[fjtorres]

Remember, these are *local* facilities so they are subject to local conditions. Suburban libraries serve a very different customer base than inner city libraries.

In theory libraries are a great educational resource for the poor.
In theory.
The reality on the ground in most areas--how libraries operate, how libraries are used--bears little resemblance to the theoretical model of "bringing educational and literacy tools to the poor".

In many (most?) areas--particularly my old neighborhood--the bulk of the users are middle class with a few working class users. Age? Adults and seniors. Poor kids? Nope.

The way it works is the middle class pays for the libraries and since they're "already paying for it" they consume as much of those services as they can. And the facility gets caught between serving their actual users and their theoretical mission. So they end up investing in entertainment and pop culture--which gets used--at the expense of their theoretical mission, which isn't.

As a rule, the people that most need library services are the ones who least value literacy and libraries. That much is true across locations. And that is where the pushback comes from in tough times. The poor don't use them, the taxpayers see them as convenience services: both would rather see the money go elsewhere.

Not saying it is right or wrong, just that that is how it is.
These are local debates, best understood by the people on the ground.
Don't assume their libraries resemble yours.