"Kentucky Public Libraries being sued" Topic

This is ridiculous and I post it knowing it may go into Blue Fez land but this just ticks me off. Another case of thinking libraries are not critical to society. Yes I have a dog in this fight as I am close to completion of my MLIS and I work in a library. I suppose I will scratch Kentucky off my list of states to look at job options if this carries through.

link

"you can't be spending all your money on luxuries like libraries when you have other critical needs, like roads and jails." – fresh from the Department of Missing the Point (or perhaps the Department of Short-Term Thinking).

"This isn't against libraries. Hell, my wife has a library card."

Unbelievable.

well they were willing to let them keep the current tax rate if they would agree to submit to public petitions for all future revenue increases. That sounds fair to me. Any and all taxes should be passed by the people not just the government.

More to the point Squint 'Coleman said that after last year's circuit court rulings in their favor, the plaintiffs tried to reach a deal with the libraries: We'll let you keep your current tax rate if you'll agree to submit to public petitions for all future revenue increases. The libraries rejected the offer, Coleman said.' Sounds like the libraries went for broke and now, having lost, are crying for a savior. Must be pretty sweet to just up your tax revenue whenever you feel like it. I agree, a petition is a strange and difficult way to do it, but we ARE dealing with Kentucky. As for the Department of Short-Term Thinking, 'Let's just keep increasing the tax rate regardless of the consequences' falls in that category as well.

Actually, in Colorado we have TABOR(Taxpayers Bill of Rights), which requires all tax increases or assessments must be put on the ballot and approved by a majority in a General Election. It has worked well and keep this state from going into debt or default(California anyone). And yes there was renting of garments and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects.

Actually, California has had the same provisions for years. Plus, many cities require a super-majority. Oh, and we have a budget surplus this year. (You can file this under 'Get Your Facts Straight'.)

Actually, when you examine the actual figures and realize the amount of "manipulations" that were required to come up with a "surplus", it will make you question your sanity.

"you can't be spending all your money on luxuries like libraries when you have other critical needs, like roads and jails."

Anyone who considers libraries a 'luxury' is an absolute idiot.

My excellent local library system has an annual budget vote, and every year it limps to pass by a hundred votes. An elderly friend of mine complains about all the seniors who use the library regularly, then vote against the budget.

I don't have a problem with accountability. I have a problem with ignorance. If we have too little of the first, we have a massive surplus of the second.

I work at a library. I know their importance. However, no library should get to set the tax rate that sustains it. That's nonsensical. Yeah, it may suck for a library to have to go through the political process for funding, but that's what a political process is for. Of course, in this case what we have is legislators having passed two poorly considered laws, and trying to correct the matter with another poorly considered law. Not that I support the move to demand the money back. Yeah, sure, maybe you can legally claim that. but then the members of the various Indian tribes native to Kentucky could probably claim the entire state should be given back to them, and you can go on back down the line with that. In both cases, when the result would be a cultural and economic disaster, which is exactly what this suit's outcome would be, the good of the public trumps the legal technicalities.

The best outcome is an entirely new approach. The way to set taxation should be firmly placed back in the hands of the people, in one way or another, whether that be by petition, direct poll, or through openly elected representatives who are directly answerable to the will of the public (are the current library boards in Kentucky elected or appointed/hired? The article does not say).

The implication that libraries can't survive without the power to set their own tax rates is silly; our local library system thrives, and no such power exists within it. Being for a more sensible, accountable budget system is not being against a library, nor would changing to such a system be a disaster. Yes, it would no doubt change the structure of the system in Kentucky and the power within it, but that does not mean it must necessarily harm the library system in the long term. In fact, I think the majority of voters favor adequate or even increased funding to libraries. But there is nothing wrong with allowing the voters to express that desire themselves.

So, yes, fund libraries well and wisely. But do so with respect for the community the library serves, and the voters who make up that community.

(By the way, while I offer the above as my rational, logical, thought out response to what I understand the legal and political situation to be, as explained (very poorly) in the article. But on the face of the quotes being offered by the leader of the suit, barring the possibility that the context of the remarks are not as the article presents them, I find his specific statements clumsy, shortsighted, and smacking of ignorance. There may be budgetary problems in the state of Kentucky and elsewhere in this nation, but I seriously doubt that any library anywhere is in anyway a significant example of government waste, even if run as inefficiently as possible. And pushing for this return of funds just to make a point is like shutting down the judicial system because the prisons are overcrowded. You may be right about the problem, but the proposed solution at this stage is far worse.)

Well as some of the libraries have managed to double their tax rate over the years without any voter approval, I'd be backing the suit.

And I say that as someone who spent a lot of time in libraries growing up and after and who has nieces and a nephew who visit the town library at least weekly.

Considering the economy the up to 4 percent a year unapproved by voters tax increases seems questionable.

StoneMtn – TABOR was nice but too many local governments have gotten around by just raising rates for utilities, etc. and adding/increasing fees fro formerly free services.

Town of Nucla on the West Slope just bumped sewer fees from 18/mo to 30 to cover a purported 6/mo shortfall. They decided they needed a 'cushion.' And you know that if the money is there it will be spent…

Related to the OP the town clerk has it in for the library and tried to use grants obtained by the library for specific programs to reduce the town's contribution to their budget.

California certainly has surpluses. Whether in budget
or not, I certainly don't know.

About surpluses in certain demographics – well, I'm not
unsure about those…

Parzival, that was an excellent statement of the issues. Of course I would not expect less from a librarian.

We'll let you keep your current tax rate if you'll agree to submit to public petitions for all future revenue increases. The libraries rejected the offer, Coleman said.' Sounds like the libraries went for broke and now, having lost, are crying for a savior.

While I agree that public institutions should and must be open to scrutiny I think the more important issue is library funding. Tactics as the ones being employed by Mr. Voelker and his backers in the Tea Party are designed to muddy the waters. Consider that during the Great Recession many states and municipalities closed or shuttered libraries or greatly reduced their hours of operations. There were massive layoffs of staff of which only now are some of those jobs coming back. Yet during that entire time massive tax breaks went to businesses, in our state the tax payer was made to give without any vote, millions in tax breaks and subsidized funding to upgrade sports arenas for privately owed sports teams, and well…banks and Wall Street were bailed out. Therefore, while I do feel the Kentucky Libraries should have negotiated, I can understand why they might feel reluctant to give away whatever paltry funding they do get from the tax. Perhaps the link below might shed some light on why the Kentucky Public Libraries are hesitant to deal. Perhaps they should adopt a similar campaign.

vimeo.com/35758683

California certainly has surpluses. Whether in budget
or not, I certainly don't know.

yep, but libraries are CITY not STATE run, and a number of cities have already declared bankruptcy..so neither roads, nor jails, noe libraries and in some cases, police forces are being funded.

Messaging from a public library in Ohio presently. And libraries are still one of my favorite places to be when not at home or work.

This looks strange from the other side of the world, then again our political structures probably look strange in Kentucky.

Can somebody explain how the semi/autonomous library system actually collects its tax? Does the local or state government collect it on their behalf?

Just curious

David F Brown
(Former member of the non-taxing City Library Committee)

onsider that during the Great Recession many states and municipalities closed or shuttered libraries or greatly reduced their hours of operations. There were massive layoffs of staff of which only now are some of those jobs coming back. Yet during that entire time massive tax breaks went to businesses, in our state the tax payer was made to give without any vote, millions in tax breaks and subsidized funding to upgrade sports arenas for privately owed sports teams, and well…banks and Wall Street were bailed out.

Separate issues there, actually.

First of all, business don't ultimately pay any taxes. Consumers pay the taxes on businesses, because any tax on a business is quite simply nothing but an added cost which becomes factored into the price of the goods and services provided (or removed from the wages paid). So if a business gets a tax break, in the end it's the consumer getting the break as much as the business. If a business receives a tax hike, it's the consumer who ultimately pays the cost. Basic economics.

Secondly, you're confusing the taxing level and governmental level here, having muddled state, federal end local taxation and services into one big lump. I agree, by the way, that the Wall Street bailout was in general a bad idea. But it was a federal idea based on federal taxes. It has nothing whatsoever to do with library funding, which certainly never dropped at a federal level (nothing ever drops at a federal level). So that's a non-issue here.

In the same vein, state funding for libraries might bear investigation, but I doubt it's dropped much, either, if at all. Cuts to threaten library and education funding are simply used as dramatic motivators in support of tax increases. Works nearly every time. But it's mostly just so much crying "Wolf!" to manipulate public opinion. One might check and see whether library funding has really been reduced at a state level, rather than being increased less. I'm not saying it's out of the realm of possibility, but I'm wary of press statements decrying cuts. Are they real cuts in real dollars and percentages, or just "less than we wanted" massaged with creative statistics?

So you're left with local funding, which is typically either property tax or sales tax, the latter which necessarily suffers in economic downtimes as people act to protect their savings by purchasing less. People usually have no control over property taxes, though when property values plummeted in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage crisis certainly it's possible* that local governments reassessed the local property at lower values, or at least got whammied by defaults from people who couldn't pay the taxes anymore than they could pay the mortgages they should never have received. (*But I doubt it.)

Now, going back to tax breaks, in most cases tax breaks are likely to benefit the community and even be revenue boosting, as the economic activity will increase the collection of sales tax revenue AND boost the property values by making the community more attractive to workers, other businesses and retail merchants, driving up assessed value. Thus, breaks contribute to increased local and state revenues, and thus are more likely to be a boon to libraries than a detraction, if done wisely and well. (Not a small "if" there.)

Big project spending is the remaining item on your list. It's possible that public projects can indeed boost the local economy, and thus be revenue neutral or even revenue enhancing, but that should be examined on a case by case basis. Personally, I'm skeptical of this, especially with sports stadium projects and the like; funny how they never seem to produce tax cuts thanks to all the surplus revenue they supposedly generate. File that under "Hmmmm." Either way, the actual impact on libraries should never be assumed one way or the other, but examined in real numbers from the records of the community. But always remember, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Fund libraries through a tax on stupid youtube comments.

We can use the surplus funds to fix everything ever.