Summary is: private company is taking over library operations in many towns, and cutting salaries and pensions, because of budgetary issues. Many people are outraged by this idea.<p>The company (and cities) claim that they are reducing costs but keeping or improving service levels.<p>The referenced NYT article from 2010 mentions another town (Redding, CA) that has used this company and hasn’t really experienced problems.<p>Santa Clarita (subject in the NYT article) switched back to “local staffing” in 2018. [1] [2].<p>The city claimed it would be cheaper to run in house:<p>“ City documents also said a 2012 state law known as the Public Employee Pension Reform Act that reduced pension costs for new public employees allows for the city to afford staffing the library with city employees and save money.<p>A city council agenda report said the net cost estimate to operate the library in-house at the same staffing level as the LSSI contract, is $3,388,409, for estimated first-year savings of $393,931.”<p>[1] <a href="https://www.santaclaritalibrary.com/a-new-chapter-for-the-santa-clarita-public-library/" rel="nofollow">https://www.santaclaritalibrary.com/a-new-chapter-for-the-sa...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://signalscv.com/2018/01/council-unanimously-votes-take-back-library-operations/" rel="nofollow">https://signalscv.com/2018/01/council-unanimously-votes-take...</a>
Very misleading title. Should be changed.<p>This isn't about making libraries private and charging money to take out books or whatever. It's about municipalities hiring private companies to staff the libraries and manage day to day operations. This is still a topic worth talking about! But it doesn't mean that these libraries aren't remaining free and open to the public.
I don't understand how this is even possible.<p>Libraries are a service that We the People have decided are a good thing to provide free to everyone.<p>Books can be read for free, information should be accessible to all, and all entirely free from any distortions or restrictions caused by a profit motive or 'invested interests'.<p>So, where is the profit in privatizing libraries unless access will no longer be for all, information will no longer be undistorted, etc?
Horrible idea. One day your library card will require a monthly subscription fee which will then be steadily increased. Then they will start showing you advertisements in the library and then put advertisements in the books. Maybe even start using cameras or RFID to see what books you read and start using that data to sell you ads. It really is terrible what privatization does.
This is literally just Librarians as a Service. I see almost nothing controversial here. Your taxes will still fund libraries, but Betty and Fred Slacker who have sapped tax dollars doing a whole lot of nothing will have to go. If you want your tax dollars to be put to better use you'd support this sort of thing. I wouldn't support the outright privatization of libraries, but also libraries are already prone to charging plenty of fees for library cards, late books, et cetera (which seems to be the fear here). Nothing will change on the side of the consumer.<p>ALSO: You have to consider whether YOUR public library is an above average PLS or not. I grew up with a great PLS, but in my current location it's abysmal and would likely benefit from this sort of service provider coming in.
>Because giant companies have told us, oh no, you want to save the most money, you don’t actually want to spend money on anything. Everything that’s good is really cheap, which is, of course, really, really, really toxic.<p>This is a valuable quote discussing a prominent ideology in the US. Everyone is trying to save as much as possible while cutting corners that harm other parts of the system. Including people who work for the lowest wages having their income suppressed because we want to save a buck.
The article doesn't seem to touch on the homeless issue. Have any studies been done on how much public usage of the literary resources of a library have dropped since most libraries have morphed into defacto "safe places" for the homeless to stay during the day? Would a "private" library have less of this?<p>My personal take is that we should absolutely have and fund these places (and drastically more mental health care spending), but a library is not the right location for a homeless refuge.
Just like Aramark for Schools runs many public school cafeterias. Viola runs bus and sewers.<p>Lower wages, eliminate benefits, make service decisions based on profit and not principle.
Books are a platform for the author to express their ideas. Privatizing libraries will give libraries the power to control speech much like Facebook and Twitter since freedom of speech protects citizens from the government but not citizens from other private entities.
Looking at this from the POV of economic drivers. Libraries have become steadily marginalised by the decline of print media of all kinds. Libraries have to buy books to lend. They measure the times a book was accessed, and after a number of views/month, they no longer retain the book. I am sure you have seen the huge numbers of older books being re-cycled. They used to send old books to third world countries, but they have winnowed what they send as even third world countries started to refuse various old books. The University of Toronto culls their collection rigorously. This culling frees up storage space. Print books were permanent. Copyright laws have created limits on how many time an ebook can be lent. <a href="https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/books-video-music/downloads-ebooks/ebooks-faq.jsp" rel="nofollow">https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/books-video-music/downlo...</a><p>Note, publishers also charge 4-5 the hardcover price for ebooks AND limit the number of lends of the file.<p>There is a large and diverse ebook torrent ecology, where an ebook can be lent endlessly. Copyright owners monitor ebooks, and insert codes in their ebooks and if they find it on torrents, they know what library was the leaker(of course, it was not the library - it was one of their borrowers, so there is some thought about the library cutting off a particular borrower), so a growing money gather by copyright owners is underway at all levels to offset the lower sales of paper based books.
It is clear now that the US and world copyright system needs correction - and then their lobbying will start.
<a href="https://online.yu.edu/cardozo/blog/disney-influence-copyright-law" rel="nofollow">https://online.yu.edu/cardozo/blog/disney-influence-copyrigh...</a><p>Did you know that in the UK a library is not allowed to repair the binding on a book as it wears out with age?
Look in UK books. You will seen a small paragraph stating you may only lend out a book in it's original binding. If it wears out = no repairs, no taped in pages, no rebinding etc.
<a href="https://www.bl.uk/on-demand/pricing" rel="nofollow">https://www.bl.uk/on-demand/pricing</a><p>There is also the PLR (public lending right) where the copyright holders and publishers receive grants that vary by country to assist in mitigating the 'losses' from lending.
<a href="http://www.open-shelf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Public-Lending-Right.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.open-shelf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Public-L...</a>
I guess on the one hand many libraries are underfunded by the state. Having private money come in to give them new life and make them a place people want to be, giving adults a place to learn/hang out, could be really great.<p>On the other hand, private money means that access will inevitably become inequitable.<p>Hopefully we can find a way to strike a good balance - I think giving people a forum to spend time learning/talking to others about what they've learned is about as good of an idea as they come!
If public libraries didn’t already exist, it would be impossible to create them now. Huge amounts of money would be poured into opposing such an anti capitalist idea. The Overton window has shifted way to the right when it comes to creating common spaces or public resources. The mantra today is enclose and privatize, monopolize and monetize.
Libraries in my city (Łódź, Poland) are absolutely terrible. All they have are history books that remember the communist occupation and the cheapest popular novels.
Public libraries have nothing that I want. They have no good engineering books, they don't sell coffee, and they have to enforce every single government rule on the books. The reality is that they are government institutions, and this makes being inside them bad in the DMV kind of way.<p>Scihub is a much better public library.