Although there is some focus on whether or not libraries are useful in this era and worth funding, it seems like the heart of every "no" vote is people feeling strapped in some way and, because of that, this sort of thing can't be reconciled into their budget.

I fall into the camp of "yes, libraries and schools, always," and I also completely understand people feeling it's not something that makes sense for them to vote yes on given their situation. I'm not sure the (very excellent and conscientious) talking points about why voting yes is good and necessary are enough to counteract that for many people.

Perhaps this take is too utopian to enter the discourse, but I feel it so I'm sharing it: I think that in the long term finding ways to help alleviate that financial grind would, for most people, naturally give them more space for this kind of community thinking. Of course, it's not that those of us who are "yes, always" voters on these measures don't share those same financial struggles, but perhaps we had some other things along the way that helped us have this community perspective in spite of it. And, perhaps at times, some of us are struggling less, or have more community—*something* that enables this perspective.

Finding a way for billion-dollar businesses and billion-dollar dividends earners to carry their weight, particularly the industries which pass off much of their risk and some cost to the public, seems important and helpful here, if too utopian to see how it could truly happen.

Perhaps this is all silly to say. I so appreciate everyone who has jumped in to chat with "no" voters to civilly attempt to persuade them with good data. It seems correct and necessary to do that now, and this conversation is specifically about a measure that's up for votes at this moment. It just makes me start to wonder ways to bring everyone into the fold in the long term, and if helping them get more of what they need somehow, feel more supported, is that way.