%
TOTAL NO: 1,446 ....... 56.5%


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want to thank the Sun for their work in bringing the result out to the web so quickly. Excellent job!

9:52 PM 
Blogger sacman said...

Thank you residents. This is not the time to be trying to ask for money. The state is already strapped enough with the tough economic times and to ask residents to dish out more is crazy.

There is no reason that the CRDL can work a building fund drive through private donations. Hospice house did it and so did CMCH.

It is time for citizens to stand up for the hard earned money that they make.

11:30 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To my wife and I, a library should be first and foremost about books and publications kept in good repair and kept current. We don't agree with caf├ęs, more computers, and more meeting rooms. We would have voted for an existing millage renewal, but not for an increase to fund the grandiose expansion the library proposed. Had the issue been presented as two separate issues, we would have voted FOR a renewal, and AGAINST the expansion. Presented as two issues on the ballot instead of an all-encompassing one, the continuation of the existing millage might have passed. In future, perhaps a less grandiose scheme including the remodeling of the existing Old Post Office building coupled with a fund drive to rewire and replace the HVAC and roof of the Old Post Office might meet with more success. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

7:03 AM 
Blogger Steve Rookard said...

I'm 100% in agreement with the last poster. Why does the library need a cafe' when there are already a number of well established businesses downtown which are more deserving of our patronage?

Given the margin of defeat, I suspect that the CRDL board will come to their senses and request an extension of the current millage, which of course I have no problem supporting.

While I'm here - I guess I'll pose a question regarding something that kept popping up in the Morning Sun.

Citizens Against Tax Increases had suggested that the population of Isabella County had decreased, however, the Morning Sun dismissed that as inaccurate. Since the last census was in 2000, how and when did it come to be that population 'estimates' that the paper cited to show an increase are now treated as fact?

9:34 AM 
Blogger Mark said...

The Census Bureau's population estimates program uses reported births, deaths, school enrollment, residuals, group quarters, net migration, employment statistics,income tax filings, earlier annual changes in U.S. Census Bureau estimates, local review challenges to estimates, assessment data, driver license address changes, automobile registrations, water and sewer usage, local challenges to the estimates and other factors to zero in on changes in population.
It has a track record of more than 60 years of reasonable accuracy in determining population between censuses. If anything, the estimates have had a tendency to underestimate population growth.
See Mulder: Accuracy of the U.S. Census Bureau National Population Projections and their Respective Components of Change, 2002; at;
Hammer, Voss, Blakely, Magen and Veroff: Spatially Arrayed Growth Forces and Small Area Population Estimates Methodology, Census Bureau Population Estimates Methods Conference, 1999
Schmitt and Crosetti: Accuracy of the Ratio-Correlation Method for Estimating Postcensal Population, Land Economics, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Aug., 1954), pp. 279-281, University of Wisconsin Press.
Compare: 2003 Total Population Estimates for Texas Places: Population Estimates and Projections Program, Texas State Data Center, Office of the State DemographerInstitute for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio (2004), at

In other words, those estimates have been picked apart by professionals for decades, and they've gotten pretty darn good.

11:52 AM 
Blogger Steve Rookard said...

Interesting references.

The Census ref seems to speak more to their ability to predict the national population than reflect on their accuracy with regards to distribution.

Furthermore, by their own admission they are unable to (or very bad at) forecast turning points in trends which causes accuracy to be greatly diminished with each series.

Your Texas Places reference clearly states
"...(Census) uses data not available to other agencies...(Census) does not include boundary changes...(we) use more current data...Because of these differences, the population estimates presented here and those from the U.S. Bureau of the Census are not directly comparable."

While I can appreciate your contention that they have gotten better at being able to predict, I do question their ability to maintain accuracy when drilling down to the local level.

2:10 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Congratulations, Grinches, for defunding our library. Your community pride is moving.

4:49 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the coverage online last night was awesome. I bet it saved the Clerks and the camapigns countless calls if they knew it was going to be up there! :)

8:23 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home