[image description: a Little Free Library, which is a small enclosed wooden box on a post that holds books and invites passersby to take a book, with the sky in the background.]

I can’t believe this is something I have to write.

Good god, NO, Little Free Libraries aren’t in competition with public libraries. But some doofuses think they are and, thus, my ranty panties are on.

I’ve been hearing the criticisms of Little Free Libraries for years. Yes, it’s true that while the goal of LFLs is to increase access to reading materials, they tend to be placed mostly in middle to upper-class neighborhoods where people likely don’t struggle with access to reading materials. This is due to a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:

• officially registering LFLs isn’t cheap (though you don’t have to register it)

• it’s easier to put up a LFL on a property you own, so lower-income areas with a lot of apartments or other renters can’t really make that decision

• LFLs themselves aren’t cheap if you buy them pre-made and aren’t all that much cheaper if you make one yourself

• if you take on the responsibility of a LFL, you have to keep it filled with books, which presents another challenge for lower-income folks

While all this is true, I don’t know that the goal of LFLs has ever been, or will ever be, to eliminate book deserts or provide access to books for people who wouldn’t otherwise have them. The way I’ve always understood it, the goal is just to add something fun to the neighborhood and bring the community together through a love of reading.

However, some people are convinced that LFLs and libraries cannot or should not exist simultaneously and that those who support LFLs are trying to overthrow the public library system. See for yourself…

To be honest, I don’t see a lot that’s factually incorrect in reading this screed. What I find incorrect are the extrapolations and assumptions this person is making. More than anything, I think the writer of this screed doesn’t understand the core tenets of public libraries.

Above all else, librarians believe in unfettered access to ideas and information resources. To misunderstand that is to fundamentally misunderstand what libraries and librarians are for. Of course, public librarians support LFLs: they’re simply another means of acquiring information.

Furthermore, LFLs have an extremely limited use and can’t compete with the plethora of services offered at public libraries. On top of that, many libraries are cutting back on their collections of physical books in order to meet the demand for other services. Just because LFLs and public libraries both carry some physical books doesn’t mean they’re in competition.

I seriously doubt any kid who needs somewhere to go after school is going to choose a LFL over a public library. I doubt that same kid would go to a LFL before a librarian for homework help. I have yet to see a LFL offering ESL classes, computer classes for the elderly, or classes on filling out job applications. I’ve never seen a LFL direct a patron to the exact shelf they need to find a resource they’re looking for. When you look at the wide range of what public libraries do and consider the extremely limited offerings of LFLs, it doesn’t take long to see that to compare the two is absurd.

Personally, I see no problem with both co-existing harmoniously. I think the people who don’t believe the two can co-exist vastly overestimate the capabilities of LFLs, while tragically downplaying or misunderstanding the capabilities of public libraries and the librarians who run them. It makes me wonder if the anti-LFL crowd has ever actually talked to a librarian for more than a reference question or has used the full range of services available at public libraries.

Either way, it seems an ignorant hill to die on.