I read an article in the Sac Bee about the library in Santa Clarita becoming privatized. At first I didn't quite understand the concept of privatizing something. But the general jist of it is, to make a profit.
A few folks in class spoke about different structures in a community are privatized, for example: roads, bridges and what not. Some people said it was good to privatize libraries and others said it wasn't ethically correct.
In my opinion, I don't see a huge difference in privatizing a library than not privatizing one. As it is libraries already charge late fees and fees to use the computers. One person in class said the fees might go up if it were to be privatized. If this is true, then perhaps by doing this, all libraries can have new and improved technology centers, better and newer books and even a better facility.
The library in my hometown, Sunnyvale, Calif., is a little run down and out of style. A few blocks down from the library is Downtown Sunnyvale. The one block downtown area has just been re-vamped and has an upscale look; with the two story Target and massive parking lot being the focal point. Ritzy and modern housing is being built in the opposite direction of Downtown. The library is just a reminder of the old Sunnyvale.
Maybe if my hometown library was privatized, it would have a lot more community members checking out books there, or more children taking an active role in bettering their education. It would be as live and happening as the Downtown area just a block away.
Now, Sunnyvale, Calif. is a middle to upper class town, and so is Santa Clarita; the focus of The New York Times article. Are the corporations privatizing the libraries targeting middle class areas or are urban areas also going to be affected by this?
I think it would be an interesting turn if corporations went into the slums of America and fixed the libraries and other infrastructures to better the community. Now that would be a good thing to do!
Such communities in Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Detroit, etc...These big cities have plenty of corporations that make easily billions of dollars a year. I'm sure they write a check once a year as a tax write off to different organizations that help the underrepresented. If they would actually go into the communities that they want to help, this would put a face to their good doing, and maybe it would have a better impact.
I can envision the members of the community, being proud to have such a nice and technological savvy library in their neighborhoods. I can envision single mothers and fathers taking their children to the library after work to help their children with their homework. Or even, children using the library as a safe haven from the criminal activity in the area.
Maybe corporations should focus on those types of neighborhoods instead of middle to upper class areas that already seem to have full functioning library, that seems to fulfill its purpose.
Now, Sunnyvale, Calif. is a middle to upper class town, and so is Santa Clarita; the focus of The New York Times article. Are the corporations privatizing the libraries targeting middle class areas or are urban areas also going to be affected by this?
I think it would be an interesting turn if corporations went into the slums of America and fixed the libraries and other infrastructures to better the community. Now that would be a good thing to do!
Such communities in Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Detroit, etc...These big cities have plenty of corporations that make easily billions of dollars a year. I'm sure they write a check once a year as a tax write off to different organizations that help the underrepresented. If they would actually go into the communities that they want to help, this would put a face to their good doing, and maybe it would have a better impact.
I can envision the members of the community, being proud to have such a nice and technological savvy library in their neighborhoods. I can envision single mothers and fathers taking their children to the library after work to help their children with their homework. Or even, children using the library as a safe haven from the criminal activity in the area.
Maybe corporations should focus on those types of neighborhoods instead of middle to upper class areas that already seem to have full functioning library, that seems to fulfill its purpose.
This column makes some great points on the pros of privatization. (But "Tut Your Butt Off" is still my favorite...)
ReplyDeleteThe column makes some good points, but in arguing in favor of privatizing what is now public, it's important to address the possible negative effects?
ReplyDeleteNegative effects?
Well, for example, having the current library fines for overdue books is one thing, another if a now-privately owned library charged $5 per day.
Perhaps the new owners could also require - as a part of being a member of the library - high initiation fees and an agreement to let the library take money directly from a checking account on a monthly basis.
The point? Well, there are lots of issues here. The columnist did hit one side squarely.