In December 2024, Los Angeles City Councilmember Traci Park introduced a motion directing the LAPD and Library Department to report on safety measures across city libraries. The motion includes a call for enhanced security, enforcement of library suspensions, and faster police response times, along with data collection on past incidents, LAPD overtime, and use of contract security. In a recent newsletter, Park framed the policy as a way to make libraries “safe, welcoming spaces for all–especially children, seniors, and the staff who serve them.”
While the motion passed unanimously, some library workers have expressed concern about how it could be implemented. One LA librarian said the policy “looks neutral on its face,” but appears designed to pave the way for increased police presence and punitive enforcement strategies. Given Park’s well-documented support from law enforcement unions and her consistent record of backing police-friendly legislation, the motion raises broader concerns about how safety policies may be shaped and implemented.
The core issue, they said, is not just safety but resource allocation. Currently, LAPD officers assigned to libraries are paid overtime rates, adding substantial costs to the city budget. Meanwhile, many library security guards, who build daily relationships with patrons and often de-escalate tense situations, earn less than $20 an hour and receive few benefits. “You could do so much more with that money,” the librarian noted, if it were redirected toward social workers, unarmed crisis responders, or better compensation for trained staff already doing frontline safety work.
They also emphasized that most situations can be addressed through community-based strategies: de-escalation training, relationship building, and consistent staffing. “We have security guards who know people by name and defuse situations before they escalate,” they said, noting that library staff often intervene with compassion, offering water, food, or conversation instead of calling 911.
Some parts of the motion, such as the focus on enforcing suspensions, also raised red flags. Staff fear that aggressive enforcement could undermine trust and disproportionately target vulnerable patrons, particularly those affected by homelessness. For example, patrons whose belongings are confiscated during sweeps might find refuge in local libraries, especially those located in districts with ramped up criminalization and sweeps like Park’s CD11. Rather than suspend them, staff can de-escalate and connect these patrons with support–an outcome that becomes unlikely under stricter enforcement protocols.
Budget constraints have also intensified scrutiny of Park’s motion. Library workers across the system have recently begun pushing back against the rising costs of police overtime and advocating for alternatives. Workers are questioning the wisdom of directing limited funds toward law enforcement instead of investing in staff training, community care, and basic library services.
“We don’t need an audit to know what works,” one librarian said. “We need investment in the people and tools that actually make libraries safer, not more money for police.”
These concerns are particularly urgent in the current climate, as the city faces a wave of federal immigration raids that have deeply shaken immigrant communities. With growing public awareness of LAPD’s cooperation with ICE, expanding police presence in libraries could further erode trust and discourage vulnerable residents from seeking support. In moments like these, libraries must remain safe havens—not places that amplify fear or risk of detention.