Library Users, Would You Pay a Fee?

[bicker]

Ah, I get it now ... you don't think public libraries should be tax-supported government agencies; you think that they should be commercial enterprises like video stores.

You're not paying attention. First, I said very very clearly that public libraries should be tax-supported government agencies (for essential services). Second, I said that there was a federal law, which I myself benefited from, that prohibited government agencies from competing with commercial enterprises.

If you don't want to read what you're replying to, then please just don't reply to it. If you are going to argue with what I write, then please just argue with what I actually write, not something easier to argue against. That's just lazy and overtly antagonistic.

 

[bookgirl]

The point is to keep the budget so that it is not adversely inflated by non-essential services. I am very sure I made that point earlier in the thread.

By reducing tax burden.

Okay, here's my two cents on appropriate collection for public libraries.

Well, since the public libraries were originally started under the auspices of providing reading material and poplular media to the general public (services that were not being met by academic, religious and research libraries) the whole budget should be spent on what you deem non-essential items, and no money spent on research which is served by the academic and research libraries.

What's more, the government competion theory won't work because most "research" books are published by private companies and sold to schools and the public directly. So if a library couldn't have books/videos/games, etc because of compition from the government to a private company, then libraries could also not have any non-fiction/reference/research books, databases or video for the same reason.

All libraries are covered under fair use act. As long as we are non-profit (all libraries lose more money than they will ever make by small fees/fines or charges for services) and we make items available for any patron that meets lending guidelines, we can have any media or material in our collection. We do have to buy licensing agreements for some materials and some we just buy outright from publishers or subscribe to directly. But they are all justified purchases.


Public libraries are made of a blend of research and recreational service and materials, and funded both by taxes and by any fees for materials and services they offer and every library must have a selection policy that states what thier mission is and how all money will be used to serve the general public wants and needs. No matter what thier wants and needs. Some public libraries have more fiction and games and videos because that is what thier service area requests. Some have more non fiction and databases because that is what they request.


Sometimes I wish I could take the Greg House approach to debate. LOL It'd be a lot less of a problem then having to type stuff out. Getting off my soap box and going back to the stacks now.

 

[dancin'girl]

Yes - and I do. My town's library is very small and limited, so I prefer to go to a different one and I pay $55 per year. This is worth it for my family because we take out materials every week and my kids attend the story times. By using the library, I don't rent movies or purchase books any more and this is a big $$ saver for us.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Okay, here's my two cents on appropriate collection for public libraries.

Well, since the public libraries were originally started under the auspices of providing reading material and poplular media to the general public (services that were not being met by academic, religious and research libraries) the whole budget should be spent on what you deem non-essential items, and no money spent on research which is served by the academic and research libraries.

What's more, the government competion theory won't work because most "research" books are published by private companies and sold to schools and the public directly. So if a library couldn't have books/videos/games, etc because of compition from the government to a private company, then libraries could also not have any non-fiction/reference/research books, databases or video for the same reason.

All libraries are covered under fair use act. As long as we are non-profit (all libraries lose more money than they will ever make by small fees/fines or charges for services) and we make items available for any patron that meets lending guidelines, we can have any media or material in our collection. We do have to buy licensing agreements for some materials and some we just buy outright from publishers or subscribe to directly. But they are all justified purchases.


Public libraries are made of a blend of research and recreational service and materials, and funded both by taxes and by any fees for materials and services they offer and every library must have a selection policy that states what thier mission is and how all money will be used to serve the general public wants and needs. No matter what thier wants and needs. Some public libraries have more fiction and games and videos because that is what thier service area requests. Some have more non fiction and databases because that is what they request.


Sometimes I wish I could take the Greg House approach to debate. LOL It'd be a lot less of a problem then having to type stuff out. Getting off my soap box and going back to the stacks now.

My family and I thoroughly enjoy our library and all it has to offer. I just want to thank all of the librarians (and future librarians) on this thread. You provide a valuable service to the community!

I'm actually thinking about volunteering at our library in the Fall!

 

[bicker]

Well, since the public libraries were originally started under the auspices of ...

The first public library deliberately established as a public library was the Boston Public Library, which opened in 1854, with a statement of purpose that focused on knowledge and education -- not "providing reading material" of a non-definitive nature, i.e., nothing recreational. [Source: Straight Dope.]

However, who cares about what public libraries were originally supposed to do? That was a century and a half ago. It's an irrelevancy. Every day we get to decide what public libraries should be doing tomorrow.

What's more, the government competion theory won't work because most "research" books are published by private companies and sold to schools and the public directly. So if a library couldn't have books/videos/games, etc because of compition from the government to a private company, then libraries could also not have any non-fiction/reference/research books, databases or video for the same reason.

I don't think you understood what I wrote. I was outlining the federal law that would prohibit public libraries from competing with bookstores, video rental places, etc., i.e., charging a fee for renting non-essentials. Again, this was a federal law in the 1980s ... maybe it changed, but more likely it simply doesn't apply -- until libraries start charging for renting DVDs.

All libraries are covered under fair use act. As long as we are non-profit (all libraries lose more money than they will ever make by small fees/fines or charges for services) and we make items available for any patron that meets lending guidelines, we can have any media or material in our collection. We do have to buy licensing agreements for some materials and some we just buy outright from publishers or subscribe to directly. But they are all justified purchases.

What's your point? None of that seems to contradict anything in the message you replied to.

Public libraries are made of a blend of research and recreational service and materials

However, that's not necessary, and can change, and folks already concerned about how large their tax burden is now may wish to support the contention that libraries no longer need to provide recreational service and materials on the public's dime.

 

[sunnydoozer]

The point is to keep the budget so that it is not adversely inflated by non-essential services. I am very sure I made that point earlier in the thread.

By reducing tax burden.

Libraries provide for more than just simple research, they provide for the cultural needs of the local citizens. Just as the Symphony doesn't always play Bach, and Shakespeare wrote both comedy and tragedy, libraries carry more than just reference materials.

A large print Readers Digest surely wouldn't meet your stringent guidelines, but they are some of the most important pieces in our library. They get the seniors from the dedicated housing down the street to make a short walk up to the library, and often to participate in the local programs. The end result is they are active, physically, mentally and socially.

If you think libraries can only provide benefit with reference materials, you are indeed missing the point.

 

[bicker]

I never said that a large print Readers Digest wouldn't meet my "stringent guidelines". You said that. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not outlining "stringent guidelines." I used the term: "non-essential". There is no logic or legitimacy in you deciding for me what it means. I surely never said that "essential" would be only "reference materials". So as your message went on, you went further and further and further from what you were replying to, essentially putting more and more words into my mouth to make your intention of arguing against what I wrote easier and easier.

I used the term I used deliberately, since it is collectively that we'll determine what the guidelines between essential and non-essential are.

So in short: Stop arguing with me against things I haven't written.

One thing I did say was that the J. D. Robb novels I love wouldn't qualify as "essential". They'd be among the things to go. I also did allude to some (though not all) DVD movies probably ending up in the "non-essential" pile. So if you really feel like you simply must argue against my point, then please restrict your defense to J. D. Robb novels and, let's say, Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel, on DVD.

 

[freckles and boo]

However, that's not necessary, and can change, and folks already concerned about how large their tax burden is now may wish to support the contention that libraries no longer need to provide recreational service and materials on the public's dime.

You would have a field day picking apart my local library. It is part of a much larger system but the library that is three blocks from my house is a gem. We have a very large children's section (about 25% of the library is the children's collection) and very active children's programming. There are Storytimes for different age groups from babies on up, crafts, book clubs, summer reading programs, etc. Our library functions almost as a second community center. It offers cooking classes, yoga, tax advising, etc. It has meeting rooms and quiet rooms for reading. It has readings and signings. It has fishtanks and plants and loaner laptops. It contributes to the quality of life in our community. And yes, it RENTS DVDs for a $1/week. I seriously doubt Netflix has much to worry about. And again, I would be willing to pay $50 for all of this. I would probably pay more.

 

[bookgirl]

The first public library deliberately established as a public library was the Boston Public Library, which opened in 1854, with a statement of purpose that focused on knowledge and education -- not "providing reading material" of a non-definitive nature, i.e., nothing recreational. [Source: Straight Dope.]

However, who cares about what public libraries were originally supposed to do? That was a century and a half ago. It's an irrelevancy. Every day we get to decide what public libraries should be doing tomorrow.

I don't think you understood what I wrote. I was outlining the federal law that would prohibit public libraries from competing with bookstores, video rental places, etc., i.e., charging a fee for renting non-essentials. Again, this was a federal law in the 1980s ... maybe it changed, but more likely it simply doesn't apply -- until libraries start charging for renting DVDs.

What's your point? None of that seems to contradict anything in the message you replied to.

However, that's not necessary, and can change, and folks already concerned about how large their tax burden is now may wish to support the contention that libraries no longer need to provide recreational service and materials on the public's dime.

You often argue that point, that someone doesn't understand you or missed your point. It's an argument I'd expect from a lawyer. It however lessens any point you would make because I find it a cheap tactic.

I am a librarian, I work in this field, I have a graduate degree in this subject. I'll stick with what I know is appropriate in my industry.

 

[bicker]

You often argue that point, that someone doesn't understand you or missed your point. It's an argument I'd expect from a lawyer. It however lessens any point you would make because I find it a cheap tactic.

You not understanding what you're replying to lessens the point you're replying to? Sorry, but we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. Rather, if you choose to argue against something easier to argue against, instead of the actual point that you're arguing against, that lessens your argument afaic.

I am a librarian, I work in this field, I have a graduate degree in this subject. I'll stick with what I know is appropriate in my industry.

It is very reasonable for you to be biased toward the largest, broadest (and most expensive) perspective about what a public library should be. Everything I wrote about was with regard to public policy, not library science.

 

[Mickeypooh99]

You must live somewhere in West MI because we have the same situation.

I would pay the $50 because I am there every week. I read 1-2 books per week. But don't tell my library that. Whatever I pay in taxes probably doesn't even begin to pay what I use. In fact, I know my library card number without looking at it.

Correct!

That sounds just like us.

 

[luvmy3]

Yes, I would definitely pay $50. I get so much out of our library services. I'd also pay for it knowing it was helping less forunate families who can't afford new or used books and rely on libraries.

Me too. When I was a kid, the city's public library used to have a truck come to our school every week so that the kids whose parents couldn't take them to the library had an opportunity to borrow books. I wish they still did things like this, and I would gladly pay an annual fee so that they could. Heck, my kids think going to the library is a treat, $50 a year compared to what I would spend on books for the 3 of them at a store is a bargain.

 

[PollyannaMom]

Yes - and I do. My town's library is very small and limited, so I prefer to go to a different one and I pay $55 per year. This is worth it for my family because we take out materials every week and my kids attend the story times. By using the library, I don't rent movies or purchase books any more and this is a big $$ saver for us.

I wish I could do this! My town used to have a great library, but due to budget cuts, it is now open only 14 hours a week, over three days (none of them on the weekend). Because it is no longer open the required number of hours for the population of the town, it was kicked out of it's network - so we can't use the libraries in nearby towns that we had always gone to before. I'd rather pay, and have all their programs and lending power back - but they only take local addresses.

 

[sunnydoozer]

I never said that a large print Readers Digest wouldn't meet my "stringent guidelines". You said that. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not outlining "stringent guidelines." I used the term: "non-essential". There is no logic or legitimacy in you deciding for me what it means. I surely never said that "essential" would be only "reference materials". So as your message went on, you went further and further and further from what you were replying to, essentially putting more and more words into my mouth to make your intention of arguing against what I wrote easier and easier.

I used the term I used deliberately, since it is collectively that we'll determine what the guidelines between essential and non-essential are.

So in short: Stop arguing with me against things I haven't written.

One thing I did say was that the J. D. Robb novels I love wouldn't qualify as "essential". They'd be among the things to go. I also did allude to some (though not all) DVD movies probably ending up in the "non-essential" pile. So if you really feel like you simply must argue against my point, then please restrict your defense to J. D. Robb novels and, let's say, Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel, on DVD.

You did indeed say that. You went so far as to say that local libraries should be focused on providing research materials for High School Students. Large Print fluff periodicals for seniors don't fit those guidelines, the ones you have written. These are things you have written.

When I pointed out that the group was already being served by purpose built libraries at their schools you line was:

Super -- even less need for tax money to be directed toward libraries.

Here you toss even the research materials and shutter the local library completely.

These are things you have written.

 

[harleyquinn]

You would have a field day picking apart my local library. It is part of a much larger system but the library that is three blocks from my house is a gem. We have a very large children's section (about 25% of the library is the children's collection) and very active children's programming. There are Storytimes for different age groups from babies on up, crafts, book clubs, summer reading programs, etc. Our library functions almost as a second community center. It offers cooking classes, yoga, tax advising, etc. It has meeting rooms and quiet rooms for reading. It has readings and signings. It has fishtanks and plants and loaner laptops. It contributes to the quality of life in our community. And yes, it RENTS DVDs for a $1/week. I seriously doubt Netflix has much to worry about. And again, I would be willing to pay $50 for all of this. I would probably pay more.

You very nicely summed up the value of today's libraries to their communities.
Thank you.

I'll let the other librarians agrue with Bicker on this topic. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt. Thankfully it looks like the vast majority of you disagree with Bicker at least in part.

I know that for many people libraries are an easy thing to write off, to chuck from the tax rooftops. Our value is easy to attack.

The only thing I have to say is that, we get so little, but we give back so much. Go ahead and rid the world of libraries, but the budget still won't be balanced. We are a tiny drop in the bucket.

 

[crz4mm2]

nope.

 

[OceanAnnie]

You very nicely summed up the value of today's libraries to their communities.
Thank you.

I'll let the other librarians agrue with Bicker on this topic. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt. Thankfully it looks like the vast majority of you disagree with Bicker at least in part.

I know that for many people libraries are an easy thing to write off, to chuck from the tax rooftops. Our value is easy to attack.

The only thing I have to say is that, we get so little, but we give back so much. Go ahead and rid the world of libraries, but the budget still won't be balanced. We are a tiny drop in the bucket.

Truer words have not been typed.

I don't like the idea of additional fees for anything with taxes being raised on everything. But the truth is, I can't begin to put a dollar value on our library. It's a terrific system. It's one of the few things that is run well and with great customer service.

I don't think stripping library offerings when the demand is up (because of these economic times) is the answer.

 

[can84]

Well, it's a bit off topic, but it does talk about late fees.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/04/17/2010-04-17_read_it__weep_by_george_prez_racks_up_300g_late_fee_for_two_books.html

 

[bicker]

I'll let the other librarians agrue with Bicker on this topic. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt. Thankfully it looks like the vast majority of you disagree with Bicker at least in part.

I would expect that librarians would be inclined toward expanding the budgets of libraries, while taxpayers would be negatively inclined. Indeed, the average Joe on the street would generally give libraries kind words, before they look at their tax bill.

I know that for many people libraries are an easy thing to write off, to chuck from the tax rooftops. Our value is easy to attack.

Precisely my point. I think folks who are not willing to acknowledge that a less forgiving taxpayer reception is upcoming is going to be rudely disappointed.