SNA presents neighbor objections to library signage

Maurice Methot · March 5, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Dear Mr. Howard:

After sitting on my hands for an hour at the March 5 SNA meeting at the Rochambeau branch library, I was finally able to ask for clarification on the proposed zoning variance to allow for library signage in recognition of a “sizable donation” to the library. The concern I expressed in my question goes beyond the specific issue of the proposed sign and concerns the openness of the process which led to the denial of the zoning variance.

Given the breadth of my concerns, I made the mistake of introducing the issue of the traffic bumpouts as yet another example of an emergent pattern in which the SNA has continued to exert an inordinately strong influence within my neighborhood without adequate consultation and solicitation of a full representation of community members. The distraction I myself introduced into my original question regarding the proposed zoning variance resulted in a discussion that touched upon a number of points without bringing real clarification to any. Therefore I am writing this to restate and refocus my concerns.

Basing my recollection of your retelling of the events leading up to the rejection of the zoning variance, my sense is that once again the SNA has functioned as a lobbying organization which, while purporting to represent the best interests of the Summit neighborhood, is often found aligned to a narrow and pre-determined agenda that has little to do with the welfare of the neighborhood as a whole. Your response to my question “Was an architectural rendering of the sign made public so Summit residents could make an informed decision?” was evaded with rationalizations such as:

“It’s not the SNA’s responsibility to publish information on the proposed signage.”

“The sign was an embarrassment to both the library and the donor and we did not want to add to the embarrassment”.

“Legally it is required that only those people within 200 feet of the proposed sign be informed of it”.

You then proceeded to sketch the following background to SNA’s opposition to the zoning variance: a request for the zoning variance was indeed published in the newspaper which was spotted by the watchful eye of a dogged SNA member. Galvanized into action, the SNA “canvassed the immediate neighborhood” and mustered a petition with twelve signatures, which was presented at the zoning hearing. Presumably influenced by this petition, the Zoning Board voted to reject the variance and the “sizable donation” was forfeited.

As I stated at the March 5 meeting, I am concerned with what feels like a genuine lack of openness in the process. How can the SNA presume to know the best interests of the Summit neighborhood when it is so eager to mount opposition to a proposal that has scarcely been made public? Even more troubling is the disingenuous and misleading information in the SNA’s letter to Zoning Board Chairman John Kelly, on SNA blogs, and in the SNA newsletter:

— “The branch already has an internally lit sign post that exceeds R2 standards.”
As far as I can see, the Rochambeau Library is for all intents and purposes without visible signage. It is unclear to which sign the above comment refers.

— “The branch displays 40 to 60 square feet of additional signage etched into the glass façade of the new wing. (“ROCHAMBEAU” in very large block capitals).”
The sign to which this point refers is so integrated into the facade of the building as to be virtually invisible during the daytime, and barely visible at night.

— “Added signage at the Library further extends the character of the commercial district of Hope Street into the adjacent residential areas.”
A library is not a “commercial” building – it is a “people’s university”. The clear and public identification of this invaluable intellectual and social resource can be seen as a strategy which does not “extend the character of the commercial district” so much as it adds to the public awareness of the library and the services it provides.

— “Neighbors and patrons of the branch overwhelmingly oppose the sign.”
Nonsense. The SNA opposes it. I am deeply suspicious that in it’s “canvassing of the neighborhood” the SNA simply gathered the signatures of twelve core members certain to be opposed to this, any, and all signs. I wonder if these members were ever shown an architectural rendering of the sign or if they in fact even live within 200 feet of the library? Setting aside the mechanics of due process, do all SNA members really feel that they were adequately informed or included in this decision?

— “The Providence Public Library suffers no hardship from the Zoning Ordinance.”
Nonsense. It forfeits a “sizable donation” the actual amount of which was “never fully disclosed”. Certainly, given budget cutbacks and limited resources, the library stands to benefit from this and any donation.

— “Granting relief on the basis that it facilitates a prospective charitable gift of a certain (not fully disclosed) size creates a very dangerous precedent.”
Given the pressing need for after school resources, books, non-print media, technical resources, maintenance, and outreach programs, might it not be the case that there may in fact be a positive precedent established in granting just such a zoning variation for certain kinds of vital public resources? To describe this precedent at “very dangerous” is alarmist and hysterical.

It is my sense that the SNA has once again demonstrated a lack of insight into the social, cultural, and intellectual forces that give life and shape to a vital and evolving neighborhood. It is not only the library building nor the signs that identify it that are important here. Worth careful consideration are the many ways in which this donation might have benefited collection development, educational and cultural programs, librarians’ salaries, and other human and physical resources. As a member of the community, I feel that the SNA’s action represented an unfair process that failed to solicit the input from those very people most influenced by the eventual decision – the parents of children in the Summit Neighborhood whose work schedules may not allow for the kind of dogged scouring of the daily paper to sniff out the evils of zoning variance followed by a mustering of like-minded crusaders to prevent it. That this decision should be smugly presented as a fait accompli, or even that the SNA should find itself “at odds” with the interests of the very neighborhood resource in which their meeting was held is not without a kind of bitter irony. And yes, I understand the Friends of Rochambeau were also opposed to the signage – I only hope that the members of that organization were made more aware of the details of the proposal than the SNA seems to deem necessary for the rest of us.

I want the members of the SNA to understand that my point is not that I am necessarily in disagreement with the decision to reject the zoning variance – without knowing more about it, how can I or anyone else come to an informed decision? But I am profoundly disturbed by the machinations that led to it.

Ultimately, Mr. Howard, it seems I disagree with the current practice of the SNA at a very fundamental level. My hope is that the SNA will make an effort to restrain its tendency toward the unilateral policing of the aesthetics of my neighborhood without a fair representation of the all of the people who call it their home.

Sincerely,

Maurice Methot
50 Summit Ave.