It depends who you ask. The Postal Service's "universal service obligation" mandates uniform pricing, equal access to services, and frequent delivery of mail to all areas of the US. Closures may compromise that mission and violate a federal stricture that forbids the closing of post offices solely for economic reasons. USPS officials argue that the proposed closures are not solely for that reason, but also because the post offices are underutilized and clients can be served by nearby offices and branches.
"A case can be made that the Postal Service's greatest strength is its ubiquity, and the fact that people identify with it even in the smallest communities in America," said Ruth Goldway, in an earlier Monitor article about the closures. If "you reduce its visibility and ubiquity, you reduce its power and its ability to rebound from the economy. It's a risk," added Ms. Goldway, chairwoman of the Postal Regulatory Commission, an independent agency that oversees and advises the Postal Service.
But many say it's a necessary risk to keep the organization relevant – and solvent.
"We believe it's something that absolutely has to be done with the decrease in mail volume and decrease in use of mail," says Gene Del Polito, president of the Association for Postal Commerce in Washington. "It's just a change much in the same way that other businesses have to evolve and change. It should have been undertaken years ago."
Changed times, says Mr. Del Polito, call for a changed Postal Service.
