The city is not objecting to the book sharing. They are objecting to the container used to hold the books.

The reporter or the blogger could have turned this into an interesting story by investigating WHY outbuildings are not allowed by the city's building code. My guess is that there is a sound reason for this in the case of things like like 100 sq ft storage sheds [1], and so then the question would arise as to whether or not this makes sense for small buildings. Do they prohibit dog houses? Bird houses?

Another interesting question would be, if the code as written does indeed prohibit this structure, is whether or not that was intentional, or was the code too broadly drafted?

But no, they just go for the cheap "mean city bullies book sharing kid" approach.

[1] for instance! small detached buildings might be unusually dangerous in high winds, blowing apart and turning into shrapnel. This story is from a state known for tornados, so I'd be surprised if wind concerns were not a major factor in their building codes.

It's also common in America, it's just one stupid city that is complaining.

Don't forget just how large America is, you'll find every kind here depending on where you go. In some ways that's the draw: You can pick your perfect environment without having to deal with immigration or language issues.

Same in France, and they are always full of books. People like this kind of social experience and there are very few abuses. I have not checked if the overal quality of the books tend to go down after a few months ending up with yellow pages.

The books have nothing to do with the article. The issue is the bookshelf, not the books by themselves. The law prohibit to have that kind of structure in their front lawn.