I will argue in favor of preserving "libraries" but let's first point out some flaws in author's reasoning. >But libraries are not just a place to find books —

I will argue in favor of preserving "libraries" but let's first point out some flaws in author's reasoning. >But libraries are not just a place to find books — they’re one of the few places that provide a number of free services to the American public. Tax-payer funded != free. >Some two-thirds of our regular patrons fall into one of three categories: homeless, struggling with addiction, or recovering from addiction. Homeless shelter / addict sanctuary != library. >Libraries are irreplaceable. Either discuss providing more funding for the invaluable work we do, or leave them alone. I find the author's position a little binary or maybe unimaginative. What might help everyone - including taxpayers - is to re-think the community center model. If the library building is primarily a convenient refuge for addicts and indigents, then we should optimize for that. Fewer books, more bathrooms. If we still want to have publicly-accessible book repositories, could we combine them with other forms of community services, such as recreation?