Radical library on Troost closes shop

i would love to see an article about Harry Reaves, the owner of the building the Infoshop is/was located in. He's mentioned briefly in the cover article about Father David Altschul several weeks back.

Anyone who's been in that building and seen the absolutely squalid conditions Reaves provides for the other tenants in the building would find it impossible to buy any of Reaves' schtick about building a better Troost.

I'm happy the Infoshop has stopped capitulating to Reaves. As a group which espoused, among other things, an end to capitalist exploitation, it was shocking that they worked with this slum lord for so long in the name of "cheap rent".

Here's to hoping that the community organization he's already got lined up to take over the space refuses to further enable his despicable treatment of the building's other residents hidden away behind the storefront.

DeFinis Traitor is right on target ... It is precisely because of Harry Reaves that this infoshop sunk. Because of the high-rent/utilities the Infoshop was stuck perpetually on survival.

Not only were they paying high-rent for the space, they were paying electricity for the rest of the building, which includes numerous tennants.

Harry Reaves is a con-man, pure and simple. He paints himself as a liberal 'helping the community,' but what he does is in fact quite contrary to this.

But this is not over - the Infoshop will regroup within a different context. They learned a lesson about liberals and now its time to move on ...

These attacks on Harry Reaves are pretty despicable. Harry provided a space for the infoshop for several years and put up with lots of bullshit and irresponsibility from the people involved. The idea that Reaves is a "slumlord" is ridiculous--the person who writes this has no understanding of what a real slumlord is.

We were certainly NOT paying "high rent" for the space. That is preposterous! Harry asked us to pay him $250/month for use of the storefront space, which was huge by infoshop standards. This was an affordable rental rate, much less than the $650/month that we were paying for our first location in the Crossroads. Either rent was affordable for any radical bookstore and/or library that had its act together and was staffed by responsible volunteers with mature attitudes about running an infoshop.

The infoshop rarely even paid the monthly rate that Harry was asking. He was very good about us paying him in the form of sweat equity when we renovated the storefront space.

Sounds like someone I know ;-)

IV - you should take your argument up with the dozen people sitting in that building right now freezing because there's been no electricity for the past several weeks.

you should ask them how they felt to have their trash dumpster removed this summer and never returned, while the refuse continued to pile up both inside and outside of the building.

ask them how they feel about the huge puddles that form throughout the building because Reaves has refused to fix holes in the roof. don't forget that one of those holes is directly over the fuse box for the building.

see what they think about the preposterous amount of mold that's developed throughout the building, that they're breathing in on a constant basis. this is the same environmental problem which actively drove away otherwise-willing participants in the infoshop project - they literally could not breathe in the space.

when crust punks and anarchists refuse to use the bathroom at a place, a bathroom other people - including children - have to use every day, that should tell you something.

Good luck elsewhere, Infoshop - here's to hoping you will be a better neighbor instead of just turning a blind eye next time.

I volunteered at the crossroads infoshop and personally believe that the space was a huge determinet to the project. We'd do so much work to move forward, and it was the space that kept holding us back. DeFenis is correct, Reeves is a slumlord. Regardless of how cheap the rent was, it wasn't worth supporting someone that provided condemnable, hazaradous space with black mold. where does all the money go that we gave harry?

I also agree that some things could've been managed better, but that's just one aspect in why this project when bunk.

it's good that the infoshop is moving on and hopefully the new space will be in the hands of caring, resonable, motivated volunteers.

The story on Harry Reaves and the fluctuating volunteer staff of the Crossroads Infoshop is a mixed bag.

On the one hand, Reaves definitely deserves criticism for his lackluster efforts to contribute much of anything toward crucial capital improvements of his(?) dilapidated building. Furthermore, he refused to greet volunteers in a spirit of transparency, thereby making it even easier to view him as a shadowy figure.

On the other, Infoshop volunteer raises a relevant and pressing matter: it is necessary for collective projects to have their "act together" and to be "staffed by responsible volunteers with mature attitudes." However, this was and is a consistent failure of many radical projects -- the ability to impose a collective upon themselves and to treat their projects seriously. It was rarely clear to visitors and new volunteers how one could actually become a functioning part of the Infoshop collective, and amidst a volatile scene of younger people cutting their teeth on radical politics, it is certainly the responsibility of "elders" to pass along the wisdom and lessons of their experience. This did not happen, and, indeed, one of the key sticking points that sent a longer-term founding member away was insistence upon keeping the Infoshop a "radical bookstore". Many thought, not without reason, that it was a basic mistake to expect to sell many radical books at the corner of 31st and Troost. This isn't to be patronizing, but it accurately reflects the reality of the situation -- most local visitors weren't particularly interested in titles from AK Press (with whom the Infoshop had ran up a substantial debt, over time), much less to pay market price for them.

The poorly organized "collective" didn't properly develop a commonly-shared vision of the space which might have lent cooperative energy to fundraising and publicizing efforts.

But: several people may have learned important lessons through these mistakes, and hopefully didn't walk away bitterly. In any case -- without great TLC, financial backing, DIY creativity, and, dare I say, common ownership! -- the Creative Minds Arts Center is a sinking ship.

The story on Harry Reaves and the fluctuating volunteer staff of the Crossroads Infoshop is a mixed bag.

On the one hand, Reaves definitely deserves criticism for his lackluster efforts to contribute much of anything toward crucial capital improvements of his(?) dilapidated building. Furthermore, he refused to greet volunteers in a spirit of transparency, thereby making it even easier to view him as a shadowy figure.

On the other, Infoshop volunteer raises a relevant and pressing matter: it is necessary for collective projects to have their "act together" and to be "staffed by responsible volunteers with mature attitudes." However, this was and is a consistent failure of many radical projects -- the ability to impose a collective upon themselves and to treat their projects seriously. It was rarely clear to visitors and new volunteers how one could actually become a functioning part of the Infoshop collective, and amidst a volatile scene of younger people cutting their teeth on radical politics, it is certainly the responsibility of "elders" to pass along the wisdom and lessons of their experience. This did not happen, and, indeed, one of the key sticking points that sent a longer-term founding member away was insistence upon keeping the Infoshop a "radical bookstore". Many thought, not without reason, that it was a basic mistake to expect to sell many radical books at the corner of 31st and Troost. This isn't to be patronizing, but it accurately reflects the reality of the situation -- most local visitors weren't particularly interested in titles from AK Press (with whom the Infoshop had ran up a substantial debt, over time), much less to pay market price for them.

The poorly organized "collective" didn't properly develop a commonly-shared vision of the space which might have lent cooperative energy to fundraising and publicizing efforts.

But: several people may have learned important lessons through these mistakes, and hopefully didn't walk away bitterly. In any case -- without great TLC, financial backing, DIY creativity, and, dare I say, common ownership! -- the Creative Minds Arts Center is a sinking ship.

I think that many of the criticism expressed here about Reaves are full of merit, but they also lack the context of what has been happening in the building for the past 4 years. I was certainly disappointed that Harry couldn't put a minimum of effort into improving the building or keeping it habitable. I think that certain critics don't understand that the little money Harry got from projects like the infoshop mostly went to pay for taxes and the mortgage on the building. Harry was not, and is not, a "slumlord." At the same time, he couldn't even keep certain areas of the building habitable. He could have paid somebody to clean the building every week, for example.

Some critics here also miss the context of what's happened in the building for the past 4+ years. Harry gave several projects free reign to use the space. You just aren't going to find many landlords like that, especially at such cheap overhead. Various projects, such as the CMAC and the infoshop put serious work into improving the space. The mold problem didn't really become a problem until a year or so ago.

I agree that Reaves should be criticized, but then the building could have become a thriving space if things like grants had come through. At this point, the days of that building are numbered.

The "long time member" didn't leave because people wanted to change the project into a library. That person left for various reasons, but that wasn't one of them. But that volunteer understood that people who wanted to continue the project didn't necessarily want to run a bookstore. That person criticized the decision to become a library because book sales were paying the rent. Running just a library would require an active program to find monthly donors, which shouldn't have been that hard to do. Despite a big revival of the project last year, the finances suffered because there wasn't any collective responsibility about finances. This was compounded by a juvenile attitude about the "rent being too high" and the feeling that an infoshop could be sustained by a dumpster-diving ethos.

The idea that people wouldn't buy books at the 3019 Troost location reflects an ignorance about bookselling and the history of the Crossroads Infoshop. The Crossroads Infoshop sold lots of new books during its first year of operation, enough to pay a much higher rent. These books were sold to people who deliberately drove to the first location--there was no foot traffic at that first location in the Crossroads. Sales of new books declined at the most recent space for two basic reasons: 1) lack of capitalization to procure new inventory, which is essential to any retail operation, including any radical bookstore; and 2) lack of funds to do local advertising and marketing. Even when the infoshop was located in a leaky room elsewhere in the CMAC building, people found it and were buying books. The decline in booksales had *nothing* to do with the cover price of AK titles, rather the lack of new inventory.

You also raise some valid points, Infoshop Volunteer, about Harry and possible sources of financial neglect/irresponsibility.

Nonetheless, you beg an important question: what is responsible these two related financial problems -- 1) the "lack of capitalization to procure new inventory" and 2) the "lack of funds to do local advertising and marketing" that seems to have happened before the "dumpster-diving ethos" took over?

Also, the Infoshop began to decline as a show venue, thereby losing another important source of revenue -- another matter pertinent to the problem of collectivization that I mentioned earlier. To me it seems that our interpersonal immaturities prevented establishing both a common purpose/rough sense of shared goals and, hence, a durable structure for decision-making and cooperation.

The question of who is responsible for the bookstore's stagnation isn't really that relevant. I was pointing out why the bookstore stagnated, which is based on fundamental reasons most radical and independent bookstores face. Now if the bookstore at some point could have gotten a loan from a bank or individuals, or raised money, or gotten money from one of the volunteers, the bookstore could have procured more inventory which would have made the bookstore more sustainable. While it was great that new volunteers helped renovate and open the storefront space 3 years ago, that was not accompanied by any significant capitalization for the bookstore side of the operation. I'm just explaining why it's silly to argue that the location or the "high price" of books had anything to do with the bookstore's stagnation.

I think that your missing my underlying claim: it is not a question of the particular individual responsible but the ongoing failure of those involved to establish a durable, motivating collective form for the project.

This lesson is relevant, and I hope that we all take it seriously from the outset of future common projects and endeavors.