There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have.
Think about it rationally:
If you are poor with an overdue book, you really have no incentive to return it. You can't pay the fee so even if you return it you won't get use of the library.
With the new system you get immediate use of the library once you turn in your overdue book. The benefit for returning books is much higher.
> There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have.
Late fees do have one benefit – what if someone has a strong interest in one particular book (or a handful of books, which fits within their borrowing limit). Maybe it is a textbook or reference book for a course they are doing. Maybe they are just an obsessive person. They want to borrow a book for far longer than the standard borrowing term, or even indefinitely. They don't care if doing so blocks them from borrowing any further books, because they are more interested in the book(s) they have currently borrowed than in any of those.
Before, if they didn't return it, they would start getting late fees. Some people may be so intent on possessing that book, they may consider the late fees worth it – viewing it as a rental fee rather than a fine. But others, the late fee may be enough to convince them to return it, whereas merely suspending their borrowing privileges would not.
And this can make a difference to other library users. Ever wanted to read a book, or even borrow it, but you can't because it is out on loan? Abolishing late fees runs the risk of making that negative experience much more common than it was before.
So obviously, the policy isn’t perfect - no policy is perfect.
Keep in mind that most of the really important books, especially reference books, have never been allowed to be checked out from the library.
Chicago did this same policy about 2 years ago. It has similar demographics as New York, so you would assume that any problems New York is going to face would have already been seen in Chicago. And as far as I’ve heard, the benefits have far, far outweighed the problems. My family never had problems with late fees at the library (maybe $5 per year?), but the new policy definitely changed our library experience for the better.
Also, New York, Chicago, and many other library systems have extremely strong philanthropic organizations attached to them. It is very prestigious to be on the board and it is very prestigious to raise or donate money to the library. They are very well run and very well funded. Losing/Replacing 1-2% more books per year is not a financial issue for them. The ridiculous cost of eBooks are more of an issue than lost paper books.
Making sure one copy stays in the library is probably a larger challenge then the problem it seeks to solve.
But for sure, large library systems have lots of copies of popular books. I just went over to the NYPL website and clicked on some links to get a list of popular books last year. Here's an example where they have 81 copies of the book:
You can also see that some books are far more popular in some locations than others. New York Public Library has "only" ~20 copies of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" while Chicago Public Library has 360 copies:
I haven't seen those kind of labels on library books in a really long time!
But yes, each book has a "barcode" that uniquely identifies it. The thing is, these large library systems have dozens of physical buildings all over the city (a paradox? The larger the city, the more likely it is that everyone can walk to the library) and a specific copy of the book lives in a specific library building.
If you decide that one specific copy is the "reference" copy, then nobody can check it out from their local library branch while people that live everywhere else in the city can check it out from their local library branch! So you are going to need to make the "reference" copy a dynamic thing, which is a lot of effort to solve a problem that in real life is really minor.
Big city libraries (at least in North America - I know Toronto is the same) are amazing, because libraries get better with scale. And perhaps because of their nature, they seem to attract the kind of people that are really good at managing them. I doubt you can find a big city library where the residents think it is a cesspool of corruption. They've got the resources and management to just buy extra copies of books - it's not worth doing anything else.
I'm curious how the new policy in Chicago changed your family's experience for the better. Can you say more?
Side note: late fees were always an incentive for me to return books. Not necessarily on time, mind you. But, soon enough. While I'm down with the new rules (Brooklynite here), I also worry about an increase in books just never being returned. Already a minor nuisance even with fees.
The main difference is that you stop worrying about things.
In the past, if you took a book out, you'd have to remember in the back of your mind that you have to return it by a specific date. My kids like to have dozens of books out at a time. In the past there was always the worry that you would take a stack of books back but forget one or two; you'd search the whole apartment just in case.
That's all gone now. If the library needs the book back, they email you and then you go look around for it. Otherwise, you do everything on your own schedule, whenever it is convenient. And if your kid wants to keep a book for 6 months or more, that's also fine.
I'm sure that NYPL will need to buy more books as part of the adjustment. But they can. It's totally worth it.
As another commenter pointed out, the library will still automatically charge a "replacement fee" if the book is 30+ days overdue. That fee may be subsequently refunded if the book is eventually returned.
That to me seems like the best incentive: you are automatically charged what is still essentially a "late fee" at some point, and that charge goes away if you return the item.
Library fines are not known to increase rates of item return and in reality are a commonly-cited reason why library users never return at all.
A few other points: 1) Libraries replace items all the time for all kinds of reasons, especially if the title is in demand, so a book walking away with a patron who wants to keep it isn't really a business-stopping problem. 2) Patrons can always ask library staff to request an items they need from another library; the library is likely to accommodate, especially if the item is long overdue and they don't have immediate plans to replace it. 3) If the item is somehow absolutely irreplaceable, it probably isn't circulating anyway.
Yeah, I've anecdotally heard from a lot of people that they've stopped using the library because they've racked up fines.
It's often not necessarily that they can't afford the fines or are unwilling to pay, but they're too embarrassed or intimidated or aren't sure what the right procedure is, so they just stop going to the library.
Hey, that's me. I returned a few books a day late due to flooding and racked up an $0.80 charge. I can't pay it online because the minimum allowed online is a dollar. I'd pay the dollar if it allowed me, but it doesn't. I don't care enough to figure out how else to pay the fine, so I just don't go to the library anymore.
I had to pay a 60€ fee for 6 books as student and never recovered from it.
At first I wrote an open-source tool to download the list of borrowed books from the website and renew them automatically. Then I thought it is pointless and decided to never go again to any library.
Unfortunately, now people are using my tool, and every time the library changes the website, I get mails that I need to make an update. So I am forced to go to the library just to see what changes they made to the website
These libraries issues are stressing me so much I could only sleep 5 hours tonight
This is really interesting. I've definitely been incentivized to return late books sooner than I might have due to fines accruing (and the email reminders that tell me so). But, now that you mention it, I've also probably held onto books longer and not returned sooner bc of the guilt or not knowing what other restrictions on my usage might apply.
It could do the opposite, borrowers may feel that the late fees justify them keeping the book for longer, since they are paying for their excess usage.
Kahneman talks about a study done in Israel that adding a modest fee for people who are late picking up their children from daycare actually increases lateness - people view it as a fair transaction, whereas previously they would feel shame if they were late.
For me, it is the opposite. I don't feel any shame from a computer marking a book as "late" in its database. I do feel shame from having to walk up to the library desk and tell the librarian that I owe them $0.50 in late fees. I'll go well out of my way to return books on time, to avoid this shame and not the relatively trivial fee itself.
I think that perhaps strong shame requires a social interaction. (However, I would also be ashamed to pick up my child late from daycare, so maybe my feelings aren't broadly representative.)
Wouldn't most libraries nowadays allow paying fees online?
KCLS (King County Library System in Washington) allows that for example.
You can maybe try looking at it from another angle and feel proud of supporting your library by giving them money...
Right. I think this is mentioned in the book, Doughnut Economics, in reference to monetizing interpersonal social interactions (tho I may have that reference slightly off. Sorry, in bed and book is sooo far away).
I have heard about that before also. I think at our childcare, it's $15 per minute. Enough that if we get stuck in traffic, we call a relative and hope they can get there faster.
Wow. Is there at least some capping ? I've never been late to childcare but there are so many reasons I could have been that your $15 are frightening me. I'm not even sure that late fees where I am are above 1 or 2€ per 15 minutes.
I don't think it's ever applied. Never actually read further to see if there was a cap; just remember thinking "OK, always get there before 6pm!" It's in AUD, BTW.
You can drop off any time after 6:30am and pick-up any time before 6pm. Not really a window as such. I've always assumed the number is just a deterrent - I've been late by a couple of minutes in the past and never noticed a fine. Though that might've been at the discretion of staff (e.g., to penalise lazy, repeat offenders rather than isolated case of traffic due to an accident).
So it's not only extortionate, but also arbitrary? Which favors people who are able to talk themselves out of any situation? Great (not for me though)...
Perhaps the penalty should be a limitation on future book borrowing, then. So that way it's clear it isn't a mutually beneficial (or just zero-sum) transaction, but rather a punishment for being late.
We as a society spend upwards of $10,000/student/year on education. In this context, I don't particularly care whether people occasionally outright keep library books if they are learning something from them!
If they’re using the book in a reasonable way (like a textbook for a course) then I don’t see the problem. If the book warrants extended use then the library isn’t accomplishing its goals better by loaning it out to many people for short periods.
Checking out a textbook for the duration of a course may seem reasonable, but there are internal incentives at university libraries not to provide this service. At my U, the bookstore would lose textbook sales.
I can see this being the case sometimes, but I don't think it's always true that university libraries want to discourage textbook loans or funnel students to the bookstore. the one I work in, for instance, has staff dedicated to working with academic departments /and/ the bookstore to reduce course materials costs through ebook acquisitions, OER adoption, etc.
maybe it helps that our bookstores are fully owned and operated by the university rather than being leased to e.g. Follett or B&N.
Many libraries, such as my university, have no regular late fees, but do have a fee if the item is recalled by another user after the loan expires and not immediately returned.
This can be solved by NYPL having a silent policy to replace presumed-stolen books after X time passes. This spending mustn't be so large that it nixes the no-late-fee policy, I suppose.
The article you cited points out this was a rush of people returning books after the amnesty, not a change in ongoing book return rates - as the article says
"The Chicago Public Library system’s 240% jump in book returns may even out in upcoming months, since the new policy change is likely what spurred library goers to take advantage of their newly bestowed late fee amnesty,"
I think this just matches human behavior a lot more too in terms of how late books happen - usually just because someone forgot or it was inconvenient to return it on time. Eliminating late fines and instead blocking checking out more books means that the person is incentivized to bring the book with them next time they go to the library, so that they are rewarded with being allowed check something else out. Late fines tend to do the opposite... once they realize the book is past due, they are incentivized to avoid going back to the library, because once they do they'll be punished. The incentive of being able to check out another book is likely not enough to overcome having to pay even a relatively small fine. It seems fairly intuitive to me that this creates a perverse incentive that will often discourage people from returning books at all, rather than encouraging returning them on time.
As mentioned elsewhere, this seems like the same discovery Netflix made back when they were mailing DVDs: it is more effective to incentivize returning by making it a tit-for-tat trade than by fining non-returners. Sure, this approach might end up with people never returning items if they never want to get more (move away, etc), but that's a relatively uncommon situation for a library, and doesn't seem to have become a major problem for Netflix.
More subjectively, I also think that charging a replacement fee to patrons that truly cannot return the book feels more fair than charging a per-day late fine until you hit replacement. It's more of a direct indemnity sort of situation.
Back in the day when I was a poor college student I rented a movie from a local video store. It was an old movie and because of my laziness I failed to return it on time. But eventually did and they wanted a $40 late fee, which was a lot of money for me at the time. A new copy would have cost less.
So I stopped being a customer and went to a competitor.
My first reaction was to disagree with this new library policy. But if poor people want to read books and forget to return them, it doesn’t help to punish them. Sometimes we just have to accept that a certain percentage of society can’t or won’t do socially responsible things all the time.
I think if you were to do this today, the video store would report to the credit bureaus do they could make you a little less likely to get an apartment or that next job.
It varies on sector. Banking/financial is much more likely to do this than other sectors. It's also more common lower down the economic ladder, just one more way we punish the poor for their poverty.
Dunno if it’s common, but the justification I’ve heard is that if you have financial problems you’re more likely to be tempted to commit petty theft and/or embezzlement to compensate.
My wife and I were always able to wait out Family Video. If we had a late fee on one account we'd use the other's account until we got a call to come back, get the late fee forgiven, and get a free rental or something.
They didn't survive the pandemic, but I doubt that was the tipping point.
> But if poor people want to read books and forget to return them, it doesn’t help to punish them. Sometimes we just have to accept that a certain percentage of society can’t or won’t do socially responsible things all the time.
As someone who isn't and didn't grow up poor, yet has yet to ever return a borrowed library book (which is why I stopped going to libraries decades ago), I find your conflation of "poor people" and "can't or won't do socially responsible things" to be quite telling -- about your attitudes with respect to poor people.
I suggest you re-evaluate your ideas about intersection of socio-economic status and social responsibility, as it seems that you're wildly off-base[0] there.
I think the problem is much rather that for anyone not poor late fees just don’t matter in any way financially. They do not cut into any basic needs, they don’t even matter in the grand scheme of things.
The thing with being poor is that any additional expense will mean you have to make difficult trade-offs. Which is to say that even if someone who is not poor is much more likely to be late to return a book the late fees just don’t matter to that person, while they do matter for someone who is poor.
>The thing with being poor is that any additional expense will mean you have to make difficult trade-offs. Which is to say that even if someone who is not poor is much more likely to be late to return a book the late fees just don’t matter to that person, while they do matter for someone who is poor
Exactly. I'm not sure why you thought I felt otherwise.
Rather, I took issue with GP's assertion that if you're poor, you aren't socially responsible. Which is both absurd and offensive.
The purpose of late fees is mostly to make people return books on time, IMHO.
I don't really agree with the angle taken by the Burbank and NY public libraries that somewhat depicts fees and fines as unfair and only penalising the poorest, which sounds like a ideological stance. Those fees penalise those do not follow the rules, and that has nothing to do with being rich or poor. People who use public libraries responsibly never have to pay any of those fees.
I also think it's fair to charge a replacement fee for lost material (which are also abolished according to the article).
Now, if they have actual data showing that these fees don't work and an alternative approach improves the return of books, especially return on time, then by all means go for it.
Think about it rationally: If you have a book you haven’t finished but want to, there’s no incentive to return it now. Check out as many books as you’d like, return them at your leisure, and screw anyone who has any concurrent interests in any of those books.
> If you have a book you haven’t finished but want to, there’s no incentive to return it now. Check out as many books as you’d like, return them at your leisure, and screw anyone who has any concurrent interests in any of those books.
Under the new system, if you have any overdue books, you cannot check out new books. So you cannot "check out as many books as you would like". You can return them at your leisure.
A system of library fines works best under the following conditions:
* For most people who use the library, there is only a very small subset of books that interest them.
* And these people want to keep the books long term.
* And these people can afford library fines.
People who are interested in only a few books, want them long term, and can afford library fines generally buy their books at book stores rather than stealing them from libraries.
The system recently adopted by New York City will still work if most library users
* are interested in a selection of books greater than the maximum number that can be checked out at a time
* and regularly want to switch out books
* and cannot afford library fines
I will assume that the New York City Library System knows who their users are. Generally people who use public library fit into the poorer class of people and the people who need the library the most are those who cannot afford books and therefore regularly checkout new books. For these people, the system adopted by the New York Library will still motivate them to return their books.
Yes, some people who can afford books will steal from the library. Well, if they ever want to check out new books, they will need to return their old books (and maybe the New York Library has done the math and decided that a small enough percentage of the population is book thieves that this will work)
I agree, but really only for somewhere with a big library with multiple copies of most books. My library typically has 0-1 copies of a book I want to read, and if it's even moderately popular, I have to place a hold on it. This would be terrible without late fees.
In every case I’m aware of, removing late fees increased library return rates, so this would improve the likelihood you get the book you have on hold sooner.
I am not poor and I can easily afford a lot of late fees in my local library. Still, I notice that having late fees makes me want to return books in time, even if I didn't finish it. If these weren't in place, I probably would keep the book longer, even (or especially) if it's in-demand one with a long wait list and I didn't finish it in time.
I also see from an article that they eliminated fees for not returned ("lost") books which looks like just an open invitation to steal books from the library. Maybe I'm too cynical but I don't think it'd work very well.
> If you are poor with an overdue book, you really have no incentive to return it. You can't pay the fee so even if you return it you won't get use of the library.
My recollection from the last time I returned a library book late (decades ago) is that the fee was a certain amount per day late. In that case even if you cannot pay the fee there is still incentive to return the book as soon as possible because that stops the fee owed from growing, meaning it will be easier to eventually pay it off and get your library privileges restored.
Missing is a reason to return the book promptly, or to avoid getting it lost, or to avoid stealing books. Why not just cap fees are the value of the book replacement?
> else people might make a business out of selling overdue books
How many books can you sign out at once? Like five or something? You think people are going to make a business out of selling five books on a street corner? How much do you think they’ll fetch given they’re already free at the library?
Looks like 50 unless you're a teacher. Still not worth the trouble trying to find someone to buy a copy of Harry Potter that says "property of NYPL" on it when they're a dime a dozen already.
If someone is going to be stealing books from the library and selling them under the new system, the incentives to do that would be exactly the same as under the old system.
None of the books you could check out on a library card would be worth it. You'd be checking out circulation material, not special collections items (rare manuscripts and such), and they'd all be clearly marked as library materials, so of much lower value on the secondary market than a regular used copy of the same book would be.
Lots of books on the secondary market have library markings (usually, lined out with Sharpies or the like), because lots of them are stuff retired from library collections.
In the past year, I bought a couple hundred picture books for my kids. I average around $4 most of that is shipping charges. Most of the books I get are former library books.
>>There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have.
You just come back and get a new library card under another name...just keep taking out more books and selling them on ebay; that will become a cottage industry. suckers, i mean taxpayers, will just have to make up the difference.
If the market for stolen books is so pervasive that I end up footing the bill for libraries to recoup their losses, I will happily foot that tax bill.
But in practice, this seems about as much a problem as voter fraud: not a problem at all, despite how many people in this comment thread seem horrified by the risks of it.
I don't know about NYPL but where I live getting a library card requires more ID than registering to vote. I wouldn't be surprised if they already have measures in place against patrons opening multiple accounts.
There will always be a small subset of people who will abuse any system. Unless/Until this becomes a big enough problem, going after these people isn’t necessary, in my opinion. NYPL can always bring the fines back, if/wham it does become a big enough issue
It really, is* an improvement the same way that netflix, when rented dvds, didn't allow you to take any other dvd until you returned the one you already had.
That strategy was enough to bankrupt blockbuster.
So it can work for NY public libraries.
Maybe if blockbuster had been willing to forgo the late fees income stream they would still exist today.
Wait, what? Blockbuster did end late fees, and it was widely regarded as a disaster, because then people took their sweet time returning rentals (above and beyond the lost revenue):
>Blockbuster tried dropping its late fees a few years ago, but that didn't work out well because it kept the most popular DVDs out of its stores for long stretches.
I don't know this for a fact, but I'd wager a guess that interest in rental movies is mostly concentrated around a handful of titles at any given moment, whereas interest in library books is more evenly dispersed. This means that two people are much less likely to want to rent the same book at the same time, as opposed to the same movie.
Libraries do sometimes get a lot of interest in hotly anticipated new titles sometimes. You're generally right that there is a lot more "long-tail" activity than in a video rental store, though -- and it's much easier for a library to maintain a collection of rarely used books.
Remember as a teen renting and returning two movies from Hollywood Videos. Me and a friend walked to Dropbox late at night so we were positive they were returned.
Got a 245 dollar demand letter a few letter a couple months later. For 2 unreturned movies.
Got a lawyer dads friend help me write a letter and the matter was dropped.
Went from multiple rentals a week to never renting another video again.
> It really, is* an improvement the same way that netflix, when rented dvds, didn't allow you to take any other dvd until you returned the one you already had.
Everything doesn;t have to have a simplistic analogy especially when the analogy isn't applicable.
It's not really.
There is direct financial buy-in from the user. Netflix subscription wasn't 0 cost to user service.
Late fees are a designed to de-incentivize a certain behavior. We have little data on how effective it is, but we know it has costs both for implementation and its effects on patrons.
Let's take another example- charging people to use public transportation. We could do away with that as well, and some places have done that- finding that the cost of collection came close to overshadowing the income it generated.
Late fees are not part of the structure of a library except when they're implemented as such.
NYC will now have the opportunity to see if eliminating the late fees will have an impact on patron behavior or overall cost of running the library.
NYC's position is that late fees disincentivize the most vulnerable from using the library. If that's true and eliminating the fees would increase usage and not generally harm the income stream, then NYC- the largest municipal library system in the US, will have been an incredible test case.
But libraries do see more books being returned with these systems.
Telling someone that they will be automatically able to check out new books if they return the ones they have is really effective in practice. As opposed to the old system where you have to both return the book and pay money so lots of poor people would just ignore the library.
There is opportunity cost when someone leaves a library book under their bed and no one else can use it. Eventually the library must replace the book. In my experience the fees cap at the value of the book. I see it more as an attempt to recoup costs incurred. If it was for deterrence the fees would need to be exorbitant.
The cost to society at large for lost books is trivial, whereas the advantage of having these books distributed among low-income households is priceless. The New York Public Library has figured this out.
That's the whole point isn't it? That punishment doesn't work. Rich people can afford to shrug off the fine while the poor never return to the library again.
"The flow of quizzes stands upon somebody else's legs."
It's not hard to think of something to say.
The difference is my sentence was knowingly ridiculous and nonsensical.
Words that don't contribute to a discussion are just noise.
The equivalent of someone banging pots and pans in the middle of a conversation because they want to get noticed.
edit: Brilliantly, you wrote a comment 6 days ago that opened with: "Critical thinking is at an all-time low in Western society."...the irony is palpable.
It's common for the less erudite to confuse pithy for lack of intelligence. When I had time, I wrote a more complete response to a more neutral comment (see below). Many of us have lives outside Hacker News.
My point, as it still stands, is that punishment is meant to deter, and deterrence doesn't reduce criminal activity, history has proven that time and time again. Case in point: The Taliban is back to cutting hands for stealing, a terrifyingly high punishment for a basic crime that gets community service on average across North America (first offense). By your logic, theft should be eliminated altogether in Afghanistan. Is it? Is the per capita rate of theft higher or lower than North America? I leave it to you as an exercise to uncover, with a minor hint: it's higher.
I think the best system would be something like a $200 fully refundable deposit, plus late fees (deducted from your deposit account). Account must not drop below $180 due to accrued late fees, or use of library is suspended.
If you don't return books for an excessively long period, like six months, their value is automatically deducted from your deposit on top of accrued late fees; then you may keep the books.
> I think the best system would be something like a $200 fully refundable deposit, plus late fees (deducted from your deposit account). Account must not drop below $180 due to accrued late fees, or use of library is suspended.
One of the most blinkered views I've seen on HN. Who exactly do you think benefits from libraries the most? It sure isn't people who have a lazy $200 sitting around.
The library could actually pay a reasonable interest on that, say, a bit better than a bank account. So there would be no downside in parking the 200 there rather than a bank account.
To my house? To read them? You’re coming across as pretty siloed in these comments.
There’s no reason why we should deny people below the poverty line the ability to read books outside the confines of the library walls. The entire functionality of the library is to be a public good, providing the products and services that allow everyone to enrich themselves. If it wasn’t, it would be a weird nationalized chain of book stores.
As myself and several other people have pointed out to you now across multiple comment trees, there are a vast number of people who have housing but do not have $200 of liquid capital to drop as a library deposit.
But to short circuit this insanity a bit: why. Why is this recommendation desirable? Can you point to any negative impact that has occurred at any library that has just stopped charging late fees and switched to “bring back old book to get new books”, as has occurred here? If not… why are you so determined to invent a new solution without understanding the library’s usage demographics, when what they picked for themselves seems to be working.
One benefit would be that the library could clamp down on the damage. Library books are really treated like shit in my area of the world. Books and other materials. You can hardly borrow a disc that is not scratched to the point of being unusable. People would think twice before damaging borrowed items, if there is a deposit at stake.
> there are a vast number of people who have housing but do not have $200 of liquid capital to drop as a library deposit.
Be that as it may, they aren't prevented from using library under this proposal. Those who care to will somehow scrape the deposit together, and their money is entirely safe provided they don't damage borrowed materials or don't return them for half a year.
The New York public library will still charge a replacement fee for broken items. Late fees don't have any relation to their policy on care of lent items. If items at your library are consistently broken, it's a problem with your library's implementation or choice of policies, not a problem with its users.
>It's a heck of a lot easier to collect that from a deposit your already have.
Not sure where you live, but almost 2/3 of American households don't have enough cash to cover a $500 emergency[0]. What makes you think they can spare $200 for a library deposit?
Here we go, another subthread about the god forsaken poor in America and the offensive $200 proposal (which is just a rough idea that could easily be amended with flexibilities and provisions for the poor).
OK, I will bite. What makes me think they can spare $200 for a library deposit?
The fact that it (1) it doesn't come up as an emergency (you can budget for it in advance) and (2) they know they can have all of it back whenever they want to take a break from borrowing from the library, and have returned all their loans. (Unless they are idiots who trash books.) The psychology of "I'm losing 200 dollars" isn't there.
Whereas a $500 emergency is just: oh no; goodbye, money!
People have a way of not having money when they have to cover some unexpected pure loss. Yet somehow they have iPhones, Playstations, designer sneakers and jeans, ...
And then again, maybe some people really, actually cannot do it. So, have a $20 deposit with more modest borrowing privileges. Or some other creative way.
>You could enumerate the fallacies and misunderstandings in order of appearance, then pick a tiny random number in that range and begin with that one.
Why would someone wish to do that? No one is required to disabuse you of your ignorance. Especially given the trollish comments you've plastered all over this sub.
70% of Americans have less than $1,000 in savings. Many of the people who most benefit from libraries live paycheck to paycheck and libraries want to help those people and want those people to use their services. That's a major portion of the target market. These people have a hard time saving as they don't have any significant excess income. As they say, it's expensive to be poor.
It is not only unreasonable ands unrealistic to expect these people to be able to save up a $200 deposit, it is also bad customer experience and restricting libraries' market access. If libraries were a tech company any decent product owner would shoot down the idea in a flash.
a book
That would preclude the significant majority of use of public libraries; a $200 deposit is absolutely crippling to someone living in poverty, and unattainable for almost all children and students.
i don't think you realize for how many families having to find an extra $200 to just leave sitting around as a deposit at the library would be an extreme hardship or just plain impossible.
It's a lot of families.
To get a sense of how many, 40% of Americans surveyed say that they would have trouble paying an unexpected $400 expense. That they'd have to sell something or neglect other bills, or it would otherwise be a challenge, or impossible.
Why stop at books? Why can't libraries branch out into, say, tools.
A poor person needing a nail gun and air compressor to fix up their shack should just be able to get that from the library, and not have to pay some capitalistic swine like Home Depot or whoever.
No late fees ... return it next week, next month, whenever y'know?
In practice, there’s more hurdles for tools, since they have more risk of harming the user, but they seem like they’re possible to overcome.
Oh look, we aren’t the first ones to have this idea: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_library “ Given their increasing popularity and proven history of success, tool libraries and tool banks are now playing a role in the sharing economy and can be found in local public libraries and makerspaces, for instance. There are software platforms for managing tool and other types of lending libraries”
Actually it's everyone else in this thread who is sheltered and privileged. They are exhibiting typical sheltered, privileged, educated class values and rhetoric around the issue of class. I think I tipped over a particular sacred cow here. Could it be that the library institution is regarded as sort of the modern equivalent of missionary work? And so it is easy to slip into blasphemy if you're discussing libraries. In America, libraries offer the hope that the throngs of unsavory rabble out there can be converted into odor-free-farting, educated liberals, cast in one's own image.
My local library has done this with a variety of kitchen implements, like mixers, ice cream makers, cake pans, etc. I think it's a great way to use something once or twice without having one more thing around the house.
$200 is a totally unattainable sum of money for many, many people, often and especially for those to whom the library offers the most benefit -- those who need help finding education, internet access, and a safe/dry place to exist.
That's a separate discussion; I didn't propose that a card be required just to enter the library, and that this card require a deposit. It's just for borrowing materials to take somewhere else.
By the way, if you need a safe/dry place to exist, and the library is it, why would you need to borrow books to take somewhere else? Books also need a safe/dry place to exist!
If you can't put down a $200 refundable (with interest) balance, how are you maintaining a place where you can take the books?
Oh wow. You really have no idea how a huge number of Americans live.
Also, even homeless people are allowed to borrow books from a public library, in fact! But, no, there are many many people who struggle and hustle and have a place to live but don't have an extra $200 to leave sitting at the library.
You don't need to be ashamed that you literally don't know any of them, assuming you live in the USA, America is a really segregated (and I don't just mean racially) society. It's not your choice or fault. But you could be aware of it, believe me, to ask that question you have no idea how a good chunk of the USA lives.
(But also... can you imagine any business that required a $200 deposit to have an account with them, and how that would effect their business? Like imagine grubhub or blueapron or something. Even people that can afford $200 really don't want to begin their relationship with a business by giving them $200 to hold. Occasionally a 'business' which someone really has no choice but to use, like the electric utility, gets away with requiring a deposit. The mission of a public library is serving as many people as it can, a policy that drastically reduced the number of people interested in using the library would be a huge failure for the library).
If you think that everybody with a place to live has $200 to spare, as you said, then you don't understand how many Americans life.
But anyway, I'm glad you're not running any of my municipal services, and am glad that you (hopefully) aren't my neighbor!
So, okay, you _know_ how many people couldn't afford the $200 deposit, and don't see this as a problem because you don't think they deserve library service?
I'm sorry, I misunderstood your original point, or I wouldn't have bothered talking to you.
> am glad that you (hopefully) aren't my neighbor!
So it's OK for you to have standards: someone who merely doesn't subscribe to the whole white, liberal, upper-middle class socio-econo-political guilt-ridden value system is not fit to live next door to you.
But a library must not have lending standards that even smell of having any socio-economic entanglement.
You may do well by taking a look at some statistics on poverty in the US. There’s a significant chunk of the population who can keep a book dry but don’t have $200 to just sink into this imaginary library deposit. The interest is irrelevant, you’re asking them to choose between “get books” and “buy food”. All to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
I was in the middle of typing out a response, but looking at your parallel comments, the fact that you outright just don’t think people living in poverty are worthy of using a public service suggests this root node has bottomed out.
It's not that, but rather, this thread has basically been steered by various individuals into revolving purely around this issue of some extremely poor not being able to put up a deposit. I'm not interested in that angle at all; the idea isn't conceived to keep those people from borrowing from the perspective that they are specifically a problem (which they are not). People who can put up the deposit cause problems; it is designed for them, not as a wall against those who cannot.
It takes little imagination to see that the scheme could be shaped in ways to accommodate the very poor. E.g. there doesn't have to be a minimum deposit of $200; a substantially lower deposit like $20 or $10 could some borrowing privileges. Book or two, not twelve kind a thing. Plus any number of other mitigating solutions.
Memberships would not require a deposit. Like to log in to an Internet terminal with your library ID would not require one. Lost library cards could be free as well.
Needless to say, this would be completely ridiculous outside of America. If I think about libraries in, hmm, Austria or Japan doing anything this, I just have shake my head, no.
There is a broad population segment in America that has no respect though.
The $200 deposit would effectively never be refunded though right? I think libraries would see a huge decline in usage if a library card cost $200, even if it's a lifetime membership.
Of course it would be. People move away, or decide the library is not their thing any more. Interest should be accrued too, so people don't see a down-side to parking the money there compared to a savings account.
You go up to the desk, say you want to cancel your account, hand in your card and get your money back, no questions asked.
Wait, so now, in order to provide public library services, that are generally free, you want libraries to essentially function as banks and carry account balances and pay out interest?
My dude, I don't think you really understand the goals or objectives of public libraries.
My view is shaped by the observation that libraries in my neck of the woods in fact attach an account balance to your card. You can pay your balance self-serve using a terminal that accepts bank cards.
We live in the same neck of the woods, based on your HN profile; there is a balance tracked at Vancouver Public Libraries that is based on late fees. It's also worth noting that VPL wants to get rid of late fees as well, based on this article from a few months ago. https://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-libraries-offering-fine-forg...
Similar to how privately run businesses budget to take shoplifting into account as an operational expense, so too can libraries. Imagine if Whole Foods charged every customer $200/year as "insurance" for those who do shoplift, there probably wouldn't be many shoppers who would accept this change without also changing how often they shop there (or stop altogether), and that's even considering that most Whole Foods shoppers are likely financially stable enough to afford to pay that out of pocket.
Unlike Whole Foods, though, as a public good (and already funded by the taxes of everyone who walks in the doors), libraries have a mission to make books accessible to as many people as possible, not just those who can pay what's a $200 fee, nor are they trying to make a profit, so they have even less incentive than Whole Foods to punish their patrons.
> Imagine if Whole Foods charged every customer $200/year as "insurance" for those who do shoplift.
That makes no sense; you are not talking about a refundable deposit that is only deducted in confirmed cases of shoplifting. People do not borrow food from Whole foods and then fail to return it.
Deposits are standard operating practice in rental businesses. Have you ever rented a tool? They will put the replacement cost of the tool (possibly into the hundreds of dollars) as a charge on your credit card, which is then reversed when you return it, minus the $15 rental or whatever.
> That makes no sense; you are not talking about a refundable deposit that is only deducted in confirmed cases of shoplifting. People do not borrow food from Whole foods and then fail to return it.
"A refundable deposit that is only deducted in confirmed cases of shoplifting" is, for all practical purposes, an additional fee that would remain out of your pocket for as long as you want to have a right to the library, even if you have no intention to steal, which is more or less the same as Whole Foods just deciding to charge $200 to any potential shopgoer for the right to enter their store. Refundable or not, that's $200 that is gone from your pocket until you either move (and then pay another $200 fee at a different city's library?) or give up your membership.
Our access to libraries are already funded by our taxes. We've already paid for access. Why disincentivize people to use what we all pay for, other than to justify spending less tax money on libraries because not as many people are going?
> Have you ever rented a tool?
Yes, actually. Most recently, Home Depot just put a $30 charge for a $3500 lawnmower on my card -- with the threat that if I don't return it within a certain amount of time I'll owe it in total. They did not ever put the total cost of $3500 on my card.
It's been some time since I lend books from the library that I had to pay late fees. But in university I had to lend many books, sometimes just for an initial literature scan only to return most of them and keep a few long-term. (Or ideally buy them through other channels eventually) I remember one book was very late and I had to pay fees far higher than the original book price. And the only reason was because the lending management was bad (=had a terrible UX) so I didn't know it was due. That was not ideal, as a student you usually don't have much money.
But I think damaged books are usually those that are used frequently. Rare and expensive books tend to be in great shape, even if they are lend out all the time. You just need to register in time for the next available extension slot. Also expensive/rare books are less frequently for take home available.
Having to have an extra $200 around to leave as a deposit at the library would exclude many many library patrons, and is definitely not the "best system". It's one of the worst possible systems.
Where I live, you need a similar deposit just to get electricity in your place, if you don't have credit.
A patron is generally someone who pays.
Nobody is paying in this situation; there is a deposit which is refundable, with reasonable interest competitive with bank savings accounts in the area.
Where I live, the (one and only) power company charges deposits against new accounts with no credit or bad credit:
Why would a library not charge deposits for borrowing? Because people need to be able to take books home (as opposed to reading in the library) more than they need electricity?
Because public libraries are public services and are not a for-profit industry. Their priorities are in serving the public, rather than generating income.
An alternative question could be: Why doesn't BC make electricity as available to their poorest citizens as NY makes books available to theirs?
There was a girl in my high school who really messed up her freshmen year - partied too much and flunked every class, pretty much no way back for her. So she transferred schools to another county and re-enrolled as a freshmen. But before she left she purposefully incurred a five cent library fine. The school refused to send her transcripts anywhere until she paid it. Clever girl.
This sounds suspiciously like the "overpay your traffic ticket by a dollar and then don't cash the refund check so the transaction never closes and you don't get points on your license" urban legend.
1. AFAIK colleges can't send transcripts to people without your permission, so it's unclear what she's trying to prevent.
2. If she's trying to get a job and the place she's applying to cares about GPA, then chances are they're not going to accept the "I can't get a transcript because I didn't pay a 5 cent fine" excuse. If anything people would consider it a red flag. What type of a responsible adult can't pay a 5 cent fine?
3. similar applies to applying for graduate school, except that they're probably even more strict about transcripts.
The new high (secondary) school treated her like a new student, not one with a year of comically poor performance. This isn't about college or university; it's about the last few years of compulsory education, which often set the direction of one's life.
I’m fascinated (read: horrified) how many people in the comments here are litigating all the ways that this change is horrible / promotes abuse of the library system / is the end of civilization.
We have actual, practical examples of many library systems who have made this change. In every case I’m aware of, the result was an increase in desirable behaviors (like more people borrowing books and a higher percentage of books being returned), with no increase in undesirable behaviors (like theft of books).
To all the folks here decrying how this is horrible, can you cite any example of a library where this was done and it went badly?
I would like to see stats of how this affected book queue wait times and loan patterns, particularly for books which an entire metro library system only has one or two copies of.
They say it increases return rates overall. If that's true, it's good, but let's try to understand why, and what secondary consequences there might be.
Nothing was stopping those people from returning the books and walking out without paying their outstanding fines. They could use the exterior book drop (don't libraries still have those?)
The idea seems to be that the experience of going to a library with fines outstanding is a kind of intrinsic aversive punishment; you feel guilty slinking into (or around) the library with overdue books, so you try to avoid that by not returning the books. You might even try to hide the books in your house so you don't see them and aren't reminded of your guilt. But it's not the doing away with the fines that matters, it's changing the social dynamic so that nobody ever feels guilty; it's no longer a faux pas not to return books when you should, because there's no longer any punishment. The interaction becomes entirely positive: without fines to think about anymore, you queue all the books you want to read, when one or two become available the cost of checking them out is returning the books you've read and have delayed returning.
A typical reason someone might get stuck in library fine purgatory: they queue up a bunch of books, none are available before their old books are due back, and they simply didn't have motivation to go to the library solely to return their existing books. Once they have a fine they don't want to pay and they can't check out the new books, there's no motivation for them to ever return. Historically, there would be: people tended to have a sense of duty and shame so that they'd do the right thing and return the book even if it made them feel bad and they couldn't afford the fees and couldn't use the library anymore, but now I guess nobody has that kind of super-ego anymore.
Removing fines encourages those people to re-engage with the library system, but I expect it messes with book queues and makes them worse.
Libraries were already struggling to budget book acquisitions. Increasing demand by changing policies so more people use the libraries will only make it more difficult to fund book acquisitions to meet demand.
The fee is assigned to your account, but you don't actually pay anything (no money is actually exchanged). If you return the item after 30 days the fee is cleared. Even if you pay the fee and return the item within 90 days the fee is refunded.
You need to accumulate $100 in fees before they suspend borrowing. It all seems very fair to me.
If it is like the Chicago policy, you get “unlimited” automatic renewals and a book only becomes overdue when someone else requests the book. You get an email telling you in advance of the overdue date that you have to actually return the book.
My city’s library has done this for about 5 years. I definitely patronize the library more. Why have overworked librarians have to handle cash and face arguments?
The data is clear that it has significantly boosted utilization without impacting hold times. Fine income accounted for less than 1% of a library’s budget. It just makes sense.
I understand the problem, not sure I agree with the solution yet, but maybe I'm missing something. Not really sure how else they can make sure people don't just borrow 10 books and never come back. Seems like instead they could've created a program which verifies inability to pay fine and waves them for people who legitimately can't pay it, but maybe they're looking at some data we don't have access to.
> Not really sure how else they can make sure people don't just borrow 10 books and never come back
People can already do this if they want. Nothing stops you from checking out the max number of books and never coming back.
Most libraries have discovered that late fees discourage people from returning books when they forget, lose them, etc. The longer the book is out the higher the fee. The higher the fee the more likely that person will decide library membership is a lost cause and decide to never return (or use someone else's membership).
Eliminating late fees increases the overall rate of books returned vs stolen.
There's a common trope of people being scared of going back to the library because they've racked up hundreds of dollars in fines. This is a rare occurrence, most libraries I've seen have a fine cap of about $5, but I have a feeling that's not something most people are aware of.
By removing fines, you get good press and an easier message to convey. Really, the library just wants the books back, the fines aren't meant to generate revenue.
If someone's going to just take 10 books from the library, they'll take them regardless. Just like grocery stores, a librarian isn't going to pursue you if you set the alarm off; the alarm's there to remind honest people that they forgot to check a book out.
This would probably end up costing them even more than just losing the books and buying new ones and in the process creating a new bureaucracy of injustices.
It's a net positive as far as actually getting books back. Late fees weren't stopping the kind of people who are gonna steal books, they aren't gonna check them out in the first place if theft is their intention they'll just walk out and ignore the alarms, I doubt the librarians are gonna chase after them. This is for people who would otherwise have returned the books in the first place but are discouraged by the late fees.
> Not really sure how else they can make sure people don't just borrow 10 books and never come back.
Replacement fees, which still exist.
> Seems like instead they could've created a program which verifies inability to pay fine and waves them for people who legitimately can't pay it
That would cost more than eliminating late fees entirely, which other public library systems have proven works to improve returns. More expensive, less proven, what's not to like?
> Not really sure how else they can make sure people don't just borrow 10 books and never come back.
You can't check out new books until you return the ones you have. So people have a strong incentive to return books if they want to continue using the library.
My local library ended all late fees a little over two years ago and they haven't reverted back yet, so it seems it's working out okay for them.
Their policy works like this (just looked):
14 days overdue: library card blocked
28 days overdue: library card blocked, billed replacement cost of overdue items
42 days overdue: your account sent to collection agency + $10 collections fee, the latter of which must be paid to unblock your card.
You can also extend how long you're checking out the items online by a decent amount, like 2 or 3 extensions I think. You can hang end up hanging on to what you've checked out for several months before it has to go back, as long as you're staying on top of it.
Late fees are normally capped by (and replaced with at some point) the replacement fee, which is a separate thing. Libraries that eliminate late fees usually retain replacement fees.
There's no fee if you get it back before 28 days overdue. Costs nothing. Granted after that suddenly it's the cost of the item.
Works for me, at least. I've always been terrible with things that have late fees (in fact I had some late fees at that library from the previous system). But I've had no issues or fees since they changed to this model, despite continuing to be late in my returns (just not 28 days late).
42 days isn't that tight of a deadline, but it'd be nice if the window to bring the book back and not get a call from a debt collector was a bit longer.
It's very common for libraries to waive replacement costs when you bring the items back, assuming they aren't damaged. 42 days to collections is pretty harsh, though. Even credit cards will usually give you at least 3 months.
Edit: I re-read the NYPL policy; they waive replacement fees when items are returned and you can claim a refund of your paid replacement fee if you return the item within 90 days.
You may not, but some do. And the point is how to manage that population. Pretending they don't exist is generally not a good strategy. That's not to say that we shouldn't experiment with different options, and these types of programs are worth trying if only to gather some data.
I don't think you get how much of society relies on trust and good will. I'm not saying this as some rosy-cheeked innocent, either.
>Pretending they don't exist is generally not a good strategy.
I agree, but I think the problem is typically very much over-stated. It sort of reminds me of the sort of fearful stuff I heard from my grandparents about pot smokers you know?
>That's not to say that we shouldn't experiment with different options, and these types of programs are worth trying if only to gather some data.
Yes! Agreed. Punishing people and levying fees isn't great, and experiments like these will either tell us that they were necessary, suggest something else will work, or show us that we can just stop. Its a small thing, but I think a world without library fees would be better, and I'm glad some folks are taking a stab at it.
If they really wanted to steal, why not just take the books and leave, even _with_ the fine system? Just like Walmart, a librarian isn't going to chase you after the alarm goes off. The alarms are there to remind honest people to check out their books in case they forgot.
This really doesn't change anything in that regard. A person whose intention it is to rip off their library and never return could do that just as easily before. Libraries budget for shrink and replacement costs, which are still going to be charged to patrons who don't return materials in 30 days.
> Seems like instead they could've created a program which verifies inability to pay fine and waves them for people who legitimately can't pay it, but maybe they're looking at some data we don't have access to.
The library would then probably have to process and store sensitive financial information on those who apply for fee waivers in order to determine who legitimately qualifies. I'd guess that the costs of doing that in an adequately secure manner would be more than the fines they would get from from the people who applied for waivers and were rejected.
Similar but slightly different: what stops you from borrowing a few books and then keeping them, not for forever, but for an unreasonably long time?
Physical books are a limited resource, and others might like access to them. (It's the same reasoning as for parking meters and 2-hour parking: make sure someone else gets a turn.)
Without any time limit on books, the only thing motivating you to return a book is that you need some other book, which might happen weeks later or maybe 6 months later.
The library will continue to charge patrons replacement costs after 30 days overdue. Not sure about NYPL, but in many libraries, this will be waived when you actually return the item. You would just pay the fine (capped at $5 most places I've worked). Presumably the letters and notices of overdue books offer the same motivation to return books now as they did before, the only difference is you won't be charged anything upon return.
This may be good according to general stats, equity, etc. However, I'm not concerned about overall book return rates for popular books, which will dominate those stats.
What I want to know is how this affects books that I actually use libraries for (and for which libraries are most valuable): expensive or out-of-print books—for which the best alternative is an expensive copy on the new or used market, or some poor scanned copy from internetarchive or the "evil" pirate library whose name shall not be spoken.
It seems like this will encourage people to jam up the queue for those books, since someone who rarely goes to the library will have no incentive to ever return it until the next time they want some obscure book.
In the general case, it makes the already somewhat unreliable "return date" listed for checked-out items even more unreliable, so all you can do is put yourself in the queue and have no idea when it might actually become available, since there's no longer any incentive for someone to return it on the due date instead of 1 month or 6 months later.
Libraries don't let you check out books which can't be replaced economically. You might have heard the word "circulating" in the context of libraries: stuff from Tom Clancy and Harper Lee and Kevin Feige circulate. Out-of-print or rare or college textbooks usually have to be read at the library, where staff discourage you pocketing or photocopying things or whatever.
One reason for late fees I’m not seeing in the comments is high demand inventory management. In small libraries, a popular title might have a long waitlist due to a smaller supply as a budgetary constraint. The late fees correspond with a limited borrowing timeframe so that the popular item gets utilized by more patrons. This seems fair to me, though I appreciate there is another consequence of late fees that others here consider advocating against.
You could try giving rewards/achievements to patrons that have a record of on-time return instead of punishing people (e.g. extended "okay" borrowing windows, small discount at the café etc).
> And these increasingly popular initiatives have been proven successful: After the policy change, Chicago public libraries saw an increase in returned materials as well as library card renewals, according to a previous NPR report.
It seems like fines are not very effective at getting people to return stuff on time, but they are effective at getting people to never return things and stop going to the library once they have a few late books, because they can't afford the fines.
To directly answer your question, they can just ask people to please be respectful and try to return things on time, and they can stop people from checking out new items if they have too many overdue ones. The problem isn't big enough to warrant stronger measures than that.
You can't check out new material until you return the materials that you already have.
From an article on Chicago's new system:
| Chicago's cardholders have seven days past the due date to return items before their card is blocked from use. In the case of lost materials, patrons must pay to replace the book or provide a new copy of the same edition.
|
| "We're really putting the focus on the physical object that needs to come back to the library rather than the revenue stream — that really wasn't a revenue stream," Telli said.
> "We're really putting the focus on the physical object that needs to come back to the library rather than the revenue stream — that really wasn't a revenue stream," Telli said.
That's not at all how they sold it. They claimed at the time .. fees for late book returns were regressive and harmed lower income peoples while discouraging them from checking out books/continuing to check them out.
Isn't "on time" when you are done with the book? I don't use the library because I can't finish a book in the allotted time (two week I think, but haven't been there in a long time). Often you can't renew because there is a wait list. I'm probably a slow reader, but I also have a job, kids, etc.
If our library switched to this policy I would definitely use it and probably get the books back in 4 weeks. The "encouragement" would be that I want to read another book, and I don't need to pay a fine.
As it is I just buy books on kindle so I can read them at my pace.
Interesting question. The article references that Chicago saw an improvement in return rates although it doesn't really explain how that happened to justify that it's not one time or spurious thing.
I would be curious how this pans out over time and whether libraries would change course of this causes a problem. Given that the change was pushed through in the name of equality, there's probably not much that would ever cause it to be undone.
Does it matter? Times change, and we're now living in an era where "petty theft is wrong" is a sinfully bourgeois thing to believe because it disproportionately affects the poor. If someone steals your bike, be happy that it brought someone else joy.
If someone wants to steal a book, why would they come back and pay the fine? The only people who would pay the fine are the ones who want to continue checking out books, so preventing them from doing so if they have a late book is incentive enough.
This is a pragmatic move by the libraries. The reality of fines is that they don't prevent bad actors from stealing books. All they accomplish is disincentivizing those who miss their due date (whether intentionally or not) from bringing the book back.
Chicago did a similar thing a couple years back and actually saw an increase in returns.
I used to volunteer at my local library. Every couple years they'd have an amnesty week where you could return overdue books and the fees were waived. In that week, almost HALF of the long-overdue books were returned.
This only works well if the library always has an excess number of copies of books which probably isn't too hard to accomplish. I remember far too many school projects where many books would already be checked out. Imposing a fee for keeping he book too long allowed more people to have the book in a given amount of time.
I guess some school projects (middle & high school level) may still require citing a book or two but it probably isn't a very big issue. Adults that really want $X book will just buy it used on Amazon.
I think a better solution would be to keep the late fees then after they totaled the cost of a new book send a bill to the borrower for the cost of the book plus and added 50% handling fee. If that is not paid within x number of days sell the invoice to a credit collection firm. The people that don't return books are in essence thieves and are impacting legitimate library users abilty to read books. May seem kind of harsh but I grow tired of seeing petty theft and shoplifting going unpunished.
When I was a user of public libraries it used to be awkward to get to them, after work, before closing time.
So I paid a lot of late fees. It used to bug me that late fees were waived for people on benefits then. There are just so many situations where something like this is the case.
I often wonder how much the value of all these hidden benefits amount to. They're never considered when there's a discussion of benefit rates.
They can suspend your ability to borrow books for one day per each week of being late. Providing slight incentive to return, without preventing low-income people from educating themselves.
Recently late? No more books for you until you return them.
Been late for month? No books for you this week.
Been late for year? No books for you this month and a half.
(This should NOT be multiplied by number of books late)
The mountain view library is apparently in such dire straights that they once sent a late fee of mine from a google internship to a collection agency. (over a $10 book) At least new york cares about people who don't have means, and seems to fund their libraries.
Same thing has been done Charlotte, Mecklenburg Public library. So far behavior change for me is instead of checking in very often if I am running late to checking weekly. Decide up if I am really gonna read those books then renew else return on weekend.
I am reminded of a (probably apocryphal) story about a professor who refused to return a book to the university library: "Any student who wants to read this book, that's a student I want to meet."
Since my library started this policy I have noticed that average time to get desirable but limited materials (like video games) have gone way up, because nobody cares to return them in the allotted time.
This is a good move when the cost of printing another copy is extremely low with today's technology. I think the old policy was created when the book itself was valuable or priceless.
Slightly off topic, does anyone know how to go about obtaining an API for library books or oreillly books? It's funny that my libby/overdrive app lets me checkout books but
cannot do a basic functionality like sending me a notification to read at 9pm every night or open a random chapter from the book and send as notification, so that I can start reading etc
I am at a loss of how to obtain initial set of books and hence need an API to my library (San Jose Public Library)
Because previously people were worried about the library fines of a dead person and rushed those books back? No, now they don't have to worry about getting hassled about fines if they return the books.
Probably whatever happened when someone borrowed books and died before they decided to remove late fees.
I'm assuming your account is closed and the books should be returned. As a kid, I was told you can drop local library books into the mail and they'd be sent back to the library.
As someone who's been taking advantage of NYPL's rakuten-backend
(all-digital, kindle-based, automatic returns), this cause for commotion seems
silly. I get that poor people don't have kindles, but it's just a matter of time.
Pretty recently (2018-ish?), in Seattle, someone I knew ended up racking up a 100 dollar fine at the Seattle Public Library. What was extremely shocking about this, however, was that the Library at that time felt the need to send it to collections.
The scenario one could envision for the outcome of something like this is pretty dystopian. This could well end up damaging someone's credit to the point where they would have trouble finding housing.
There probably would have been less repercussions for stealing a book due to what's been going on with SPD and minor crimes like that, which is pretty out of control :/
There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have.
Think about it rationally:
If you are poor with an overdue book, you really have no incentive to return it. You can't pay the fee so even if you return it you won't get use of the library.
With the new system you get immediate use of the library once you turn in your overdue book. The benefit for returning books is much higher.