Cuts to Princeton Public Library threaten a critical community resource

Town leaders should protect access, funding, and services for all residents.

To the Editor,

While following the public sector’s reaction to a 36.5% increase in health care costs, I have become increasingly concerned with the municipality’s public interactions with the Princeton Public Library.

In response to this unprecedented rate hike, the library submitted a budget reducing hours and eliminating services.

While I disagreed with the decision to curtail Sunday hours, something the community asked be expanded, I thought the library went over and above in doing its part.

It was around this time I noticed that what used to be referred to as the “municipal portion” of our tax bills was now being called “the municipal and library portion.” I’m guessing the municipality saw the new language as explanatory, but it struck me as scapegoating, as if the library is a drain on the budget when the exact opposite is true: for taxpayers, the library has always been the greatest value.

Then came the library trustees meeting of April 15, at which the board was put on notice by the municipality’s finance committee that it would deny the library’s request for $149,000 in increased taxpayer support unless the board eliminated subsidized parking for library cardholders.

Putting aside the fact that the library neither owns nor operates Spring Street Garage, I now fear this latest dictate from the municipality is setting the library up for a “death by a thousand cuts” scenario.

As a longtime middle-class resident, now a retiree on a fixed income, further cuts would be bad for me and for others who rely on library services to lower their cost of living in a town and state where such costs are among the highest.

As for the parking question, I was around when the agreement on parking was reached by the former township and borough in the early 2000s. A promise was made that cardholders would get two hours of free parking in perpetuity. It was the deciding factor in keeping the library downtown.

Some believe the library’s siting decision enabled the separate mixed-use redevelopment project, sparking a revitalization of downtown at a time when economic growth was focused on Route 1.

In the past, when the library was asked to reduce or eliminate the parking subsidy, library usage went down, particularly among those least able to bear fee increases or walk miles to the building. Maybe that’s the goal here: to have fewer people use the library so funding can continue to be reduced.

I urge the board to take no action on the parking matter until the public has had a chance to weigh in. I certainly don’t think members of a volunteer board should set themselves up to be the villains in breaking a promise made by elected officials.

I see lawn signs throughout town proclaiming “Princeton For All,” something I think everyone supports. That said, I don’t know how cutting the one institution that serves everyone in our community, mostly for free, is consistent with achieving that goal.

Tim Quinn
Wilton Street

The author is the retired founding director of the Office of Marketing and Communications at Princeton Public Library.