Comment by entangld | Hacker News Reader

Comment by entangld | Hacker News Reader

I'm kind of ashamed that people even have to ask this question.

I live a block from my library. Parents take dozens of books home to read to their kids. They don't have to buy them. It would be VERY expensive to buy hundreds of kids books per year. A well informed society benefits everyone.

If you already pay for internet, have a computer, have a college degree, buy books on amazon, live in a big city around well-educated individuals, you might not need a library, but you didn't get any of that for free. It cost a lot of money to get you to that point. Not everyone has that.

The costs of self-educating without a library would be very high for someone without means. If you just factor cost of computer, internet fees and time it would to search for and acquire low cost/free materials (books are cheaper to carry, require no electricity) it's easy to see that it's not a close comparison.

Our problem is that many people can't visualize the benefits of a library until they are in economic turmoil (library use increased during the recession). We don't need fewer libraries, we need more people reading.

I find it too expensive(!) to use a library. Getting there, getting back, paying late fees (almost every time). Then, getting library books confused with my own (I have thousands).

No, much cheaper and less stress to just buy the dang things.

And another thing. I can't believe its not cheaper to just buy people books, than to build a large edifice, staff it with dozens of people, heat it and maintain it. Just sell it, and put up a website: kids books free.

You can renew books at most libraries online and avoid late fees.

It's cheaper to buy a book than to borrow a free one?

Most individuals with money find it more convenient to spend money (e.g. - cooking, transportation, etc...). One building can serve many thousands over a year. Borrowing scales better than buying.

Look at the stats on your local library. Maybe they used to serve the public, now they serve a loyal following of library nuts.

Look at the stats on your police station, or fire station, or post office (oops - maybe not so good). They pay their way.

Carnegie had it right, in the 1910's. But the world has changed, and the library model is (fast becoming) obsolete.

And here's some stats on Alaska public libraries: http://library.state.ak.us/dev/plstats/plstats.html#annual_s...

What does it show? That Internet access accounts for 1/3 of visits. Do you think that is going up, or going down?

Let's cut to the chase: replace the library with public access Internet stations, and stop pretending.

Ok, look at it this way. Does your kid go down to the library to research a school report? Or just Google it? Do they even know how to use the index to periodicals? Why?

Yes, for an ADD family, its Far cheaper to buy them than "borrow" them. And then ... you own them! And can loan them out yourself! And re-read them. And talk about them, and go find quotes in them...

I went to my library to read science fiction, years ago. A few months after I started, the collection started shrinking? The library was having "book sales"! Selling off their collection! To buy more videos, and romance novels, and popular literature. I gave up.

To borrow, you must usually have a library card. Which isn't free. So you're actually leasing the books. Kinda like NetFlix, right?

So only "individuals with money" are getting borrower priviledges.

For the homeless that leaves, what, loitering? Viewing Internet porn in front of the kiddies? Meeting babes?

I don't know about your community, but in everywhere I've lived, library cards are free. I'm pretty sure anywhere they aren't free, the fees are pretty nominal (i.e. $2-$10 every few years or if you lose your card).

Anyone can look at books inside of the library, though, regardless of citizenship or being able to afford the zero to ten bucks every few years they need to pay to take books home. For the homeless, this isn't even much of an issue, because the library is probably the best place they could read.

Thanks! Now I'll actually look up some library card prices.

$26.22 per Peterborough resident $1 Unitah Co, Utah $0 CA if you're a resident, $10 for non-resident $0 Peoria, AZ for residents $0 (resident or youth) or $60 (non-resident) Austin TX

So, most are free for residents, and pricey or unavailable for non-residents.

What is a resident? Somebody with a driver's license, voter registration card or utility bill, typically. Which can be a significant barrier to a segment of the population. Not only the homeless, but bus-riding apartment-dwellers may be barred for instance.

I was up until recently a bus-riding apartment-dweller, and my driver's license is from out of state. I was able to get a library card with my voter registration card, which I got with my electricity bill. In Boston, you can get it with just about any form of documentation, including a credit card, a health insurance card, a student ID, or a photocopy of your lease agreement, and it's free to sign up.

It's a huge problem that homeless people can't get registered to vote, but I don't really see how shutting down libraries is going to solve any problems for the homeless.

Like I said before, if you can't prove residence because you're homeless, you're probably better off reading the books inside the library anyway. Anyone can do that, regardless of residence.

The edifice is the point. Depending on one's station in life, the library may just be the only place one can go to escape the booming music, blaring TV's and incessant drama of life in the lower caste.

Its a refuge.

A multi-million dollar refuge made with your (my) money. How about the park?

You really seem to hate libraries. In a thread with thirteen comments (as of now), you've posted seven of them, mostly in response to your own posts. Do you think you could constrain everything to one main post and responses to what other people say? It gives casual lurkers the impression that there is a consensus of opinion against libraries, when there's really just one really vocal person.

Thanks, I'll try to get everything under one post. I admit this topic has set me to thinking. And as I think, I research. Then I think some more.

No, not a library hater, actually just coming to realize as I write that libraries are obsolete, underutilized, expensive to maintain.

Those stats for instance, from Alaska. Bigger libraries have nearly a million visits per year! (smaller ones, hundreds, but it's Alaska after all).

But consider: even a mildly avid Library Guy might visit once a week. Add a couple of thousand of that type, and we've covered 25% of the visits with 6000 people. 25% are using the internet. The other half? Declining.

Sorry, that just slipped out. Didn't mean to ruin your day with more facts.

{Edit} Btw did you object to the actual points I raised? Was I wrong? Is your library experience different? I'd welcome a response to any of them.

>But consider: even a mildly avid Library Guy might visit once a week. Add a couple of thousand of that type, and we've covered 25% of the visits with 6000 people. 25% are using the internet. The other half? Declining.

>Sorry, that just slipped out. Didn't mean to ruin your day with more facts.

Those aren't facts. Those are numbers you just made up.

Um, actually, taken from the Alaska stats page I referenced in this thread.

Or do you deny anybody uses the library once a week? How are they returning their books to avoid late fees? Or do they borrow just once or twice a year, return them a week later, and never return?

The defence of libraries HAS to presuppose Somebody is borrowing the dang books, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com