Our Libraries

I have a bookmark with a saying of Erasmus: "When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes."

My love of reading is such that could apply to me; I would seriously be in jeopardy of purchasing more books than I should afford. Fortunately, my city has a reasonable library system, and I don't have to.

It was actually better than reasonable a few years ago, before the recession. Seeing that the revenue was falling, and likely to fall farther, a ballot initiative was floated to make a separate, dedicated income stream for the city libraries based on property tax. It wasn't to be much, the estimates were $60-$70 for a median valued home. I for one know that in books alone I save far more than that each year; plus, with its computers, many city residents who cannot afford one of their own can search for information for school, look for work, even keep an email account they otherwise would not.

Unfortunately, many in the city either didn't know firsthand the value of the library, or think it worthwhile (perhaps because of misinformation like this), and the measures failed. Several of our libraries were closed, and hours at the remaining curtailed.

Sadly, yesterday I read in the paper that the sharing agreement with the county libraries for our residents to check out books there will be sharply curtailed. Not unreasonably so, since our residents don't contribute to their funding, it was extremely generous of them to allow us to check out books at their branches.

So it was with a little anxiety that I rushed to the library. I had requested an inter-library transfer of a book and had received confirmation that it had arrived. However, I wanted to get it in my hands before they changed their minds and took it back!

So, for now, I finally have a copy of "Econned" by Yves Smith to read (she of the blog Naked Capitalism), with the hopes that these transfers will continue for our beleaguered libraries, since I have a few more to request.

Hopefully, too, the residents of our city will change their minds and decide that they, like me, value our libraries much more, and perhaps we'll be able to bring them back.

Disengeneous Anti-Library Screed

I was doing my ballot research, and trying to decide which way I would go on our City Library initiative. Increase taxes to fund the libraries, and prevent closure and a diminishing of services?

I found the Denver Post's for and against articles on the subject, just to gain a small handle.

I visit the libraries regularly - I don't like the idea of purchasing every book I want to read, just those that I might want to read twice. And my children go through books like a worm through apples (okay, maybe not quite: They don't destroy the books!). Although having a large selection of books to read certainly saves me more than the projected $70 a year the tax hike will cost me, do I really want to pay for more library?

But what has really decided me to vote for the measure was the completely disingenuous screed against expanding the library: In the writer's words, technology is overcoming our need for a library. We don't need a library, we just need Amazon and Google, and all will be well.

Except: When I visit the library, the banks of computers that allow our residents to do research on the web are full, lines waiting. The modern library is about much more than just the books on its shelves: It provides research capabilities to those who don't have internet access at home. It provides inter-library loans of books and materials. It provides Google and much more to those who can't afford it. In short, it provides technology equitably to our residents.

And Mr. Golyansky misleads: It's $60 million over 5 years! Sure, while trivially true, It's actually just 12.5 million per year, which is just just under $35 per resident, and roughly $70-$90 per homeowner (based on our median home value). Those are the numbers that matter. Not $60 million. Another perspective: A city our size has an annual budget of $600 million - that's $3 billion over five years! Turns out $60 million is drop in the bucket (a 2% drop).

If the best the opposition can do is to mislead and act like all the library does is purchase books for its shelves (and ignore it's other services completely) - then they lose. At least for my vote. The city libraries are not caught in a technological time-warp - expanding those very technologies that Mr Golyansky wants is exactly why they must raise more revenue.