Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Books The Almighty Buck United States

The Nation's Largest Public Library System Is Ending Late Fees Forever (npr.org) 135

Posted by BeauHD from the removing-barriers-to-service dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: The largest public library system in the country has become the latest to eliminate all late fees. Effective immediately, the New York Public Library system will not charge fines on overdue materials, and all library card holders have had their accounts cleared of any prior late fees or fines, including replacement fees for lost materials, the NYPL announced on Tuesday, in what it called a change intended to level the playing field for all library patrons and encourage use of library resources. Fines are "an antiquated, ineffective way to encourage patrons to return their books; for those who can afford the fines, they are barely an incentive," New York Public Library President Anthony W. Marx said in a news release. "For those who can't afford the fines -- disproportionately low-income New Yorkers -- they become a real barrier to access that we can no longer accept. This is a step towards a more equitable society, with more New Yorkers reading and using libraries, and we are proud to make it happen." The Boston Public Library system implemented similar policies in April. California's Burbank Public Library also recently announced that it would no longer charge late fees and wiped all patron accounts clean.

A couple years ago the San Diego Public Library scrapped fines, along with the Chicago Public Library. "After the policy change, Chicago public libraries saw an increase in returned materials as well as library card renewals," reports NPR, citing a previous report.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Nation's Largest Public Library System Is Ending Late Fees Forever More

The Nation's Largest Public Library System Is Ending Late Fees Forever

Comments Filter:

  • OMG-Pandering (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by rtkluttz ( 244325 )

    This is pandering bullshit. IT IS FREE TO CHECK OUT A BOOK for Christ's sake. Talking about equity for something that is free. It only becomes non-free when you steal the fucking thing and refuse to return it.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by iggymanz ( 596061 )

      Libraries might as well go all electronic, scan every book and allow access with system that does "checkout" to keep copyright holders happy. Make it legal by law. People with no computer can read at the library or on their Reagan lifeline phone(tm).

      • You're thinking of Overdrive. Problem there is a LOT of material that isn't electronic and most likely will never be.

        • that's the "scan every book part", with the power of law behind it would work. 99 percent of what would be checked out IS available as electronic already.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by necro81 ( 917438 )

            that's the "scan every book part", with the power of law behind it would work

            How would that work, exactly? I am not being nit-picky, but I am curious about the details behind your proposal. You mention the power of law, so presumably someone would be compelled to cough up or create a scanned version of every book. Who is being compelled? What are the penalties for non-compliance? If some book is long out of print, with no electronic version in existence (a surprisingly large fraction of all books fall

      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Stop being racist. Black people don't have access to electricity anymore than they have access to voter ID.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      From the NPR article:

      For nearly a decade, Diana Ramirez hadn't been able to take a book home from the San Diego Public Library. Her borrowing privileges were suspended, she was told, because of a mere $10 in late fees, an amount that had grown to $30 over the years.

      $30 is a lot to some people, and not much to others. As well as "stealing the [wash your mouth out with soap] thing", there are other possibilities, like losing or forgetting it.

      • Re:OMG-Pandering (Score:5, Insightful)

        by khchung ( 462899 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @08:35PM (#61865235) Journal

        $30 is a lot to some people, and not much to others. As well as "stealing the [wash your mouth out with soap] thing", there are other possibilities, like losing or forgetting it.

        I am not saying this is right or wrong, but using this logic, America should also end fines for traffic and parking violations, after all, $30 is a lot to some people, and "for those who can't afford the fines -- disproportionately low-income New Yorkers -- they become a real barrier to access that we can no longer accept." Right?

        Being able to drive got to be more important than able to borrow some books, right?

        • Re:OMG-Pandering (Score:5, Interesting)

          by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2021 @02:59AM (#61865743)

          Some countries set traffic fines proportional to income.

          Finland, home of the $130,000 speeding ticket [theatlantic.com]

        • Re:OMG-Pandering (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MMC Monster ( 602931 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2021 @05:02AM (#61865875)

          Proportional fines seem to be the way to go there.

          Five dollar speeding tickets for people on welfare. Ramp up to a million dollars for Jeff Bezos (as if he would drive his own car).

          And get rid of the added court fees if you don't contest the ticket. Paying a ticket should have as much added paperwork as buying groceries (ie: none).

          And make sure the speeding ticket fines go to the general state coffers, not ear marked for the local municipalities, local police department, or state troopers funding.

        • I've never heard of an overdue library book killing anyone or preventing emergency services access to a building. Why not abolish late fines? Sounds like a good thing to me - at the end of the day, more people enjoying books.

        • Some fines are worth waiving, or repurposing. I remember reading about a problem with people not having car seats for children and just strapping them into a normal seat even though that's not safe. If they got a ticket and they were low income, it just made it even HARDER for them to get a car seat for their kid.

          So instead, if you went out and bought a car seat and came in with a receipt, they waived the ticket. That's a much better solution.

          And frankly, the best solution of all, is just give out free car

      • Really? Can't come up with $30 over a whole ten years?

        Yeah...only if you don't even try.

      • Sorry to say this, but I don't give a rats ass about Diana Ramirez and her $10 late fees which had grown to $30 over the years. She could have avoided that by just making sure the books are back on time. If it happens once, ok that can happen, if it happens a lot of time, it's really your own lack of interest and you should be punished for that.
        • It also tells us that using the library wasn't even worth $10 to her. When you put a price tag on something you find out in a real hurry how much they actually value that thing compared to everything else they could spend their money on instead. Interest on fines is pointless though. If she returned what was borrowed then leave the fee at what it was. Interest only discourages payment.

    • > It only becomes non-free when you steal the fucking thing and refuse to return it.

      Actually it only becomes non-free when you borrow it for too long AND actually return it.

      Libraries don't have the resources, desire or profitable business plan to send out debt collectors for $30 fines.
      So the end result is you have a book that's going to cost you $30 to return, or free to keep.

      Making it free to return increases returns per the article.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        Some people are more interested in increasing suffering in the world by punishing than they are in making things right.

        • Do I really have to explain this to a 4 digit ID?

          The purpose of counterincentives/punishments is not to increase suffering in the world. It is to DECREASE it, by incentivizing people to do the right thing, rather than the wrong one.

          Most people learn that by about six months of age.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by flink ( 18449 )

            But if the disincentive does not induce the desired behavior, then the actual effect is to increase net suffering. This has been empirically observed, but some folks refuse to acknowledge it and endorse changing policy, one can only assume out of a puritanical delight in seeing the "sinner" punished.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            As flink points out, when empirical evidence demonstrates that the punishment is ineffective, or in this case is the effect is actually the opposite of the desired outcome, some stubbornly insist that the punishment continue. The only conclusions available is that they're actually morons or that they prefer the suffering induced to actually solving the problem. Were they intelligent and actually interested in solving the problem they'd switch strategies.

            We see the same thing with criminal rehabilitation. No

    • You got triggered. Go wipe yourself before you stain your chair.

  • Well it's been quite a long time but I'm certain Al Bundy will be relieved!

  • How is this a barrier to access for the poor? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by anoncoward69 ( 6496862 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @07:11PM (#61865021)
    RETURN YOUR FUCKING SHIT ON TIME AND YOU WON'T GET A DAMN LATE FEE!! Most libraries will probably take a return by mail if you have no other means to get there to return it. In NYC, most libraries are probably within walking distance or a subway ride that a vast majority of new yorkers already have a metro card for.

    • Replacement fees is the one that gets some. Most don't realize just how much some materials cost.

      • Then people should either return the book, or be more careful of the expensive bundle of paper they agreed to take care of when they borrowed it.

        The library system shouldn't have to be responsible for eating the cost of a patrons negligence. If a person can't own up to, and repay damages cause by their own screw up they shouldn't be allowed to borrow more books. That doesn't change if there is a fine system in place or not.

        Besides, if they are too poor to pay fines to be able to then check out books, what's

        • the people can just read in the library reading areas

          I used the library mainly for books to read at bedtime for my kids. So reading at the library wouldn't work.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      You can literally drop a book in any outgoing mailbox and it will get delivered to the library system. This is by federal law a free service by the postal system already

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by narcc ( 412956 )

        I can't find any information about this.

        The closest thing I could find was a library in Ohio that said state employees could return books by interoffice mail.

        If you have a link, that would be wonderful. Otherwise, I'd caution anyone reading this to check with their local post office before dropping their library books in the big blue box on the corner.

  • NYC libraries complain about bare shelves because everyone thought they were borders books, giving away free books.
    • There are probably other enforcement mechanisms, like bans on additional lending if you have a book overdue. Also, patrons are charged replacement cost after a month.

    • Based on other libraries that have done it (also mentioned in the article) it increases returns and attendance

      The San Diego Public Library scrapped fines back in 2019, as did the Chicago Public Library. 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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        Based on other libraries that have done it (also mentioned in the article) it increases returns and attendance

        Because a late fee that doesn't get assessed until you return a book is a disincentive to return the book.

        An actual monetary incentive to return books is money held in collateral, i.e. you pay $30 for the library card and you lose it if you don't return on time.

  • Wonâ(TM)t Mr. Bookman, the library cop, be out of a job now?

  • This makes sense (Score:3)

    by glitch! ( 57276 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @07:23PM (#61865065)

    I think the way people use libraries has changed over the last N decades. When I was young, the library was THE place to get information on anything and everything. There were late fees, and they were a bit of a stick to get me to return the books, but I usually returned them promptly when I was done with them. I paid the twenty-five cents now and then when I was "late".

    One big example was when I checked out Sam's 8080 Bugbook from the college library, and just forgot about it for a while. Then they sent me a bill for $$ (twenty or more??) for late fees. I found out that the replacement cost was lower, so I told them I lost it and paid the lower amount.

    I agree with the story. A city provides funds to run a library. I expect that the payroll for the staff is a big part of that. I also expect that the late fees are a minor revenue. Do the late fees actually slow down stolen books? I think not. I think nagging reminders would be more effective.

    • Re:This makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)

      by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @07:29PM (#61865097)
      Also, the cost of enforcing the late fees may be more than the fees. The fees are 10c per day, with the borrower being charged to replace the book after 30 days. So a max of $3 of late fees per book. How much does it cost to send this kind of bill to collections or even print out and mail a nag letter?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      A different approach would be an up-front deposit of say $20 dollars per book, perhaps with a multi-book discount. You get your money back when you return the books.

      If people flake, they eat the cost instead of the library.

      • Or you put in a $20 deposit when your get your library card. Deplete your deposit and your lending privileges are revoked until you replenish it. But god forbid $20 would be a barrier when they spend that much or more on smokes in a week.

      • Re:This makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)

        by feedayeen ( 1322473 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @10:49PM (#61865533)
        That would just result in even fewer people using them. The Boston Public Library system has an operating budget of almost 40 million dollar a year. They took in 175k in 2019 from fees so 0.5% of their budget. The biggest risk to the library systems is not losing a portion of their easily replicable books, it's if the public stops using and ultimately valuing them. Their funding comes from taxpayers or trusts which require them to maintain goodwill of a community. If the community doesn't care enough to maintain support, they'll close.

  • Maybe it is a good thing when the people many slashdotters rail about steeling actually want to read a book. People who read are generally better thinkers and are more valuable to the economy. And in comparison, many if most well off kids these days don't care about reading books. But could be good at cheating on literature courses using their mobiles.

  • Rich people can pay tickets without any thought. They can also pay higher insurance rates, some can even self insure. It is only when you take away their license that the playing field is equal.

    If you lose a book or two, shit happens. If you are a serial keeper of books you should probably lose your library card.

  • They can probably afford to do this because on average used books are cheap. People are switching to e-pads and cleaning out their shelves, donating books to the library, creating a glut of used books.

    • Re:cleaning out (Score:4, Informative)

      by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2021 @02:43PM (#61867195) Journal

      Libraries are very carefully curated. Your local library is constantly adding new books and discarding old ones.

      They don't want the average person's aging collection of political tell-alls, romance novels, and UFO disclosure books. Almost everything people donate to the library ends up in the bin or sold 3 for a nickel at the annual book sale.

      If you do want to make a donation to the library that is actually useful, start by talking to your local librarian about their current needs.

      Our local radio club keeps an updated collection of ARRL books (the antenna book, exam study guides, etc.) at several libraries in the county. We don't keep them stocked at every library in the county because not every library wants them. We wasted a lot of money at first thinking that any library would be thrilled to get such an expensive collection of what some members assumed would be in-demand books.

  • Example of "mah intuition!" not working... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by friedmud ( 512466 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @07:50PM (#61865139)

    This is the perfect example where personal intuition does NOT work out in the real world. Macroeconomics is _complex_ and should be left to economists. The armchair economists in this discussion that are yelling that poor people should "JUST RETURN YOUR BOOKS!" are obviously not deep thinkers.

    All small fines disproportionately affect the poor. If you make decent money ($100k+ household) then even a $100 speeding ticket won't matter much (the insurance increase will hurt more). It is not even a disincentive enough to keep you from (mild) speeding. If you are only making $20k a year... that $100 may represent groceries for two weeks that you may have to go without.

    In this case: the small fines are enough to worry about that it will keep poorer people from even taking out a book in the first place. They do not want to even take a chance that they may have to pay fines or a replacement cost on a book. Further, as soon as a fine is levied... they now have an incentive to _never_ return the book (and never go to the library)... so that they never have to pay the fine (no matter how small). This means they are effectively cut off from all of the knowledge of the library and the library never gets their book back... a lose, lose.

    Without fines - people will be more apt to bring books back (even if it's been a while) and more apt to try at all (because they don't have to worry about a fine accumulating that they either can't pay or will materially impact them). By making sensible limits on the number of books one person can have out - and the number of "lost" books any one person is allowed to have (say - per year)... it won't be hard to keep down the number of problems.

    Indeed, the article clearly shows several examples of this working perfectly well in other cities.

    Lesson to be learned: don't just take the first thought in your brain and yell it out to the world. If you were not trained to think about these things... don't. Let the experts handle it. It seems like they are doing just fine.

    • That's why it pays to think about all the aspects. Seeing this is a computer/IT related site (Remember when it was all about Linux?) even a simple thinker would be aware of the problem of resource availability. Just how many people aren't going to be able to access the books they need in a timely fashion because people are being lazy about returning them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by friedmud ( 512466 )

        Again - this has already been successfully rolled out in many other cities. If it were a problem would the NYPL be implementing it?

        "Simple" thinking is not enough for complex problems. Don't try to pretend like you're able to see something that all of these other cities weren't able to see after you thought "simple" thoughts about it.

        These large library systems have thought long and hard about this. Many other places have already implemented it and show that it is working. Why do you think your logic ou

        • Well it's one thing to have simple thoughts about a subject, it's quite another not to think about it at all, even worse to assume that people who disagree have no valid reason to.

          Seeing as you implicitly say that this policy has had no effect on book availability, it would be wonderful if you could show me where in the articles it said this? Or is that a case of you assuming that's the case. I'd also love to see where any of these cities can actually demonstrate any actual benefit from doing so.

          • Re:Yeah problems are complex (Score:5, Informative)

            by friedmud ( 512466 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2021 @10:20AM (#61866389)

            The burden of proof is on you, my friend.

            The article clearly states "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". We can also infer that they are successful by the number of large library systems that are switching to this policy. If it didn't work in San Diego and Chicago... then Boston and New York wouldn't be doing it.

            So: you are the one that needs proof showing that this is a bad policy that is leading to books being unavailable, etc.

    • don't just take the first thought in your brain and yell it out to the world. If you were not trained to think about these things... don't. Let the experts handle it. It seems like they are doing just fine.

      This is Slashdot, where the experts gather. Whilst not knowing better, we'll gladly believe we know better. I think you meant to write "pros", and yes, they're doing just fine without Slashdot armchair experts.

      • Scientists and experts in their field can fall prey to a different form of Dunning-Kruger: that can believe that since they understand their own field they can readily understand someone else's. This is not at all true... experts in their field still need to rely on experts in other fields.

    • Without fines - people will be more apt to bring books back (even if it's been a while)

      Maybe. Or maybe the NYC public library just turned into a free bookstore.

      Actually, I can see eliminating late fees... but removing replacement fees for lost materials seems like a bad idea. If I have to return the books I've already borrowed before I can get any more, I have a reason to return them. If not, maybe I'll just keep them.

      I suppose if there's a system in place for identifying serial book "losers" and taking away their library card, it's probably fine, even good maybe. Otherwise, a few bad "b

      • Exactly - they've thought about this and will have policies in place. This has been shown to work in multiple other cities... I'm sure that the collective is learning about which policies do the most good at getting books to come back while allowing the most access.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Actually, I can see eliminating late fees... but removing replacement fees for lost materials seems like a bad idea. If I have to return the books I've already borrowed before I can get any more, I have a reason to return them. If not, maybe I'll just keep them.

        I suppose if there's a system in place for identifying serial book "losers" and taking away their library card, it's probably fine, even good maybe. Otherwise, a few bad "borrowers" are going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money.

        And that is exactly w

  • Now I can finally return Tropic of Cancer without dealing with the Library Cop!

  • Does this mean Mr. Bookman is out of a job?

  • Removing Late fees killed Blockbuster (Score:4, Interesting)

    by atomicalgebra ( 4566883 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @10:23PM (#61865481)

    When Blockbuster went to no late fees their sales dropped by 2/3. The reason being is when people returned their movies/games to not get late fees they tended to checkout new movies/games.

    This could hurt libraries too. Although libraries are publicly funded if the number of books checked out is reduced by 2/3 it is possible their funding will be reduced.

    • Re:Removing Late fees killed Blockbuster (Score:5, Informative)

      by bug_hunter ( 32923 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2021 @01:22AM (#61865671)

      From the article:

      The San Diego Public Library scrapped fines back in 2019, as did the Chicago Public Library. 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.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gonzo67 ( 612392 )

      When Blockbuster went to no late fees their sales dropped by 2/3. The reason being is when people returned their movies/games to not get late fees they tended to checkout new movies/games.

      This could hurt libraries too. Although libraries are publicly funded if the number of books checked out is reduced by 2/3 it is possible their funding will be reduced.

      Did you read what you posted? Blockbuster's rentals went up when they eliminated late fees. So, more people checked out movies. Sales were not the primary business model of Blockbuster.

      Libraries business model is not sales. It is lending books. When those who have eliminated fines for late returns, etc see an increase in returned books and increase in usage of the library, then it appears to be beneficial for the business model of the library.

      • That is not true. Blockbusters rentals dropped significantly. Less people checked out movies. Rentals were the primary business model of Blockbuster. By sales I meant total revenue. Checkout the documentary the last blockbuster. It explained all of it. Removing late fees dropped total revenue by 2/3. FACT

        My mom actually runs the DVD rentals at the public library. The funding for the library is determined by the number of dvd's, books, etc checked out. In fact because DVD checkouts are so succe

  • "Excuse me, I have to return some video tapes" - Patrick Bateman. First the video stores shut down, and now the libraries are no-longer handing out late fees. Sociopaths are fast running out of excuses to escape from annoying people.

  • If we can just take a book and no one will bother us to return it, how is that different than being able to walk out of a Walgreen in California with a shopping cart full of unpaid for makeup, knowing that no one will stop me? Stealing is stealing, and the days of trusting people to do the right thing are fading away.

    The difference is that the library is funded by public funds - other people's money. The effect on society - basically teaching that stealing is a victimless crime - is chilling when extended

    • It is not "other people's money". People you accuse of "stealing" also pay taxes.

      As for "victimless crimes", "stealing" and intellectual property...
      Oh boy... Can't wait 'till you find about mp3s.

      Might need to check your heart medicine dosage before Yahooing that one grandpa.

      • As I was saying before some "fiscally conservative" racist geezer tried to downmod reality...

        It is not "other people's money". People you accuse of "stealing" also pay taxes.

        As for "victimless crimes", "stealing" and intellectual property...
        Oh boy... Can't wait 'till you find about mp3s.

        Might need to check your heart medicine dosage before Yahooing that one grandpa.

    • If you read the actual press release [nypl.org], lost materials (items that are overdue for a month or longer) will still be charged. Accumulate too many charges, and borrowing privileges are suspended. However, those charges will be forgiven if a person returns those materials which provides a way for people to restore privileges without paying fines.

      New Yorkers will still need to pay replacement fees if they lose material. Materials are considered lost after being overdue for about one month. If materials are returned, however, no fees will apply

      Cards will be blocked from borrowing additional physical materials if patrons accrue replacement fees (thresholds differ per system); note that even with a block on their cards, patrons can still access computers, e-books, and other digital services.

  • Slashdot seems to be getting more US centric with time. I guess I need to remember that when I see a headline containing "the nation" I need to translate it into "the US".

    • Slashdot has been US-centric since the very beginning. The number of articles touching on US domestic politics versus the domestic politics of the rest of the world combined, for example. It's a US company with an historically American audience so I am not sure why this is either weird or bad.

  • My City Did This Too (Score:3)

    by hipp5 ( 1635263 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2021 @07:58AM (#61866081)
    The library system for my city of ~500,000 residents did this. It has not been the death of libraries. The librarians I know are supportive. Libraries are essential public services for some people. The harm that fines do by excluding poor people from the library system very much outweighs the benefits of fines.

  • I don't know who remembers the off-color joke from the old Slashdot (from before "incel" was a word, and taking a poke at marriage): "You don't pay a prostitute for services rendered, you actually pay her to go away and not bother you after the services have been rendered".

    Well, same applies to libraries. I borrow library books so I can return them afterward (read or too awful to read further) instead of having to provide storage in my house for stuff I'll probably never read again.

    (Incidentally, similar

  • The Los Angeles Public Library has also abandoned fines.

  • For all the people freaking out over mass theft of books, note the press release [nypl.org] says you will still be fined a replacement fee for lost materials (materials that are overdue by a month or longer), and you can still lose your borrowing privileges if you accumulate too many lost material charges. However, it does make it more equitable by letting people just return the borrowed materials instead of paying a late fee on top of it.

    Cards will be blocked from borrowing additional physical materials if patrons accrue replacement fees (thresholds differ per system); note that even with a block on their cards, patrons can still access computers, e-books, and other digital services.

    If you think about it, this system does actually encourage the return of overdue

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close