ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Library should cut budget

| Monday, Nov. 6, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

The Greensburg Hempfield Area Library website states that the library does not receive enough money from the state, county and local municipalities to meet its yearly budget. The library does not stand alone with this problem. Surely those entities would love to contribute more but their budgets can't handle it. So what makes the library board think the property owners can?

The estimated cost to property owners is not accurate. The bigger picture is left unmentioned. It may be true that taxes will increase about $30 on a property assessed at $30,000. But those same property owners have already had their school taxes raised this year by 2.47 mills. Many people struggle to feed, clothe, educate and provide growing experiences for their families, and to these people it makes a difference.

The website also states that the Pennsylvania statute that authorizes using Pennsylvania tax dollars for public libraries contains a specific prohibition against charging for “routine” library services. How is it then that the Uniontown Public Library charges a library card fee of $20 for six months or $35 a year for people who live in the area but not within the city limits?

The pieces of the puzzle are complex, but should property owners be solely responsible for the solution? Every organization needs to make budget cuts to survive.

Louella F. Free


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me