(This all may be temporarily moot given the court decision from a couple hours ago but it’s worth discussing anyway.)

I realize that title assumes that privatization is considered to be bad and goes from that position to trying to figure out if it can be good.  That concedes a little to the framing of this issue in which public goods - like libraries and parks - and services - trash collection - are better left to public employees.  It’s a framing that is evident in the reaction of many in the local progressive blogosphere to Mayor Nutter’s announcement of private funding for at least 5 of the 11 libraries that were scheduled to be closed.

It also assumes that all of the good things cited by the Mayor when he spoke of the private funding:

But Nutter expressed confidence that in time private operators could convert each of the branches now on his budget chopping block into community “knowledge centers” that would offer similar or perhaps even superior services to those now available. Though the services would vary from branch to branch, Nutter said the centers would likely retain book collections, computers, and perhaps even trained librarians.

will never come to pass under private operators.

The AP report on the halt to the closures has reaction to privatization from a library association representative:

American Library Association president Jim Rettig said libraries work best as publicly funded entities with trained staff. “It makes as much sense to privatize your libraries as it does to privatize your police force,” Rettig said.

But local advocates seem to see this idea for what it is - better than closing the libraries entirely:

“It’s a way to keep library doors open,” said Amy Dougherty, executive director of the Friends of the Free Library.

“Basically what he’s talking about is privately run libraries of some sort. While we certainly would prefer to keep it publicly run, this seems to be a third way, and it’s better than closing them.”

At YPP, the argument seems to be based more on general resistance to privatization:

Because privatizing essential government services has worked so well when we tried it in running the Iraq war, or closer to home, the school district.

And because in this economic climate CDCs, foundations, and wealthy individuals are swimming in so much more money than is the city (those high-rolling CDCs!). So we are going to hand off running these facilities to a collection of totally decentralized and unaccountable people, with no particular expertise in running libraries? We are so totally down the rabbit hole.

Some YPP commenters are chiming in and calling privatized libraries bookstores and equating privatizing to destroying.

For library advocates, the choice seems to be between privatizing the libraries and continuing to run them as is.  Closure is a total non-starter.  For folks who are less invested in the fate of these branches or the library system in general, the choice is between 5 (of 11) closed buildings and private funding.  This makes setting up a debate between two positions very difficult.

This all brings me back to my original question.  If a library, funded by a foundation or some other private organization, hires certified librarians, provides security and background checks for staff, keeps the shelves stocked, the computers working and programs running, what’s the difference?  At the very least, if the private organizations running the libraries are transparent with their costs, we may actually find out what it costs - from soup to nuts - to run one of these things, giving us a better idea in the future should the city be faced with the prospect of closing more libraries.

Where is the danger aside from the fact that those running the library would not be accountable at the ballot box and could therefore choose to close the library at any time?  Such political accountability hasn’t done these 11 libraries much good so far.  (We’ll see how this plays out now that the court has gotten City Council more involved.)

Also, are comparisons to privatizing the war making and policing powers of the state appropriate for libraries?   Your thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Revisit the Public-Private partnership story by checking out Susan Phillip’s recent piece about how private operations of libraries has worked out in Oregon and how non-profit operation of a public golf course has worked out here in Philly.