I come from Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, nearly every town is part of a local library system that makes requesting books from other towns as easy as requesting books from another branch of the city library in Austin. In Massachusetts, every town is part of the state library system, which makes inter-library loans wicked easy. In Massachusetts, there's no requirement that you live in a town to have a library card there.
I was shocked when I moved to Austin to see that non-Austin residents are charged $180 for an Austin library card. At the time I interpreted it as a "fuck you" to Rolllingwood, West Lake Hills, and Sunset Valley, three suburban enclaves which draw businesses with low taxes and regulations and therefore have resisted the all-engulfing tentacles of Austin. However I was reading this article which mentioned that after state cuts an El Paso suburb charged fifty bucks for access to El Paso, and in in the comments mentioned that Utah urban libraries charge $175 for non-residents to get a card.
So it seems to me like the phenomenon of urban libraries charging non-residents for access is fairly widespread, and seems to be a reaction to red states cutting state funding for libraries. And I get the logic. "Suburbs are richer and better-off than cities are, why should we subsidize non-residents?" But it catches rural areas, which are often poorer than the cities in their nets as well, and even if it didn't it would still rub me the wrong way.
Cities don't charge out-of-towners to use their streets or police, and it really upsets me that they do it WRT libraries. Mass literacy has been one of the great forces for equality, and I strongly believe that libraries should be universal. You shouldn't use them to try to recover money you feel is being lost to other towns.
But like I said, I come from Massachusetts. I'm curious what y'all think.