5 ms·

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

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.

lalaland1125 5y ago
> 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.
guerrilla 5y ago
> verifies inability to pay fine 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.
calt 5y ago
There's nothing that previously stopped people from doing that. A fine at the library just prevents you from further use of the library.
jackson1442 5y ago
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.
lapetitejort 5y ago
This article [0] from 2019 gives more reasons. Some highlights: * Late fees disproportionally affected the poor * Dropping fees brought with it an uptick in library attendance * Libraries spent more money collecting the fees than they received from the fees [0]: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/30/781374759/we-wanted-our-patrons-back-public-libraries-scrap-late-fines-to-alleviate-inequi https://www.npr.org/2019/11/30/781374759/we-wanted-our-patro...
xenadu02 5y ago
> 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.
- lapetitejort 5y ago
  > Nothing stops you from checking out the max number of books and never coming back. Except for some dystopian societies where warrants are taken out for not returning two books [0]. [0]: https://www.wilx.com/content/news/Charlotte-woman-gets-warrant-for-late-library-books-564246981.html https://www.wilx.com/content/news/Charlotte-woman-gets-warra...
joe5150 5y ago
Fines alone can tend to cost more to enforce than they produce in revenue. Means-tested waivers would only make that worse.
burnished 5y ago
Same reason you don't go trying every door handle, darting into every open garage and door looking for something to steal.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  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.
  - joe5150 5y ago
    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.
  - jackson1442 5y ago
    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.
  - burnished 5y ago
    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.
Zircom 5y ago
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.
cableshaft 5y ago
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.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  I disagree that your local library ended all late fees. They capped them and privatized enforcement.
  - cableshaft 5y ago
    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).
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      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.
      - jayzalowitz 5y ago
        live in mountain view?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
adrianmonk 5y ago
> just borrow 10 books and never come back 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.
- joe5150 5y ago
  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.
gremloni 5y ago
People that have to pay late fees on the max number of books now just don’t return. The library doesn’t get its books back AND loses a patron.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> 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?
tzs 5y ago
> 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.

lalaland1125 5y ago

> 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.

guerrilla 5y ago

> verifies inability to pay fine 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.

calt 5y ago

There's nothing that previously stopped people from doing that. A fine at the library just prevents you from further use of the library.

jackson1442 5y ago

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.

lapetitejort 5y ago

This article [0] from 2019 gives more reasons. Some highlights: * Late fees disproportionally affected the poor * Dropping fees brought with it an uptick in library attendance * Libraries spent more money collecting the fees than they received from the fees [0]: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/30/781374759/we-wanted-our-patrons-back-public-libraries-scrap-late-fines-to-alleviate-inequi https://www.npr.org/2019/11/30/781374759/we-wanted-our-patro...

xenadu02 5y ago

> 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.

lapetitejort 5y ago
> Nothing stops you from checking out the max number of books and never coming back. Except for some dystopian societies where warrants are taken out for not returning two books [0]. [0]: https://www.wilx.com/content/news/Charlotte-woman-gets-warrant-for-late-library-books-564246981.html https://www.wilx.com/content/news/Charlotte-woman-gets-warra...

joe5150 5y ago

Fines alone can tend to cost more to enforce than they produce in revenue. Means-tested waivers would only make that worse.

burnished 5y ago

Same reason you don't go trying every door handle, darting into every open garage and door looking for something to steal.

rsj_hn 5y ago
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.
- joe5150 5y ago
  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.
- jackson1442 5y ago
  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.
- burnished 5y ago
  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.

Zircom 5y ago

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.

cableshaft 5y ago

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.

maxerickson 5y ago
I disagree that your local library ended all late fees. They capped them and privatized enforcement.
- cableshaft 5y ago
  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).
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    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.
    - jayzalowitz 5y ago
      live in mountain view?
- dragonwriter 5y ago

adrianmonk 5y ago

> just borrow 10 books and never come back 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.

joe5150 5y ago
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.

gremloni 5y ago

People that have to pay late fees on the max number of books now just don’t return. The library doesn’t get its books back AND loses a patron.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> 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?

tzs 5y ago

> 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.