A commenter on my earlier post suggests that running (say) Kensal Rise library with a team of volunteers would be cheaper than the way it is run at the moment. This is what Toby Young suggests, but I am by no means sure he is correct. The problems with the Kensal Rise Library proposal include:
1) It does not meet the criterion set out in the Council's November report, of removing the cost to the Council, in either the short of the long term.
2) By involving a team of volunteers and an ill defined third party organisation in the running of the library at the same time as keeping it part of the Council Library Service (in some sense), it may well make the management of Kensal Rise Library more difficult and time consuming, not less.
3) The proposal makes highly dubious assumptions about fund raising, income and expenditure. It looks as if any failure to meet these targets would be expected to be met by the Council.
4) An adequate, perhaps better, level of library provision is available nearby at an equal or lesser cost.
1 comment:
James, why are you so opposed to allowing local residents to take over the running of Kensal Rise Library? Are you perhaps worried they will do so successfully and prove you wrong? As the building is not owned by Brent it would cost nothing for you to allow the residents to do so. Plus the London Mayor's office would back such an enterprise. There is a will in the community to do so, so why not allow local democracy to prevail?
Post a Comment