Letter to the Editor -- Michael Huntley

As a parent of a grade school child at Mariners Elementary School, the

site of the proposed joint-use library facility, would we want to

knowingly put our children in harm’s way?

Yet, this is the compromise that some would have us make, and all in

the name of “free” money.

The risks to our children, who currently have a secure on-campus

library facility, are seemingly obvious and recent.

First, the children could be exposed to adult Internet access at the

library, according to the city of Newport Beach’s adult library access

policy. Having a facility where the public can view adult Internet sites

means a child’s incidental viewing of this material will be inevitable.

The exposure is undeniable and present in the proposed facility, yet

nonexistent in the student’s current on-campus library facility. Why

should we put our children in harm’s way?

Second, recent articles have documented that public facilities, such

as the proposed joint-use library, can be gathering places for

pedophiles. The most recent example of this occurred outside the current

Mariners Library when a city recreation worker was observed in

inappropriate acts on the children under his care. What risks would we be

advocating if we move the library nearer to the elementary school campus

and then require the children to use the public facility? Why should we

put our children in this harm’s way?

Finally, are we to believe the reason we should accept these safety

risks is to benefit from “free” money provided by joint-use facility

funds? But what are the real costs? In an age where there is less and

less money for schools and libraries because of budget constraints in

Sacramento, we will be sending our children to a public facility that

will require more monitoring of those students.

Additionally, if the facility is to be safeguarded as the City Council

and library lead us to believe, there need to be additional ongoing costs

for safeguarding both in terms of physical facilities, as well as

computer-access filtering, information system support and additional

librarian staff that will need to monitor the interaction of the public

with our students.

The bottom line is additional costs over the long term in an

environment of cost cutting. This becomes a volatile combination when

safety is compromised in lieu of cutting corners on the budget.

It seems clear that the financial panacea comes at too high a cost.

MICHAEL HUNTLEY

Newport Beach