Oh yeah, that once was a big problem for me when I was something like 9 years old. I was using library a lot and one day I lost the book. And there were fines for that and for late return as well. I didn't tell my parents because we didn't have a lot of money, so that would be a problem. I saved my lunch money etc for two months and then went to the library to solve the problem. They were pretty nice about it and let me to replace the book with cheap another one, which I bought right outside the library, so even didn't spend all the money I saved. Seems funny now, but it was a major source of anxiety for me back then :)

All problems are big when you are little.

All problems are small with perspective!

This seems like an excellent move on the part of the library system and mayor's office. I don't have a horse in this race (no late books in a long time) but it's great to see this being implemented for everybody's benefit.

Even if you return all your books on time, it's still valuable, because of the huge jump they're seeing in the rate at which books are returned.

Random anecdote: About 15 years ago, I was looking for a somewhat obscure book, and found that it was something like 6 months overdue. Later on, while hanging out with a friend, I mentioned this to a friend who had a common interest in the subject matter, with some comment to the effect of, "What happened there!?"

Well, this friend went over to his bookshelf, picked a book off the shelf, and handed it to me. It was the very same 6 month overdue book I had been looking for. He explained that he had lost it somewhere, and, by the time he had found it, the fines were already up to something like $50, which he couldn't afford, and he wasn't done reading it yet, so he figured he might as well keep it since it was the last library book he'd ever be checking out.

IIRC the statistic quoted when CPL announced this program suggests that some version of that story was playing out for thousands and thousands of books every year. Which negatively affects access to information for everyone in the city, not just the people who were getting slapped with fines.

So, I'm curious. Did they require that the books be returned in order to open up borrowing again?

Like, just, "please bring the books back, we'll disappear the fees and just take 'em back and all is forgiven"? Or did they just... reactivate the accounts and hope that history won't repeat?

(Genuinely curious -- the articles I've read on the subject, like this one, are all excited about more library everything, but quite light on real info)

My understanding is they just wiped the slate clean. Returning the missing material was not required. But that's based on a radio report I don't remember well, so I could be wrong.

If you lose the book, you can replace it with another copy in good condition.

The policy used to be that you had to pay whatever the library paid for it, which could be quite a penny if they bought one of the library editions. Now a $7 trade paperback will do.

Your proposal seems reasonable and a fair way to prevent a few bad actor patrons from stealing the whole library and then claiming no repercussions.

I assume there is still a limit on the number of books you can have out. If you never bring one back you can't keep taking out more.

I’m sure another way would be to start looking into accounts that repeatedly check out books and fail to return them.

Interesting. I noted below that the libraries could work with the post office to get books back efficiently, but based on this they should probably start with school libraries instead.

The "library" in my school (sub 13 years old, the library was a few bookcases at best for a school of ~120 kids) had books from the central library in the town. You could look up a book, reserve it and it would be delivered next week if available (no internet then, so it was a computer with the book list and reservation cards you had to fill in). If it was not available you would get a notice when it would arrive. Or you took your bike and drove the 5km but as a small kid that is not always an option and you'd have to get your parents to bring or help you get there. You could return all books there even if you picked them up elsewhere in the same library system. It's sort of a postal system I guess.

It didn't get used too often, but it was a nice addition to the rotating book supply that was otherwise available. And it was also a nice learning experience for us small kids about how the libraries worked and we got to use computers.

Also the Amsterdam Public Library does the same, just for junior cards though.

I guess it’s a common scenario

The Santa Cruz (California) City/County Public Library System didn't apply late fees to junior cards as of 15-20 years ago. In all likelihood they still don't.

Being poor prevents you from returning books in time.

Being young means you're less likely to be totally responsible yet. Being poor means you're less likely to have parents that are 100% engaged in your library visits.

Small fines seem like a great way to instill a sense of responsibility (while also acting as insurance style payments), especially if your parents already aren't engaged and ensuring you're responsible to duties.

As this the Good Will Hunting quote suggests, in many libraries these fees were small, $1.25 in late fees for a Harvard Education...

Sure, they seem like that. But the study Chicago conducted showed that fines increased patron anxiety and were antithetical to the intended goals of library leadership in engaging their patrons.

So it actually may have actually been detrimental.

Poor people are sometimes forgetful as well. I forgot to return library books many times as an ADHD kid but the small fine was irrelevant to my blue-collar, "you need to go to university someday" parents.

Please have some empathy for poor children and children with unengaged parents and stop supporting punishing them for their failings by removing access to one of the things that might get them out of their position.

Good morning!

What is your point? Of course we all understand that being poor doesn't (directly) mean you can't return books. I could write a whole essay about how being poor could indirectly make it harder to return books (less free time from working, less access to easy transportation, etc) but that's not really a point worth making, and I don't think it would change your mind on...whatever it is you're trying to bring up.

What exactly is your point though? Just curious here. That the library directors made a mistake? That OP's point about library card suspension being correlated to income doesn't mean it's causation? Where were you trying to push the conversation here?

My point is that I don't understand why the GP brought up the poor, which are kind of a wild card ("won't someone think of the poor???"), when they are perfectly capable of returning books in time.

Oh, this is an easy one! I hope GP doesn't mind me handling this one for him.

GP was bringing some additional clarity to the content of the article and the discussion about it. See the Chicago public library had conducted a study and found that by eliminating late fees, they'd increase traffic and usage of the library system. See they found that poor people and children were less likely to engage the library system once they'd begun accruing fines. The city felt this was a negative, and to address it they changed their policy.

Again, of course they're capable of returning things on time. But the city had found that 1-the fines weren't needed to keep the libraries functioning. 2- the fines had a greater impact on the poor than other patrons, which feels bad.

The poor and their usage behaviors were part of the decision making process, and knowing this may inform the discussion. It's extremely relevant.

Being rich enables you to return books as late as you want because the fine means little to you, and certainly not whether you can eat or pay the rent.

You also have the option of, you know, returning the book in time so you aren't fined at all.

People aren't perfect, they make mistakes. The difference is that a well off person can afford to correct that mistake by paying the fine, while a poor person is given an incentive to not do so because they can't afford it.

thank you. this brought a tear to my eye.

it is the antithesis of the social darwinism that coldly dominates our culture.