State of our libraries: Lending opinions
Once again our elected leadership is reactive and not proactive.
The revisited issue is whether revenue from property taxes should support our public libraries. North Apollo is the recent stage.
Twice voters there have supported using 0.75-mill of real estate tax revenue to support the library in Apollo. That borough has the same allocation of tax revenue.
But now North Apollo council members believe it would be better to use that money for something else (not eliminating the tax) and are considering another referendum, apparently thinking voters will be less supportive of the library come November.
There are several libraries in Armstrong County, all supported in various ways, including government funds and community fundraising efforts. The tacit debate is over their importance to the public.
In an age when someone aboard a bus can do studious research using a hand-held device, how vital is a library with books and computers?
Leaders at the state, county and municipal levels need to do a little research themselves, checking the numbers of library users (Apollo Library says its usage was up 16 percent between 2011 and 2012) and looking at how libraries operate not only as book repositories but also as community centers for all ages.
We suggest a countywide exploration of the value of libraries, a real concerted dialogue. As we say, that will require some leadership.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Box
- The hunting proposal: A rule too far
- Sunday pops
- State of Corruption: The McCord scandal
- Saturday essay: A new (& blue) feeder
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Catholic Education Week: School choice & more
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- The atom smasher
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes