Michigan Supreme Court Answers Right to Library Question

Back in early April, I made note of the lawsuit filed by a Michigan resident who lived in an area of the state that did not have a public library of its own. The man sued the nearest public library because it refused to sell him the "resident permit" that would allow him to use that facility. At the time, I remarked that it should be relatively simple for the library to calculate the tax amount it received from those living in its district and to sell permits for that same amount to those neighboring the district.

However, it is not quite that simple because the non-library district has been negotiating a "blanket rate" for all the people that live there without access to a library of their own. Having some people pay directly for a permit would mean that the library would be, in effect, paid twice for those people. But it is only because the two sides could not agree on that "blanket rate" that anyone might need to pay directly, in the first place. The library did not want to sell permits to individuals because that would cause it to lose some of its negotiating strength. The non-library district did not encourage anyone paying directly because of the "double payment" issue.

The Michigan Supreme Court has now reached a decision in the validity of the lawsuit and has answered the question of whether it is a constitutional right in Michigan to have access to a public library.

Residents not living in a community have no constitutional right to borrow books from its library, a divided Michigan Supreme Court ruled today.

The court voted 4-3 to dismiss the lawsuit of George Goldstone, who sued after Oakland County’s Bloomfield Township Public Library refused to sell him a nonresident library card. Goldstone lives in nearby Bloomfield Hills, which does not have a library.

The township’s residency requirement is “a viable means of establishing and maintaining a local public library,” Justice Stephen Markman wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Chief Justice Clifford Taylor, Maura Corrigan and Robert Young Jr.

The 1963 state constitution says libraries “shall be available” to all Michigan residents but also gives libraries the authority to create rules.

Maybe this will finally get the two sides to complete the stalled negotiation process that would solve this problem in a more common sense way. Let's hope so because I feel for those 4,000 Bloomfield Hills residents who don't have access to a public library at the moment. Their community is probably too small to be able to build a library of its own, but they do need to pay their fair share of the cost of running the Bloomfield Township library.

A relatively simple problem has taken on a life of its own and it's time for the two sides to go back to the negotiating table and get this resolved.

Is Access to Library Books a Constitutional Right?

The Michigan Supreme Court is about to decide that question for its 388 public libraries and the decision is bound to have a major impact on those libraries either way the court rules. Up to now, Michigan communities without a public library of their own have negotiated an agreement with a neighboring town that, for a price, allows their citizens to use the libraries located in those towns. This system seems to have worked well enough until one such agreement expired and was not successfully renegotiated, resulting in Bloomfield Hills residents being left without access to any public library.

Talks had broken down over what the township could charge Bloomfield Hills for letting all of its nearly 4,000 residents borrow books. The township wanted about $1.4 million over three years, more than double what it charged the city from 2000 to 2003.

The township was fed up that its smaller neighbor was paying about $150 per household to use the library when township residents had to pay nearly $300 a household in property taxes for their own library. They now pay $403 per household.

"It just didn't sit well for taxpayers here or for the library trustees," said Karen Kotulis-Carter, director of the Bloomfield Township Public Library. "They're happy to share resources. Just be fair about it."

...

If the justices require libraries to sell cards to nonresidents, librarians worry it would undercut service deals they have with communities without libraries. Those communities could instead just tell their residents to apply for nonresident cards.

That ultimately would reduce a stable and much-needed funding source for libraries, according to the Michigan Library Association and statewide groups representing cities, villages and townships. State government has been cutting aid to libraries because of recent budget deficits. Libraries have at least 200 service contracts with municipalities around the state.

This is a new issue to me, something I've never even considered as I use the services of my excellent county library system here. Common sense tells me that no one should be shut out from the public library nearest him. But it also tells me that all who use the library should be "taxed" equally whether that tax is a direct one for the benefit of the library or a fee charged to those not part of the official tax base. It should be simple enough to compute that amount for each library in Michigan or elsewhere.

The question is whether or not the Michigan Supreme Court has any common sense.