[HN Gopher] New York Public Library ends all late fees
___________________________________________________________________
New York Public Library ends all late fees
Author : EastOfTruth
Score : 101 points
Date : 2021-10-05 20:42 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
| m0ngr31 wrote:
| Will Mr. Bookman be out of a job?
| reilly3000 wrote:
| 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.
| joe5150 wrote:
| Good deal. Library fines create more problems than they solve.
| amichail wrote:
| So what happens when someone dies? The books they borrowed need
| not be returned ever?
| markdown wrote:
| That question exists whether or not you charge late fees, so it
| isn't relevant to this discussion.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > So what happens when someone dies? The books they borrowed
| need not be returned ever?
|
| Presumably, the replacement fee gets charged if they aren't
| returned, but collecting is difficult. Same as what happens
| now, mostly.
| matt_heimer wrote:
| 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.
| dvdhnt wrote:
| 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.
| jimmyvalmer wrote:
| People who write according to how they speak don't appreciate
| the aural cues (pauses, inflections) required to pull that
| off.
|
| Impossible to parse: _Probably whatever happened when someone
| borrowed books and died before they decided to remove late
| fees._
|
| Assume context and omit the full clause: _Probably whatever
| happened before the fees were waived._
| geodel wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| vnchr wrote:
| 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.
| riffic wrote:
| little known fact about the New York Public Library is that it's
| set up as a non-governmental nonprofit entity.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Public_Library
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway158497 wrote:
| 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)
| OldHand2018 wrote:
| https://openlibrary.org/developers/dumps
|
| That's a big download, BTW
| billfor wrote:
| You are still subject to a replacement fee (automatically
| charged) if you really don't return the book:
|
| https://www.nypl.org/help/borrowing-materials/library-fines-...
| breckenedge wrote:
| Wow and only a 30 day limit:
|
| _Items are declared lost after they have been overdue for 30
| days and a replacement fee will be charged to the patron
| account._
| OldHand2018 wrote:
| 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.
| amichail wrote:
| So how do they encourage people to return library materials on
| time or soon thereafter?
| xyzelement wrote:
| 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.
|
| Hopefully it works well.
| joe5150 wrote:
| Fines don't necessarily encourage returns, for one thing.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| 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.
| burkaman wrote:
| > 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.
| runawaybottle wrote:
| Every book can be digitally taken out.
| ejb999 wrote:
| no they can't
| bitwize wrote:
| 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.
| hnaccount141 wrote:
| 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.
|
| https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/10/30/20940677/chicag.
| ..
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| This seems like an obvious improvement.
|
| 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.
| KorematsuFredt wrote:
| Depends on the book. If the book is less valuable then
| membership costs yes, else people might make a business out of
| selling overdue books.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > 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?
|
| Lunacy.
| karaterobot wrote:
| 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.
|
| https://www.nypl.org/help/borrowing-materials
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| The replacement fees aren't changing at all.
|
| This is solely about eliminating late fees.
|
| 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.
| karaterobot wrote:
| 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.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| 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.
| ejb999 wrote:
| >>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.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| This change is only about late fees. People who don't return
| books are still subject to replacement fees under the new
| system.
| RussianCow wrote:
| This is already possible today, and yet it doesn't appear to
| be an issue plaguing libraries.
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| 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.
| reitzensteinm wrote:
| So what's to stop you doing this today? If you're able to use
| fake names why would you care about fines that can't be
| tracked to you?
| LaMarseillaise wrote:
| In what way does the late-fee policy prevent this?
| akudha wrote:
| 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
| jcrawfordor wrote:
| 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.
| nemo44x wrote:
| 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.
| NoSorryCannot wrote:
| 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.
|
| So I think we've made progress...
| jldugger wrote:
| Or file a police report and charge you with felony degree
| embezzlement 20 years later: https://gizmodo.com/woman-hit-
| with-embezzlement-charges-for-...
| kazinator wrote:
| The books are destroyed; no what.
|
| Late fees: pay small fee, borrow books.
|
| No late fees: pay for replacement, borrow 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.
|
| 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.
| jkingsman wrote:
| $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.
| ygjb wrote:
| 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.
| siquick wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| johndoughy wrote:
| 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.
| blablabla123 wrote:
| 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.
| skissane wrote:
| > 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.
| joe5150 wrote:
| 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.
| GhostVII wrote:
| 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.
| dymk wrote:
| 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.
| jaggederest wrote:
| 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.
| OldHand2018 wrote:
| 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.
| bowmessage wrote:
| This is an "improvement" in the same way that abolishing police
| reduces the arrest rate.
| gremloni wrote:
| The underlying metric (books returned) is massively improve
| though.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| 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.
| elviejo wrote:
| 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.
| SilasX wrote:
| 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):
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39332696
|
| >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.
| RussianCow wrote:
| 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.
| treeman79 wrote:
| 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.
| glitchc wrote:
| Deterrence often works until it doesn't, ergo deterrence
| never works.
| _hilro wrote:
| > Deterrence often works until it doesn't, ergo deterrence
| never works.
|
| Words don't become true just because you thought of them.
| glitchc wrote:
| At least I can think of something to say...
| kyleee wrote:
| Nor just because one says them. Two things everyone
| should keep in mind
| macinjosh wrote:
| 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.
| glitchc wrote:
| 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.
| emacsen wrote:
| This isn't an apt comparison.
|
| 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.
| hnaccount141 wrote:
| When Chicago did the same, they saw an increase in the rate
| of returns.
|
| https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/10/30/20940677/chicag.
| ..
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| 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.
| faridelnasire wrote:
| 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.
| cableshaft wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I disagree that your local library ended all late fees. They
| capped them and privatized enforcement.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| 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.
| cableshaft wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| joe5150 wrote:
| 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.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| > 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.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| calt wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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-
| patro...
| xenadu02 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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-
| warra...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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?
| joe5150 wrote:
| Fines alone can tend to cost more to enforce than they produce
| in revenue. Means-tested waivers would only make that worse.
| burnished wrote:
| Same reason you don't go trying every door handle, darting into
| every open garage and door looking for something to steal.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| guerrilla wrote:
| > 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.
| Zircom wrote:
| 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.
| ejb999 wrote:
| great, now you can go to the library, take out rare books and
| sell them on eBay.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| How does removing late fees make it easier to do that?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-05 23:00 UTC)