Hacker News Reader

Comment by hiei | Hacker News Reader

Look I don't use the actual library as much as I want to (Seattle). When I was job hunting it was one of the last places I went to to be productive. The open hours are abysmal,(10AM-6PM) was a common one. That being said I have found use in these tiny libraries just knowing I might pick up something interesting - and I try to return or find another spot to donate a book of my own. It's not like they're stealing funding from the city? Virtue signaling? Wealthy neighborhoods? Some people just like books and want to give back.

View on HN

I agree. There's no reason why a LFL would affect the public library negatively.

Nobody will cut funding for public libraries, because "we have a LFL now".

> In September 2014, the mayor of tiny Vinton, Texas, announced plans to install five Little Free Library book-stops across town—while implementing a $50 fee for access to the El Paso Public Library system to balance state-imposed budget cuts.

From the article. I’m with you, I don’t think it’s likely, but the article did so their research and show that there’s precedent for exactly what you’re describing.

That does not contradict me. See my other reply.

We can debate motives endlessly. I understand that this is an isolated case and it may be correlation rather than correlation, but to me the fact there’s even correlation means it’s worth paying attention to.

Edit: By “we can debate motives endlessly” I mean that your argument appears to be “the real motive for closing libraries is that no one is using them.” Which may have some basis but at this point is not substantiated, whereas the article did provide at least some evidence.

Want to bet? Library budgets are on the front lines, and have been for decades.

They will not be cut because of LFL, but because some people don't think libraries are important.

Those people may cite LFLs as a substitute, but I doubt even that.

The point being that calling a book exchange a "Little Free Library" introduces the term Library. Effectively, people are paying license fees to a company in the midwest because they want them to be a Little version of something they know, rather than its own thing.

The people who build and use LFLs are the most likely to support a well-funded public library system, not the least likely. That's one of the key conceptual failings of the article.

i can easily imagine a NIMBY who doesn’t go to public libraries because they might get the poor on them, but puts a box at the corner of their street because it’s cute and raises property values.

whatever the motives of the people building them, they absolutely will be used by others as a means to attack a vital state service.

Nah. I don't think I've ever heard the argument that LFLs are a substitute for public libraries, except in this article. Library defunding is always done on an "everyone needs to share the pain" ground, we can't raise taxes, we need the money to deal with crime, stuff like that.

If someone wanted to argue that public libraries are irrelevant, the Internet is a better argument than LFLs are.

I mean, I mentioned in another thread here that in my own town there are attempts to attack the library, and its not a "everyone share the pain" argument. It was national news. The people pushing it are straight up trying to get the library delisted from the ALA and the TLA, precisely so they can control the content on the shelves. You can go to youtube right now and see the arguments, made in a Texas county commissioners court, to the effect; "if we can't succeed in having these books pulled we'll start our own library or get the county library funding pulled". Its not a rhetorical point, I've been active in fighting it here in my community.

(and it’s still a pretty bad argument)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com