The PG's Bob Hoover suggests that Pittsburgh's Carnegie Library system is in worse shape than other urban libraries and consequently branch closures here appear inevitable ("Carnegie Library Cuts Long Overdue," Nov. 1). Why is the Pittsburgh system in such relatively dire straits?
The shrinking population of Pittsburgh is one reason postulated by Mr. Hoover. But Cleveland has shrunk about as much and the average number of patrons served per library branch is similar in both cities (15,500 in Cleveland and 16,300 in Pittsburgh). Yet, as Mr. Hoover noted, Cleveland, like other urban areas he investigated, is not closing branches.
Differences in local tax support offer a better explanation. Cleveland residents pay a special property tax to support its library system ($27.9 million in 2008). The Pittsburgh library receives its local tax support almost exclusively from the Allegheny County Regional Asset District 1 percent sales tax ($17.6 million in 2009).
On first glance, these local tax burdens seem comparable. However, Pittsburgh residents only pay an estimated 20 percent of the total countywide RAD sales taxes. Consequently, only about $3.5 million of the RAD money allocated to the Pittsburgh library system was generated by Pittsburghers. That's just $1 in local taxes collected from Pittsburgh residents to support its library for every $8 collected in Cleveland.
For whatever reason, Pittsburgh seems to undervalue its magnificent Carnegie Library system. Without a change in tax priorities, Pittsburgh may earn another No. 1 ranking -- the first to close neighborhood libraries for lack of money. Call it the "Pittsburgh Un-Promise" initiative.
THOMAS AUBLE
Regent Square
Posted
Nov 05 2009, 09:49 AM
by
Susan Mannella