It should be noted that the NY library system (NYPL, QPL, BPL) are some of the most well funded libraries in the world, and they still have issues like this. Smaller libraries have no chance.

What if the budget is cut so harshly that there is no budget for someone who might potentially notice the problem (and fix it before it is exploited, or make the “we have to stop” decision) at all? The problem becomes undetectable until exploited, so you can't proactively shut things down.

Your assumption that enough people would change their vote (or non-vote if they didn't turn out previously) based on this to make a difference, I think is unlikely to be correct. People complain a lot about public services when they don't work well, but seldom consider (or do but seldom prioritise them) them at the ballot box.

And they would risk being completely shut down, I assume. Is that a better option? I'm not even talking about the livelihood of the librarians, but about the loss of the public service.

Winging it and making do with what you can is still probably a great deal for the public. Assuming that something shouldn't be done if it can't be done very well is an interesting position to take.

Was it really so bad the last time you visited a Queens Public Library?

Typical developer response: if you can’t do X 100% properly you shouldn’t be doing it.

Sure, let’s close down all libraries and all public services for that matter. Let the public feel the pain. They will understand and vote better next time, right?

You think it is lack of information that got people to vote for this nonsense?

That's the yardstick we use for corporations who put profit before safety, and you want use it with government services. Good luck with that.