Libraries

[bunn]

 Caught a section on the radio earlier today about the library closure protests. They were saying: use them or lose them. 

This is a call to action that works well for, say, local pubs or milkmen.  I don't think it should necessarily apply to libraries though. I live in a rural area, and am currently,  relatively time-poor and shelf-rich.  It makes sense for me to buy books rather than driving to a library during opening hours.   I am not a customer that particularly needs a library at present: in fact, using one would be something of a pain. 

However, I have certainly been shelf-poor and time-rich (or more conveniently located) in the past, and very likely will be again in future.  The fact that I am not using the library much *now* should not be interpreted as a vote to close the place!  

 I'm not using the local primary school, police station, hospital or prison either, but nobody thinks that means I never will.   Surely public services should be used primarily by those that need them, not by those that merely think that they should remain open...?

Comments

[bunn.livejournal.com]

Yes, I know that is how they are funded, and how the decisions are made - what I'm saying is that I think it's a bad way of doing it. Too mechanical.

I don't expect (or want) them to be static, but I would rather like them to be *there*, without me having to make a great point of trotting in and out carrying books that I don't need at the moment, just to make the numbers add up.