Howie's opinion column is powered by Lyric Kitchen · Bar | eMail Howie
If Duluth residents are feeling déjà vu as City Hall once again flirts with the idea of closing, relocating or “reimagining” the downtown library, it’s because this script has already been run — quietly, strategically and unsuccessfully — over a decade ago.
Back then, the public argument sounded responsible, even urgent. The downtown library was aging. It was inefficient. It needed work. City leaders cited deferred maintenance, outdated design and, memorably, the building’s large windows — which, we were told, were costing taxpayers roughly $85,000 a year in lost heating costs.
It was a tidy talking point. Technical. Plausible. And completely beside the real point.
Because the plan at that time was never just about fixing or replacing a library. It was about using the library as leverage in a much larger economic and political negotiation — one tied directly to the Fond du Luth Casino and the city’s long-standing revenue-sharing arrangement with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
The library was the chess piece. The casino money was the board.
The idea, floated behind the scenes and occasionally hinted at in public, was to build a new downtown library across the street from the Fond du Luth Casino, deliberately positioning it as a civic gateway linking the downtown business district to Canal Park. In planning language, it was about “connectivity.” In political terms, it was about foot traffic, optics and leverage.
And crucially, it was about money.
At the time, the Fond du Lac Band had been contributing roughly $6 million annually to the city from casino revenues — a payment often described locally as a revenue-sharing agreement, but one that federal authorities had already given the band permission to exit.
Which it eventually did.
That detail matters, because it explains why the library suddenly became such a convenient civic vehicle. The administration needed a project that looked unquestionably public-spirited — something that could be pitched as mutually beneficial, something that justified keeping the relationship financially intact.
A library fit the bill perfectly.
It was beloved. It was civic. It could be framed as a shared investment in downtown vitality. And it could be physically placed in a way that served broader redevelopment goals without ever having to say so explicitly.
That plan failed. The casino revenue agreement ended anyway. And the downtown library remained standing — still in need of improvements, yes, but very much in use and very much alive.
Which brings us to now.
When asked directly about the current library discussion Friday morning, Mayor Roger Reinert was careful — and revealing.
“There are no plans in place to relocate the main library,” Reinert said.
That sentence is doing a lot of work. It does not say there are no discussions. It does not say the idea has been rejected. It does not say no options are being evaluated. It says there are no plans in place — which, in City Hall terms, usually means nothing has advanced far enough to require formal disclosure, public process or ownership.
The very next sentence pivots immediately from denial to justification.
“However, our mission at City Hall is to effectively and efficiently deliver core city services at a tax burden our residents and businesses can both afford and sustain,” Reinert said. “We are compelled to constantly evaluate options and opportunities to do better and do it more affordably.”
That “however” is not accidental. It signals that while nothing is official yet, everything is on the table. Libraries do not need to be named explicitly to be implicated. The framework is already set.
Reinert then widens the aperture further, introducing an idea that has little to do with a single downtown building and everything to do with scale and control.
“I have also spent the better part of the past two years discussing what the idea of a regional library and a regional park system, and what it might look like if Proctor, Hermantown, Rice Lake, and Duluth worked together on shared services,” he said. “Together we are over half the Saint Louis County population and a substantial portion of the County tax base.”
Two years is not a thought experiment. It’s a policy runway. Once leaders begin talking seriously about “shared services,” they are no longer talking about preserving a downtown anchor as-is. They are talking about consolidation, redistribution and, inevitably, displacement — geographic and political.
Then comes the engine that powers the entire conversation.
“I was not elected to be a status quo mayor, nor can Duluth afford it,” Reinert said. “We addressed a $7.3M budget deficit this year with minimal impact to our tax levy, but already have a $5.5M budget deficit in 2026. Expenses are outpacing revenues which leads to ongoing structural budget deficits.”
Structural deficits are the solvent. Once a mayor frames the problem that way, every major civic asset becomes a candidate for “rethinking.” Libraries included.
Reinert closes by tying it directly to voter sentiment.
“The cost of housing and a rising tax burden are by far the top issues I hear in our community,” he said. “We simply cannot afford to just keep doing what we’ve always done in the way we’ve always done it.”
Again, nothing in that statement says the library is moving.
Nothing in it protects it, either.
And that brings us back to the larger point: once again, the library is not being treated as an end in itself, but as a means.
This time, the leverage isn’t casino revenue. It’s downtown frustration — visible poverty, safety complaints, business dissatisfaction and the persistent sense that downtown Duluth has not lived up to decades of promises.
That frustration is real. But the way it’s being channeled is familiar.
When city leaders talk about “modernization,” “right-sizing” or “distributed service models,” they’re not just talking about bookshelves and square footage. They’re talking about who gets to linger downtown, where, and for how long.
Libraries are uniquely powerful in this regard because they do something no other public institution does: they absorb time quietly. They allow people — housed and unhoused, affluent and struggling — to sit indoors for hours without buying anything or being moved along.
Change that function, and you change the daily rhythms of downtown. Not by solving social problems, but by relocating their visibility.
That’s why voters should be deeply skeptical of claims that this is simply about efficiency or aging infrastructure.
We’ve already seen how selective those arguments can be. Ten years ago, the city told residents the library’s windows were bleeding money — $85,000 a year in heating costs — as if glass itself were the enemy. Somehow, that inefficiency never demanded emergency action. The building still stands. The windows are still there. And taxpayers survived.
What did change was the political usefulness of the argument.
Now, the city is again offering abstractions instead of specifics. We’re told the library might “still be downtown,” just in a different form. We’re told this is about safety and access. We’re told nothing has been decided.
That is exactly how a test balloon is supposed to sound.
The mayor doesn’t need to own a plan to benefit from it. The reaction is the data. If the public shrugs, the idea advances. If outrage spikes, it retreats — temporarily. Either way, leadership learns what language works, what resistance looks like and how to repackage the idea later, perhaps as a referendum conveniently timed for the 2027 mayoral election year.
Referendums, after all, are the ultimate political solvent. They dissolve responsibility while preserving power. If the measure passes, leadership claims a mandate. If it fails, leadership claims deference to voters.
The fingerprints stay clean.
So what should voters watch for this time?
Not intentions. Outcomes.
How large would a reimagined downtown library actually be? How many seats would it have? How many bathrooms? How close would it be to the transit spine? How long could people stay without being moved along? And perhaps most importantly: where are the people who currently spend their days there supposed to go instead?
If those answers remain fuzzy, that’s not accidental. It’s strategic.
Duluth has already watched the library get pulled into negotiations it was never meant to carry. We watched it become a bargaining chip in casino-revenue discussions. We watched technical arguments — like window heat loss — get elevated into civic crises when they were politically useful.
Now we’re watching it happen again, under a different banner.
Cities don’t always repeat their mistakes loudly. Sometimes they repeat them quietly, with better language and longer timelines.
The library isn’t the story. It never was.
The story is how often Duluth reaches for the same civic institution when it wants leverage — and how rarely it admits that’s what it’s doing.
Voters would be wise to remember the last time this script was run — and how it ended — before agreeing to let the same pawn be moved again.
Howie, 71, is a veteran Duluth print journalist and publisher of HowieHanson.com, which he has operated for 21 years. He is the region’s first and only full-time online daily columnist, covering local news, politics, business, healthcare, education and sports with an independent, community-centered voice. Hanson has spent more than five decades reporting on issues that shape the Northland.
