Our libraries charge $5 if you need a library card and you’ve had one in the past five years (replacement card) - waived for kids.
They charge for new books - its like $1 a day or something if you want to check out the latest bestseller. After a year, the book becomes free like other books. Bestsellers are tough for libraries - demand is very high and the cost is high to have even half enough books for everyone.
They charge for newer media rentals.
Non profits get room rentals for free - the Girl Scouts uses those rooms from time to time. They charge private groups.
None of these types of charges (except perhaps the replacement card fee), impact the “core mission” of the libraries. And some of the (the new release charge) are real funding boons.
Personally, I don’t like posts with lots of links. I don’t click on them. I’m just lazy that way, so I didn’t put a lot of links in my original post. However, some posters are questioning the info because it came from a letter to the editor, so here are more:
I’m not able to search the 2011 archives of the Prescott Daily Courier. Maybe someone with better googlefoo than me can do it?
I shouldn’t have posted my tongue-in-cheek part about the library not notifying people by email about soon to be due material. That’s a joke between my boss and myself. After she ran up that huge fine, she thinks that I should disable the notifications myself because between the 2 of us, we could pay for another meeting room in about a year. Again, a joke. It would probably take about 5 years.
Back when this debate first started, the library fees weren’t going to go to the library at all. I think they were going to pay for transporting prisoners from the jail 60 miles away to the courthouse.
I do thank everyone for their input. I am going to use many of your points when I go to the next council meeting.
There are libraries around here that charge fees - for non-residents. The Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, a network of ten major libraries, charges $100 a year to non-Quebecois.
I didn’t read the rest of your links, but this first one isn’t even a proposal. It’s a politician thinking out loud. It has as much chance of becoming a part of the budget as a “free hookers for schoolchildren” program does.
I want citations. Because those people would be assholes. It would mean that some members of the public get to use the library, but others don’t. It IS preferable for no one to have access to services than for only people who aren’t poor to have access.
I can believe it happens–politicians are known to not care about poor people–I’m talking about it being something people voted on.
I’m assuming you haven’t actually read a public library charter in… well ever. And you shouldn’t, because they’re boring as shit. But none of them get into the kind of specifics you and flatlined are asking for.
Library cards are free. Borrowing books is usually free. Nothing else has to be. And sometimes that’s what is required to keep that service running.
Copy costs. Hold fees. Meeting room rental. This stuff helps. Because without it, fewer books can be purchased or fewer librarians will be around to help you with your job search. Because that shit is expensive.
Unless they are charging a fee to sit in the library and read a book ( a fee I’ve never heard of ), poor people can still use the library. They might not be able to request that popular book if there is fee for requests, or use a meeting room if that requires a fee. They might not be able to get a library card if there is a fee, although they probably could - I’ve only seen substantial fees for people who neither live nor own property in the county, town, school district , etc.
I don’t understand how some libraries can charge hold fees. For a lot of books (not just new releases) the only way to ever get it is to get on the waiting list for it.
Well that would be fun. Get into the middle of a book and then go back the next day to read some more and it’s gone.
Here’s a point for debate. People who don’t use the library don’t think their taxes should support the library. I have no children, yet the majority of my taxes go to the public schools. Since I have no children, I shouldn’t have to pay for schools.
I have no problem with charging fees to non-residents since none of their tax money funds the public library. OTOH, people who live in apartments don’t pay real estate taxes so therefore don’t fund the library so maybe they should pay a fee.
Obviously there is no simple solution except to keep public libraries free.
Yes, they do pay real estate taxes albeit indirectly. Part of their rent goes to pay taxes on the building. Thus, renters do (indirectly) contribute to libraries, school districts, and all those other things they’re frequently accused of not contributing to. As rental buildings are commonly taxed at a higher rate than single family dwelling (in my area, real estate taxes on rental properties are twice what they are on single family homes or condos), arguably they’re contributing more.
I don’t have a problem with a nominal fee for reserving a meeting room, for instance. But I wouldn’t like it if my local library started charging residents for a library card.
Gas for the trucks - expensive
Maintenance for the trucks - expensive
Salary for the truck driver - expensive
Salary for the delivery sorters - expensive
Libraries may be a service that has outgrown it’s usefulness (in it’s current form)
I’ve been in several around my area and they get used very very infrequently. I’ve heard other posters comment the same. If they aren’t getting used like they should be used, mayhap the money invested in building and keeping the library open could be better spent elsewhere?
Now, don’t go asking me where. Maybe opening up ‘internet’ shops or some other such place that allows books to be read online, job searches to be had or even getting that fix if Farmville.
Where do you live? The libraries in my area are jammed all the time. The main library has a huge parking lot, but you can hardly find a space on Saturday.
There have been a few articles recently on how the educated and well to do are widening the gap in education with the uneducated and less well to do - more time with the kids, more books, more enrichment. The public library is the one place where all are equal. You still can get books even if you can’t afford to buy them, and that has been the case for decades. When my mother was growing up, during the Depression, she got one new book a year for her birthday, but she got to read as much as she wanted. The last thing this country needs is to make it harder for smart kids without much money to educate themselves.
But doesn’t it depend at all on how much the charge is? I’m looking to buy a house in another area, and one of the things I’m looking at is the local libraries. One of them (I don’t remember which) had a fee of a dollar or two for a library card. Not per year - a one time fee.
Yeah but it’s not nearly as expensive as the buildings themselves. If they’re going to let people borrow any books for free, then I think it only makes sense to include books put on hold. How much do libraries charge for it anyway?
That hasn’t been my experience at all, unless you’re also talking about requesting a book from another branch.
Speaking of hold fees reminded me that some fees aren't moneymakers for the library. The $2 my library charges for a replacement card gives them little profit (if any) after the cost of reisssuing it . The last time my system charged a fee for requests was before the Internet, when I had to look up all the information (including which branch had a copy) , put it on a request slip, and complete a postcard addressed to me. The fee was the price of the stamp
You mean it hasn’t been your experience that you can only get a lot of books by going on the waiting list, or that some libraries charge for it? If you mean the latter, it hasn’t been my experience either, I never considered that they might do that anywhere before today.