Lynchburg Library Renovation Sparks Debate Amid Content Concerns
- Lynchburg Herald
- Apr 13
- 4 min read
Updated: Apr 17
Public outcry centers on books, not bathrooms, as City Council eyes $12.5M in upgrades
Lynchburg City Council is preparing to vote on a $12.5 million renovation plan for its main library — a project city staff say will modernize the long-outdated facility. But while city officials highlight infrastructure decay and design upgrades, the public conversation around the library has been dominated not by physical conditions, but by the content on its shelves.
In recent City Council meetings, parents and concerned citizens voiced frustration over what they consider inappropriate or ideologically biased books in the children’s section — not poor lighting or worn-out bathrooms. At the same time, fiscal watchdogs are questioning the wisdom of spending millions on a redesign when basic repairs have not been itemized, and transparency around controversial materials remains inconsistent.
Book Access, Not Building Upgrades, Dominates Public Comments
Though the main library is located in a repurposed 1950s-era Sears department store, public concern has largely focused on its content rather than its construction. The March 12 Council meeting saw multiple residents demand age-based restrictions on LGBTQ+ and social justice-themed books. Speakers cited titles like We Care, Goodnight, Racism, and Our Skin, accusing the library of advancing “radical gender theory” and “neo-Marxist propaganda” to children.
The Lynchburg Republican City Committee has formally called for the creation of a public library oversight board and urged the city to follow the principles of President Donald Trump’s 2021 executive order on ending “radical indoctrination” in schools. The LRCC’s proposal would require books dealing with gender identity or race to be moved to the adult section of the library.
Despite those calls, the Lynchburg Public Library’s “About Us” page lists no details about its book challenge policy — a notable omission for a facility facing intense public scrutiny . The site links to “Library Policies,” yet no mention is made of the “request for reconsideration” process, which is described in news reports as the official path for residents to challenge books in the collection. Clicking on a library policy on the website returns a result of "Not Found—The requested URL was not found on this server."
This gap has raised transparency concerns. If the library has a formal review process, why isn’t it visible to the public on its website?
12.5 Million Dollars for What, Exactly?
In public appearances, Library Director Beverly Blair has emphasized the need for both infrastructure repairs and a newly designed, modern library space. But in a recent WLNI Morningline interview, Blair appeared to conflate the issues — admitting that while repairs are necessary, they won’t be noticeable to the public and that the real driver of the $12.5 million price tag is the redesign.
“There are needed repairs that have to be done. And I’m concerned about having to close the library to get those significant repairs done,” Blair said. “The difference with that is the public won’t really see any of those visible changes. They won’t have public impact other than, great, our toilets will flush and our pipes won’t explode and leak. And my staff won’t be down to one bathroom for an entire 30-people staff.”
Blair did not specify how much of the $12.5 million would go toward critical infrastructure versus design features like new study rooms, technology labs, or improved natural lighting.
That omission has raised public concern. Residents have pointed out that the city has yet to disclose a clear breakdown of how much of the $12.5 million renovation budget is needed for basic repairs — like plumbing or wiring — versus more cosmetic upgrades. Some are questioning why the city is prioritizing a modern redesign before fully addressing the building’s essential functionality.
Councilman Martin Misjuns has echoed that sentiment, criticizing the city’s focus on “unnecessary projects like remodeling the functional public library” while other departments, like fire stations, go underfunded.
Faraldi Floats Relocation, Others Push Forward
During a March 11 Council work session, Ward IV Councilman Chris Faraldi suggested relocating the library to another commercial space — such as one along Timberlake Road — to save money and expand reach. But City Manager Wynter Benda pushed back, noting that the city already owns the Sears building and had paid for architectural plans for the renovation.
Benda said that while staff are “leaning toward” the current renovation plan, they are still open to alternate proposals.
Meanwhile, some residents, like Thomas Brennan, have expressed nostalgic support for modernizing the existing building — calling the investment a “safe bet” with strong economic return and social benefit. Brennan cited studies showing that libraries provide $5 in community value for every $1 invested.
Lynchburg City Council to Hear Public Feedback April 22
The renovation is included in the city’s FY2026 Capital Improvement Plan, which proposes allocating $11.1 million in that year and $1.4 million in FY2027. City Council will hold a public hearing on April 22 to receive feedback from residents before voting on the budget and CIP package.
That hearing will also provide residents a chance to weigh in on City Manager Wynter Benda’s proposed budget, which includes a $9.6 million tax increase and a 7% overall spending increase compared to last year’s adopted budget. But with the public focused more on what’s in the library than what it looks like, councilmembers may face a difficult balancing act: determining whether they can — or should — greenlight a $12.5 million overhaul while serious content concerns and transparency questions remain unresolved.
Comments