Library Week 2006 begins tomorrow, a week dedicated to celebrating what fantastic places libraries are and the incredible world libraries can connect you to, according to Newsroom.
Should ratepayers pay for libraries? I am exercised by this question. If they were straight book-lending libraries I would tend towards saying they should. Education is that important and the last thing I would like to see is people's access to books limited.
But now libraries are into dvds, videos, internet, computer games, playstation/x-box games I feel less sure. Sure one could argue that the bulk of these items are rented so that's user pays, and perhaps it would be a good thing if these products and services were to subsidise the books.
But the libraries are now competing directly with the private sector. In some cases they are charging more than the private sector even though customers have the impression they are paying less. Yet they are making a dent in the profitability of the private business man while taking his rate money to pay for their running expenses - staff, power, etc.
What is the answer?
Himmler’s Pistols
26 minutes ago
4 comments:
I am in agreement here - Libraries are one area that I do not mind some of my money being redistributed to; but the funding of games through these institutions is not something I support.
In a way it would seem to reflect that some Libraries may be being overfunded - this type of diversification away from a businesses core lines normally indicates surplus cash flows...
Most schools have libraries, as do universities. I really cannot comprehend why every ward has to have their own ratepayer-funded library when there are plenty of alternatives available.
Brian, don't hire them there. Blockbuster is cheaper. I expect they do pay for themselves and suggested that they might even subsidise books but should the library be competing with commercial enterprises?
Have you seen the people in the Lower Hutt Library? Not many of them look like they couldn't afford to buy the odd book.
Post a Comment