Since Cindy's story on Friday I've been wondering when we might see a Courier editorial on the City talking about charging for customarily 'free' public services like the library and public parks and trails. They're not free, of course. Our taxes pay for them. Now the City, or at least certain Council members, would charge us again to use them.
The free public library in particular is an American tradition that speaks loudly of our commitment to open government, education, free thought and responsible citizenship. I would think a newspaper editor, of all people, would understand the implications of making access to public information more difficult based on economic class, and say something about it. Something loud.
I don't always agree with Courierwatch but this post is right on the money. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteMarie S
I hope your enjoying being so in touch with the rest of Prescott, Stephen. Count the number of comments the story got in dcourier; I think it's approaching 200. Kind of a record. Certainly seems most citizens don't care for the idea of "double dip" taxation.
ReplyDeleteYou lolligag for a week and come back only when you think you have something to bitch about. How about when the Courier does good? A cookie here and there does not feed - didnt anyone ever tell you that people need positive reinforcement too?
ReplyDeleteYup, we were talking about the comment rate this morning, and it continues.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for you, O anonymous creeper-in-the-dark (Courier employee in need of stroking?), perhaps if you read the blog more often you'd have found what you're looking for. Perhaps not in the quantity you need, but that can't be helped.
This article was an eye-opener for me (a new-comer to town).... So the library is a "luxury," eh? Even the old "swamp Yankees" in the small CT town I lived in for many years had a higher regard for the public library.
ReplyDeleteSo today, two days later, the Courier runs the most "oh God, I hate to say it but you're probably right, readers" editorial I've read in a while. They cite every reason why they can think of that its actually a good idea, then, mention in passing near the end of the editorial the reason why its a bad idea and then make an almost comic wagging of their finger at the City Council at the end. What will they do if the City Council forces this issue? Cite all the reasons its an even better idea now and then note that their readers still don't like it? Puhleeeze.
ReplyDelete