Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Library announces new hours, fines

February 2, 2010

Advertisement

The Lawrence Public Library, 707 Vt., will open two hours earlier on Sundays and close two hours earlier on Fridays.

Mary Lynn Stuart, a receptionist at the library, said the change in hours is in response to the public’s interest in increased library service on Sundays. The library will open at noon, rather than 2 p.m. on Sundays and close two hours earlier on Fridays — at 7 p.m. instead of 9 p.m.

The library now is open: 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Thursday; 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Friday; 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday; and noon to 6 p.m. Sunday.

And the library’s fines have increased from 10 cents a day to 15 cents a day for all overdue materials returned. The maximum fine for overdue materials has increased from $3 to $4.50.

Comments

Healthcare_Moocher 4 years, 2 months ago

jafs (Anonymous) says…

The point of the founding fathers was not, in my opinion, to simply pay for what we each use individually.

It was to create a society which contained a large measure of individual freedoms, but also a government which operated for the common good as well.


One has to wonder if you have a job?

0

watchinmyback 4 years, 2 months ago

I personally do not agree with all the funding the library gets from the city budget. The general fund for the city is growing less and less every minute do to the crumbling economy and we all can agree the city spends a lot of money on things we do not agree that they should spend money on. The cities general fund pays for 90% of the library annual costs and the other 10% comes from the state. It is estimated that right around $900,000$ of the cities money goes into keeping it open. So good for you library for raising overdue books prices from 3.00 to 4.50 maybe that extra 1.50 will help pay for the lights in that building. Don't get me wrong I am all for the city providing excellent public services, but where do you draw the line at dumping so much money every year into something that basically provides no revenue? I say this strictly due to the economic times.

0

jafs 4 years, 2 months ago

The point of the founding fathers was not, in my opinion, to simply pay for what we each use individually.

It was to create a society which contained a large measure of individual freedoms, but also a government which operated for the common good as well.

0

jafs 4 years, 2 months ago

The issue is what constitutes the "common welfare" - a phrase that many people are unaware of in the Constitution.

Roads, public schools, etc. are considered by many to be in the common good, and hence perfectly acceptable government expenditures.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 2 months ago

The exact opposite, jafs. We need to elect people that share our sentiments about what is NOT imporant.

And I would agree with you on every issue you outlined except for infrastructure.

Eliminate the waste. Eliminate those "services" which are not explicit in our Constitution. Restore our incomes and our freedoms.

0

jafs 4 years, 2 months ago

STRS,

Does that mean that we should all be able to choose what services/expenses we want our taxes to go towards?

I don't want to be paying for the war in Iraq - can I get a rebate?

I don't want to pay for public schools if I have no children, or my children attend private school.

I don't want to pay for the renovation of the state capital.

I don't want to pay any subsidies for any businesses, especially airlines (since I don't fly).

I don't use the roads much, so I don't want to pay for them.

Etc.

It's simply unworkable, given the diversity of our population. The best we can do is to elect people that seem to share our sentiments about what's important.

0

Thinking_Out_Loud 4 years, 2 months ago

And now SettingTheRecordStraight sinks to the same lows as Pywacket. Let's see, apparently I'm a community-college, dogmatic, and contemptuous elitist. Well, then. Let me see, here, what is the appropriate response? Ah, yes, I know just the one.

Appropriate response follows:

0

bendover61 4 years, 2 months ago

Save the trees, close a library.

0

consumer1 4 years, 2 months ago

This blog is temporarily closed to accomodate the personal fued between Pywacket and setting the record straight. Watch for the re-opening coming soon. Thanks

0

GrannyB 4 years, 2 months ago

To answer Cowboy and not get into the other discussion, many people use the library for different reasons. The library is just not books any longer. To some it is access to the internet, despite what you may believe, there are still many who cannot afford a computer or internet access from home. Many libraries now offer free WiFi service to travellers. To find a job now, some businesses (like McDonald's) require you to fill out applications online, as well as receive your W2's. IRS and State Revenue Depts. have tax forms online, not offered in print. To afterschool children it is a safe place to go to do homework until Mom or Dad comes to pick you up. Libraries nationwide have developed Teen or Tween areas and offer specialized programming for all different ages. To older citizens it is a place to come and socialize. The library should be the cornerstone to everyone's community. It has much more to offer to you then just books. So I encourage everyone to at least step through the doors once, and check out all the services being offered by your library.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 2 months ago

Pywacket,

Can we agree that frequent users of a government service, e.g. the library, should pay more for that service than those who never use a government service?

The Lawrence Parks and Recreation Department already uses this model. For example, participants in Parks and Rec kickball leagues pay for about half the cost of running the leagues while taxpayers like me pay for the other half of the leagues. It's a scam, as we all know, but at least the kickball league participants aren't getting a total taxpayer handout.

In the case of government libraries, I would suggest a modest, per-publication fee associated with the use of resources (that I've paid for but do not use).

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 2 months ago

Thinking Out Loud,

You miss the forest for the trees by giving me a community college-level analysis of my comment. Think bigger, not just out loud.

And yes, my question about opting out of wasteful tax-and-spend schemes is rhetorical. However, your dismissal of the question as "undeserving of further consideration" is typical of someone who has so completely embraced a dogma as to be blind to any other considerations. Further, your comment smacks of elitism and contempt for those who hold a view contrary to yours.

0

Thinking_Out_Loud 4 years, 2 months ago

SettingTheRecordStraight wrote: "I have zero interest in any library service. May I opt out of paying for the library?"

The first statement is untrue. It might be more precise to say you are disinterested in using any library service. However, you have an interest in them. Else you wouldn't be posting in regards to this story. It is further in your interest in a democratic society that the populace be well-read, thoughtful, and capable of critical thought. A group of voters without those qualities cannot wisely select their representatives or policy. I suggest you wouldn't care to live in such a democratic republic.

The question is rhetorical and undeserving of further consideration.

You're right, though, that Pywacket's epithet toward you was unnecessary and, actually, beneath Pywacket. As Healthcare_Moocher's response was, too.

cowboy's question can be answered by investigating the services offered by public libraries.

0

Pywacket 4 years, 2 months ago

Citations and analysis, please, newbie. Your comment makes no sense whatsoever.

0

Pywacket 4 years, 2 months ago

You clearly don't understand the principles and benefits of a well-integrated and wholesome society if you are making such (A) and (B) distinctions. A public library is a "pet project"? Now I've heard everything.

And yes, I was serious. I call 'em as I see 'em. You could learn a lot from fourth graders if you weren't too supercilious to dismiss them--they have a refreshing tendency to blurt it right out if the emperor is wearing no clothes.

I strive to be as honest as they are, rather than feigning respect for dipsquats and dolts who would like such observations muzzled for the sake of empty decorum.

0

Healthcare_Moocher 4 years, 2 months ago

Pywacket, from past posts has established themselves as a moocher.

Enough said.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 2 months ago

Pywacket,

First, you clearly don't understand the difference between:

A) a government which provides only those services which are unattainable or impractical through private markets, e.g. fire departments, infrastructure, courts, police, etc. and

B) a government which provides special interest groups with other people's money in order to fund pet projects, e.g. libraries, arts centers, Parks and Rec kickball leagues.

Second, you really had some decent, witty sarcasm going there until you threw out that fourth-grade insult. Dipsquat? Are you serious?

0

cowboy 4 years, 2 months ago

Why does anyone go to the library anymore ?

0

Pywacket 4 years, 2 months ago

That's a great idea. Let's use it for all matters of "public" usage. Since I don't drive down your street, my taxes shouldn't have to help fix the potholes or any other maintenance or improvements there. It should come directly out of the pockets of you and your neighbors.

And those damned schools... since my kids are done at Lawrence High, I don't want any of my taxes going toward the schools any more. Why should I pay for other people's kids to get an education? They should divide the cost of running each school by the number of kids currently enrolled there, and send each set of parents a bill.

Another annoying thing--I never have had a fire or crime at my place, so why should I have to pay for those services? When your house burns down or somebody breaks in, pistol whips you, and steals your valuables, the city needs to bill you for sending fire engines & squad cars, because why should I (much less retirees on a fixed income) have to pay for services you are using and we're not?

Gosh, I bet there are lots of other things I don't personally use that I can protest having to pay for. Everybody ought to jump on this bandwagon--just think of all the $$ we'll each save that way.

Ignorant dipsquat.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 2 months ago

"...the public’s interest in increased library service..."

I have zero interest in any library service. May I opt out of paying for the library? Maybe we should ask users of the library to pay for the services they utilize while not expecting non-users to foot the bill.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.