SHUTESBURY - I have been a resident of Shutesbury for approximately 20 years. My son is now at college and my husband and I live in a very rural location - connectivity with others in town has been based on connections through the school system - as children leave the household, the attraction to remain in a rural town decreases as social interaction declines.

Just as the Baby Boomer generation increased the population in Shutesbury starting in the 1970s, the increasing number of "empty nesters" represents the demographic which is starting to leave the town in search of a community lifestyle.

I am a strong supporter of the proposed new library for three main reasons:

• A total of 25 towns are on the waiting list for the library grant monies which the town was awarded (a competitive award since only eight of 33 towns received state funding). If the town does not vote affirmatively for the library on Tuesday we will incur an opportunity cost of $2.1 million. Since much of the debate regarding the new library has centered on costs, this is a cost which I am unwilling to concede.

• I also am involved in a new business venture at the Montague Bookmill - a new artisans' collaborative entitled Sawmill River Arts. Throughout the year, have witnessed residents of area towns gather in this area to browse a bookstore, gain Internet access and chat at a local café. People ride their bikes from a distance to sit at a table and translate being alone to being with others and feeling a part of a collective. It has been suggested in other editorials that Shutesbury residents simply go to Wendell, Leverett or Montague for social interaction. It is the absence of that opportunity which makes the library very important as a gathering center rather than driving six to 10 miles to another community - two of which have built new public libraries during the past decade.

• Given the concern over the library's cost, it is worthwhile to consider the economic value which a public library provides - a subject of numerous studies.

The objective of one study has been to "take a market value approach to determine economic value ... where value is measured in terms of what it would cost users to buy the same services in an open marketplace."

Although a thorough study of all Wisconsin libraries indicates a 4:1 return on the economic values derived vs. the cost of building and staffing (my sources is "The Economic Contribution of Wisconsin Public Libraries to the Economy of Wisconsin," Northstar Economics, May 1, 2008), this may not be the case in Shutesbury.

However, it is ill-advised to discuss only the economic cost of a library - and neglect the economic value of its services. I continue to marvel at the services and activities for all ages and interests which are provided by the Shutesbury library - an extensive summer reading program; monthly family movie nights; free arts and crafts classes; lectures on subjects ranging from composting to the history of the Quabbin; in addition to the array of books; Internet service; DVDs and audiotapes.

Consider the cost for a family of four to attend a children's film at a current cinema and compare that with the $1 per person donation requested by the library to continue its offerings. It would behoove many of us to translate the cost of renting four movies for an entire week or the cost of a new audiotape.

At the Town Meeting in October, at which the override was voted in by a two-thirds margin, I spoke of envisioning a future library where programs and services are both intergenerational and cross-programmatic. Join me in making that a reality by voting yes on Tuesday.

Susan Essig lives in Shutesbury.