Interesting Op-Ed Piece about the St Louis County Library

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Rylon

How do you know that money for the passes is coming from the libraries and not the museums?

There's more to it than just the passes themselves. There are things like designing, distributing, and marketing. A little bit here and a little bit there, eventually adds up. Especially in light of a drastic cut in bookmobile services and a projected $1.9 million shortfall in the library's 2012 budget.

[Rylon]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

There's more to it than just the passes themselves. There are things like designing, distributing, and marketing. A little bit here and a little bit there, eventually adds up.

True, but we don't know how much money that is or where it's coming from.

Especially in light of a drastic cut in bookmobile services and a projected $1.9 million shortfall in the library's 2012 budget.

I don't think library funding is the zero sum game you think it is. For example, I don't think libraries are allotted X amount of dollars and told to run their programs on that. I think some money is earmarked for certain projects.

When I lived in San Diego, the MTS (local public transportation agency) was simultaneously improving making structural and equipment improvements while also having to cut back service. Why? Because they got money for structural and equipment improvements that couldn't be spent on service. In other words, it would be illegal for them to spend the money on something else.

Speaking of San Diego, they're building a new main library while they have to cut back on the hours they're open. Why? They got voters to approve a bond to build a new library building. The bond is for building, not operating.

We should give libraries the money to buy more books, but if they're not being given that money, it seems wrong to me to fault the library for spending the money they are given the way they're told to by the person giving it to them. It's like when you give money to your alma matter, you can say "this goes only to the theater department." Then they can't spend it on a laser that sends you to The Grid to fight the MCP.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by Nahgem

So the hell what? Many of the people who check out library books are probably just doing it for basic entertainment too, and nobody seems to find that problematic. Is it just because they're not books that entertainment media is inappropriate for a library?

I do. It's expensive to maintain a building, a staff, and a collection of movies and books. If the cost of these was paid entirely by patrons, there would be no patrons.

The public library was created to give people access to information in a day when there were no alternatives. Very few people used public libraries. Many could not read and many more could not get to the library. Public schools provide many more with much more -- including transportation. Most include a library that rivals the local public library.

To remain relevant, the libraries brought in resources not generally found in school libraries -- newspapers and magazines, then movies and audio books. It was cheaper to borrow consumer reports than subscribe to the magazine and you didn't have to store old editions. It was less expensive to borrow Jaws than to buy or rent it.

The internet has provided alternatives. Books are inexpensive and can be purchased without leaving the home. Unlimited access to movies can be had for pennies a day. A virtually unlimited collection of newspapers and magazines can be accessed for free. Many more can be accessed inexpensively. Product research is easier and many times more informative.

The response of the public libraries has been to provide free (as in other people pay for your use) access to for fee services (including museums and the internet).

Libraries do not serve their intended purpose, engage in acts that would be considered unlawful if practiced by other entities, unfairly compete with private enterprises, and are staffed by expensive people (the volunteers have been replaced by professionals; IT staff is now required).

While public libraries provide benefit to some members of society (especially those who draw a paycheck from one), there are other ways to spend the money that would provide more value to society.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by wizwor

I do. It's expensive to maintain a building, a staff, and a collection of movies and books. If the cost of these was paid entirely by patrons, there would be no patrons.

The public library was created to give people access to information in a day when there were no alternatives. Very few people used public libraries. Many could not read and many more could not get to the library. Public schools provide many more with much more -- including transportation. Most include a library that rivals the local public library.

To remain relevant, the libraries brought in resources not generally found in school libraries -- newspapers and magazines, then movies and audio books. It was cheaper to borrow consumer reports than subscribe to the magazine and you didn't have to store old editions. It was less expensive to borrow Jaws than to buy or rent it.

The internet has provided alternatives. Books are inexpensive and can be purchased without leaving the home. Unlimited access to movies can be had for pennies a day. A virtually unlimited collection of newspapers and magazines can be accessed for free. Many more can be accessed inexpensively. Product research is easier and many times more informative.

The response of the public libraries has been to provide free (as in other people pay for your use) access to for fee services (including museums and the internet).

Libraries do not serve their intended purpose, engage in acts that would be considered unlawful if practiced by other entities, unfairly compete with private enterprises, and are staffed by expensive people (the volunteers have been replaced by professionals; IT staff is now required).

While public libraries provide benefit to some members of society (especially those who draw a paycheck from one), there are other ways to spend the money that would provide more value to society.

As much as I love books, it is sad that we decide to spend money on libraries while there is inadequate funding for housing and healthcare for the homeless. This being said, I am not totally convinced that there is not enough money for both causes. We just need to cut the government waste. There was a news story yesterday about the city of Detroit leasing a 2003 Dodge for 65,000 dollars. The only person who is happy about spending like that is the guy who owns the auto dealership who is leasing them the car.

[5thWiggle]

Personaly, I love libraries and I like the fact that they have computers and DVDs as well as books. IMO, there can't enough money spent stocking and maintaining libraries. When the Zombie Apocalypse happens, I'm taking over the local library for my family. Well built, secure building. Encylopedias and how-to books for knowledge. Computers and DVDs for when I get the power running. Probably umpteen copies of the Twilight series for fuel...

[ProfCrash]

And you don't know if the videos and video games are bought by the library, donated to the library, or bought with money that was donated to the library on the condition that it is used to buy video games and videos.

There are people who donate extra money to the library and they are asked what they want the money to go towards. If they say videos, especially X, Y, and Z and those movies are deemed acceptable the library will buy videos X, Y, and Z.

[wizwor]

I would have no problem with a privately funded library system. In the Boy Scouts, parents are asked to contribute what they can. The BSA presents each with a flyer that includes the 'fair share' (cost divided by scouts). Maybe the libraries could do the same. Wealthy advocates could pay their own way plus that of a couple less fortunate. I would also support commercialization -- Amazon gets to be the home page on the library computers and is prominently promoted in exchange for paying the bills.

I think this would change the nature of libraries for the better.

[Nahgem]

Originally Posted by wizwor

I do. It's expensive to maintain a building, a staff, and a collection of movies and books. If the cost of these was paid entirely by patrons, there would be no patrons.

The public library was created to give people access to information in a day when there were no alternatives. Very few people used public libraries. Many could not read and many more could not get to the library. Public schools provide many more with much more -- including transportation. Most include a library that rivals the local public library.

To remain relevant, the libraries brought in resources not generally found in school libraries -- newspapers and magazines, then movies and audio books. It was cheaper to borrow consumer reports than subscribe to the magazine and you didn't have to store old editions. It was less expensive to borrow Jaws than to buy or rent it.

The internet has provided alternatives. Books are inexpensive and can be purchased without leaving the home. Unlimited access to movies can be had for pennies a day. A virtually unlimited collection of newspapers and magazines can be accessed for free. Many more can be accessed inexpensively. Product research is easier and many times more informative.

The response of the public libraries has been to provide free (as in other people pay for your use) access to for fee services (including museums and the internet).

Libraries do not serve their intended purpose, engage in acts that would be considered unlawful if practiced by other entities, unfairly compete with private enterprises, and are staffed by expensive people (the volunteers have been replaced by professionals; IT staff is now required).

While public libraries provide benefit to some members of society (especially those who draw a paycheck from one), there are other ways to spend the money that would provide more value to society.

School libraries cater to, and sometimes only service, members of that institution, so even if some public school libraries do have more resources in certain areas, that means absolutely nothing to the general public, who may want completely different materials.

A library is supposed to cater to what its particular community wants and needs when it comes to collection development and information access. If the general public wants periodicals and films, yes, the library is going to stock those items. I fail to see how continuing to so in the age of Netflix is a problem. Not everyone has or wants a streaming movie service. Not everyone has or wants the bloody internet. When we're talking about public libraries, they're often funded significantly by people's taxes; using the money that people pay to buy materials that people want is not a bad thing, even if the materials they want aren't always of a certain educational standard.

Yes, libraries require professionals on staff. A library staffed largely by volunteers who love books is going to be an ineffective, poorly-run institution. Good librarianship is a specialized skill. And, yes, many libraries employ an IT specialist -- because libraries have technology in their buildings. Librarians are usually too busy doing their own jobs to do all of the computer repairs and maintenance that come up, or to maintain the website, or to run interference between the institution and Overdrive or EbscoHost or the company who provides the library's circulation/cataloging software when their servers are down, or to repair the public access terminals when some idiot accidentally downloads a virus, or to fix the net nanny on the computers in the kids' department because it's not working right, or the software that limits patrons to a 20 minute internet session when it glitches and lets a patron stay on for an hour, or any of the other things the IT worker is required to do.

The purpose of a library is to enhance learning and provide access to information, and while there may be individual libraries who don't fulfill this purpose very well, that are horribly mis-managed, and that don't serve their community in the way they should, the field as a whole tries to do a decent job of this, which isn't easy when so many people are cutting funding and shutting branches down because they think libraries are unnecessary in the age of the internet.

[wizwor]

I just don't buy any of that. So we should agree to disagree and move on to a new topic.