I plan to speak to my city council about creating a tool library, where citizens use their existing library card to checkout tools. To make the idea a bit more robust, I’m also planning to require citizens deposit something as collateral when checking out a tool.
However.
I live in Texas (I love Texas). Thankfully my city council is receptive, but I know they’re going to need compelling evidence before approving something like this.
So, if you guys have any advice, or examples, particularly of this kind of system working in the US, I would love to hear about it!
Why would collateral be required? You don’t need collateral for books and people who need to borrow tools might not have stuff to leave as collateral
Other than that, cool idea!
Because the tragedy of commons applies. Someone selfish will keep it or break it, or replace their own broken tool.
The idea of a collateral here would be something the fraction of the cost if the tool thats still an incentive to return it safe and sound.
Thw collateral is returned afterwards
It also prevents gradual decline. If someone keeps a shovel forever, but they left an axe, well now the library has an axe they can lend out.
I mean ideally yeah, and I figured I’d get this comment here.
Librares receive continuous funding for books that wear out over time and books that never get returned. Our existing libraries, at least in the US, are not self perpetuating.
Proposing anything to a city council is going to be an uphill battle. And if there’s one thing they’re always going to ask/listen-for, it’s “funding”. It’s a really big selling point to say the tool system won’t require any continuous funds; tools are donated, use the existing library infrastructure for storage/tracking, and when a tool is not returned by the deadline, the collateral can be lent-out instead meaning the number of tools stays the same until they completely break.
If anything, I’m concerned about them saying something about collateral value-appraisal, and or cost of wear and tear (misuse/mistreatment of the tool). I want to say something along the lines of “just let the librarian eyeball it, and that should be good enough”, and “the library gives a fine for a mistreated book, and they can do the same for a mistreated tool”
If people use the service a lot, and 99% of people return their tools, THEN I can easily go back to the council, present the evidence, and ask for the collateral requirement to be dropped.