Starbucks to require purchases to hang out in stores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Starbucks policy is really designed for homeless people and we have to be realistic, it's become a problem. I stopped going to the library a long time ago because homeless people were constantly making them uncomfortable places. Why libraries should become refuges for the homeless is beyond me. Typical urban progressive mindset, I suppose. One can't fault Starbucks for tackling this problem.

Libraries are some of the last indoor public spaces where they are allowed. That's all. It's not an urban progressive mindset. It's that there is no legal reason to discriminate against members of the public who are non-disruptive. My library has problems with the building exterior but not interior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish there was a way to do this for libraries too. The homeless have taken them over.

Yeah, they should just freeze to death!

No they shouldn't but the library is not a homeless shelter.

We should convert libraries and post offices into homeless shelters.

B/c who needs a library or post office?? You people putting homeless before kids.

The homeless deserve to be there as much as your kids do. I know, I know. It's a hard pill to swallow, but just try.

they actually don’t have the same right to be there. The library is supposed to be a place for everyone to be safely and comfortably to access media - it’s not a homeless shelter. If a homeless person is there to read the newspaper, awesome - as long as they are safe and not disruptive (including smell). A library is not a homeless shelter. I repeat, a library is not a homeless shelter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, so you should be able to sit and "work" there for hours but no one else should?

I personally think 20-30 min limit for everyone at a coffee shop is very reasonable.

I'm buying stuff. If they want to enforce 20-30 minutes for paying customers, fine, but would result in lost business not only from people who work from these spots, but also (for example) friends wanting to meet up for coffee. Most of those meetups would be more like an hour, not 20 minutes.

So you think your $5 latte entitles you take up their space for an entire day? And you don't see a problem with that. If you need to work, go rent a place, go to the library, work from home. Starbucks is a business. They need to turn tables and sell products. I would love if they enforced the 20-30 min limit on everyone.

there are plenty of places that would meet all your needs. they are called OFFICES!

But would if I want to order $20 worth of drinks and food and stay for 3 hours? I do that all the time and spend a ton of money at Starbucks. If they limited me to 20-30 minutes, I would not go at all and would find another coffee shop that would let me stay for longer because the whole point for me is finding a place with a pleasant atmosphere, food/drink, and wifi so that I can get a break from my home office and interact with people instead of being a shut in. I probably wouldn't go to Starbucks at all if it didn't serve this purpose, and I bet I spend a lot more money there than most people.

Who are the people you're interacting with? The barista?

Yes! I know all the baristas and the manager of my primary Starbucks. I've also had nice chats with other customers, and sometimes run into neighbors and friends there.

This is literally Starbucks' dream -- I am describing their ideal environment for their stores. People going there regularly, finding community, and ordering Starbucks products that they occupy on site while you stand outside angrily glaring at them and their laptops through the windows.

Dude, thats not community. The workers are forced to interact with you, and you are hogging a seat that people would like to use to sit with their friends and enjoy a coffee in actual community. Getting your social needs met is nice for you, but no less annoying to evrryone else than the person who didn't buy anything.

Why is someone who wants to drink coffee while talking to a friend more important than someone who wants to drink coffee while working on a laptop.

If I were at Starbucks drinking coffee while reading a novel, do you also think you should be allowed to kick me out so that YOU can have that table, or is a novel okay because it's not "work"?

What if the think I'm working on is actually a screenplay, and I'm not being paid. And again, I'm still drinking coffee. Is that okay?

I think in reality you just want to be able to kick people out of chairs anytime you go somewhere and there aren't any seats. Do you know what I do when I go to Starbucks and there is nowhere to sit down? I either wait to see if something opens up or I go somewhere else. It's never occurred to me to angrily demand the people there vacate for my benefit. That's interesting.

DP. It’s simple economics … if Starbucks can turnover the table you’re hogging with 3 sets of friends over say 2 hours instead of you alone, you’re a drain. That’s my big issue - laptop people who feel entitled to take up an entire 4-top.

That said I do think Starbucks has some solutions for that. I go to the one right near the House side and they have a narrow counter for laptops, and a larger table for singles. I think it would be fair if laptop users were required to sit at the counter or a large communal table so that others could use the tables if they are together and want to socialize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is an etiquette to working in a coffee shop. Some people follow it and others don't. Those of you complaining are complaining about the people who don't follow the etiquette. Those of us who sometimes work in coffee shops are also annoyed by those people. But working in coffee shops is normal and yes the shops often encourage it. My Starbucks has comfortable padded seating and each table has its own charging station so you can plug in a laptop and cell phone at the same time. Plus the free wifi and the deals they offer me on the app at various times of day are inducements to work there.

Anyway, this is what I consider to be proper etiquette for working at a coffee shop, Starbucks or otherwise:

- Don't go during peak traffic hours. No one should be camping out on their laptop at like 8am when there is a line out the door and they are churning out 20 drinks a minute. If you are going to work, go during off-peak hours like mid-morning, early afternoon, or the evening after commutes.

- Don't go for 6 hours. That's too long. I think my absolute max is 3 hours, and that would be unusual (and I would only do it if the place were fairly empty). I generally go for like 90-120 minutes.

- Obviously, order something. Most places actually do require this -- Starbucks was an outlier for a while but this is standard. I generally order at least one drink for each hour I'm there, or I'll order a very large drink. I usually also order food simply because I get hungry. It's rare that I go work in a coffee shop and don't spend $10-20.

- No video meetings or conference calls. This is the one I see a lot and annoys me. No one should have to listen to you update your boss on your project progress during your weekly Teams call. You should do that in private. I personally think in person meetings are fine if it's just two people. This is functionally not very different from like meeting someone you met an an industry event at a coffee shop to network, and most people think that's fine too. But the conference and video calls are very obnoxious, especially when people don't wear headphones.

I think if people follow these guidelines, working at coffee shops is perfectly reasonable and likely helps these businesses fill tables during slower times of day and justify longer hours, which I think is good.

I’ll add - you should opt for the seating designed for solo patrons like a counter. Don’t take up a 4-top. If you do, then don’t look annoyed when I sit down across from you with my kid when there are no other seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Starbucks policy is really designed for homeless people and we have to be realistic, it's become a problem. I stopped going to the library a long time ago because homeless people were constantly making them uncomfortable places. Why libraries should become refuges for the homeless is beyond me. Typical urban progressive mindset, I suppose. One can't fault Starbucks for tackling this problem.

Libraries are some of the last indoor public spaces where they are allowed. That's all. It's not an urban progressive mindset. It's that there is no legal reason to discriminate against members of the public who are non-disruptive. My library has problems with the building exterior but not interior.

DC has plenty of day services for the homeless: https://dhs.dc.gov/page/day-services-centers

I think it’s entirely reasonable for a library to preserve what it actually is - a place to access media - and not turn into a homeless shelter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish there was a way to do this for libraries too. The homeless have taken them over.

Yeah, they should just freeze to death!

No they shouldn't but the library is not a homeless shelter.

We should convert libraries and post offices into homeless shelters.

B/c who needs a library or post office?? You people putting homeless before kids.

The homeless deserve to be there as much as your kids do. I know, I know. It's a hard pill to swallow, but just try.

they actually don’t have the same right to be there. The library is supposed to be a place for everyone to be safely and comfortably to access media - it’s not a homeless shelter. If a homeless person is there to read the newspaper, awesome - as long as they are safe and not disruptive (including smell). A library is not a homeless shelter. I repeat, a library is not a homeless shelter.

Of course they have the same exact rights to be there as you and your spawn do. You just think you are so very special because you can afford a shower. Get over yourself, princess. If you don't like them being there, feel free to petition your local government to open day centers where they can get shelter from the weather.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Starbucks policy is really designed for homeless people and we have to be realistic, it's become a problem. I stopped going to the library a long time ago because homeless people were constantly making them uncomfortable places. Why libraries should become refuges for the homeless is beyond me. Typical urban progressive mindset, I suppose. One can't fault Starbucks for tackling this problem.

Libraries are some of the last indoor public spaces where they are allowed. That's all. It's not an urban progressive mindset. It's that there is no legal reason to discriminate against members of the public who are non-disruptive. My library has problems with the building exterior but not interior.

DC has plenty of day services for the homeless: https://dhs.dc.gov/page/day-services-centers

I think it’s entirely reasonable for a library to preserve what it actually is - a place to access media - and not turn into a homeless shelter.

A homeless person sitting there reading is no different than you sitting there reading. They have every right to be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish there was a way to do this for libraries too. The homeless have taken them over.

Yeah, they should just freeze to death!

No they shouldn't but the library is not a homeless shelter.

We should convert libraries and post offices into homeless shelters.

B/c who needs a library or post office?? You people putting homeless before kids.

The homeless deserve to be there as much as your kids do. I know, I know. It's a hard pill to swallow, but just try.

they actually don’t have the same right to be there. The library is supposed to be a place for everyone to be safely and comfortably to access media - it’s not a homeless shelter. If a homeless person is there to read the newspaper, awesome - as long as they are safe and not disruptive (including smell). A library is not a homeless shelter. I repeat, a library is not a homeless shelter.

Of course they have the same exact rights to be there as you and your spawn do. You just think you are so very special because you can afford a shower. Get over yourself, princess. If you don't like them being there, feel free to petition your local government to open day centers where they can get shelter from the weather.

DC has plenty of day shelters : https://dhs.dc.gov/page/day-services-centers

A library is to access media. It’s not a homeless shelter. Attitudes like yours lead to the degredation of public spaces, which will lead to a lack of support for them. Right now, taxpayers would rally to keep libraries open. But if they continue as homeless shelters, the public will not support them.

And f off with your supercilious references to “spawn.” The people who have the most to lose are low income kids and adults who need the library to access books & computers they don’t have at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Starbucks policy is really designed for homeless people and we have to be realistic, it's become a problem. I stopped going to the library a long time ago because homeless people were constantly making them uncomfortable places. Why libraries should become refuges for the homeless is beyond me. Typical urban progressive mindset, I suppose. One can't fault Starbucks for tackling this problem.

Libraries are some of the last indoor public spaces where they are allowed. That's all. It's not an urban progressive mindset. It's that there is no legal reason to discriminate against members of the public who are non-disruptive. My library has problems with the building exterior but not interior.

DC has plenty of day services for the homeless: https://dhs.dc.gov/page/day-services-centers

I think it’s entirely reasonable for a library to preserve what it actually is - a place to access media - and not turn into a homeless shelter.

A homeless person sitting there reading is no different than you sitting there reading. They have every right to be there.

No they don’t. use your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish there was a way to do this for libraries too. The homeless have taken them over.

Yeah, they should just freeze to death!

No they shouldn't but the library is not a homeless shelter.

We should convert libraries and post offices into homeless shelters.

B/c who needs a library or post office?? You people putting homeless before kids.

The homeless deserve to be there as much as your kids do. I know, I know. It's a hard pill to swallow, but just try.

they actually don’t have the same right to be there. The library is supposed to be a place for everyone to be safely and comfortably to access media - it’s not a homeless shelter. If a homeless person is there to read the newspaper, awesome - as long as they are safe and not disruptive (including smell). A library is not a homeless shelter. I repeat, a library is not a homeless shelter.

Of course they have the same exact rights to be there as you and your spawn do. You just think you are so very special because you can afford a shower. Get over yourself, princess. If you don't like them being there, feel free to petition your local government to open day centers where they can get shelter from the weather.

DC has plenty of day shelters : https://dhs.dc.gov/page/day-services-centers

A library is to access media. It’s not a homeless shelter. Attitudes like yours lead to the degredation of public spaces, which will lead to a lack of support for them. Right now, taxpayers would rally to keep libraries open. But if they continue as homeless shelters, the public will not support them.

And f off with your supercilious references to “spawn.” The people who have the most to lose are low income kids and adults who need the library to access books & computers they don’t have at home.

OH FFS you don't think homeless people have a need to access media. In fact, they should have priority since that is their only option to get on a computer, get newspapers or books. You have a home with internet. Stay there.

Low income people down look down on the homeless. I was very poor growing up and my mother and I shared our food with homeless people, and didn't tell them they don't belong in the library. It's privileged, rich jerks like you who think they are better because you have money that want them out of public spaces. You don't even want to be reminded they exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Starbucks policy is really designed for homeless people and we have to be realistic, it's become a problem. I stopped going to the library a long time ago because homeless people were constantly making them uncomfortable places. Why libraries should become refuges for the homeless is beyond me. Typical urban progressive mindset, I suppose. One can't fault Starbucks for tackling this problem.

Libraries are some of the last indoor public spaces where they are allowed. That's all. It's not an urban progressive mindset. It's that there is no legal reason to discriminate against members of the public who are non-disruptive. My library has problems with the building exterior but not interior.

DC has plenty of day services for the homeless: https://dhs.dc.gov/page/day-services-centers

I think it’s entirely reasonable for a library to preserve what it actually is - a place to access media - and not turn into a homeless shelter.

A homeless person sitting there reading is no different than you sitting there reading. They have every right to be there.

No they don’t. use your head.

Say what you really want to say.

I'll repeat: they have just as much right to be there as you do. You are not better than a homeless person. You just happen to have money.

[Anonymous]

I heard in some locations they're going to start with seating with service. A waitress will take your order. No more being a seat hogger. No more hanging out with your laptop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish there was a way to do this for libraries too. The homeless have taken them over.

Yeah, they should just freeze to death!

No they shouldn't but the library is not a homeless shelter.

We should convert libraries and post offices into homeless shelters.

B/c who needs a library or post office?? You people putting homeless before kids.

The homeless deserve to be there as much as your kids do. I know, I know. It's a hard pill to swallow, but just try.

they actually don’t have the same right to be there. The library is supposed to be a place for everyone to be safely and comfortably to access media - it’s not a homeless shelter. If a homeless person is there to read the newspaper, awesome - as long as they are safe and not disruptive (including smell). A library is not a homeless shelter. I repeat, a library is not a homeless shelter.

Of course they have the same exact rights to be there as you and your spawn do. You just think you are so very special because you can afford a shower. Get over yourself, princess. If you don't like them being there, feel free to petition your local government to open day centers where they can get shelter from the weather.

DC has plenty of day shelters : https://dhs.dc.gov/page/day-services-centers

A library is to access media. It’s not a homeless shelter. Attitudes like yours lead to the degredation of public spaces, which will lead to a lack of support for them. Right now, taxpayers would rally to keep libraries open. But if they continue as homeless shelters, the public will not support them.

And f off with your supercilious references to “spawn.” The people who have the most to lose are low income kids and adults who need the library to access books & computers they don’t have at home.

OH FFS you don't think homeless people have a need to access media. In fact, they should have priority since that is their only option to get on a computer, get newspapers or books. You have a home with internet. Stay there.

Low income people down look down on the homeless. I was very poor growing up and my mother and I shared our food with homeless people, and didn't tell them they don't belong in the library. It's privileged, rich jerks like you who think they are better because you have money that want them out of public spaces. You don't even want to be reminded they exist.

No … I want the library to be a place for everyone to be able to use for it’s primary purpose (media access). when it’s dominated by unstable street homeless people then nobody can use it (including low income people). There are day shelters for homeless people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Starbucks policy is really designed for homeless people and we have to be realistic, it's become a problem. I stopped going to the library a long time ago because homeless people were constantly making them uncomfortable places. Why libraries should become refuges for the homeless is beyond me. Typical urban progressive mindset, I suppose. One can't fault Starbucks for tackling this problem.

Libraries are some of the last indoor public spaces where they are allowed. That's all. It's not an urban progressive mindset. It's that there is no legal reason to discriminate against members of the public who are non-disruptive. My library has problems with the building exterior but not interior.

DC has plenty of day services for the homeless: https://dhs.dc.gov/page/day-services-centers

I think it’s entirely reasonable for a library to preserve what it actually is - a place to access media - and not turn into a homeless shelter.

A homeless person sitting there reading is no different than you sitting there reading. They have every right to be there.

No they don’t. use your head.

I stopped taking my then young DC to our local Fairfax County library branch because it became an ersatz homeless shelter.

I haven’t visited a county library in a decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Starbucks policy is really designed for homeless people and we have to be realistic, it's become a problem. I stopped going to the library a long time ago because homeless people were constantly making them uncomfortable places. Why libraries should become refuges for the homeless is beyond me. Typical urban progressive mindset, I suppose. One can't fault Starbucks for tackling this problem.

Libraries are some of the last indoor public spaces where they are allowed. That's all. It's not an urban progressive mindset. It's that there is no legal reason to discriminate against members of the public who are non-disruptive. My library has problems with the building exterior but not interior.

DC has plenty of day services for the homeless: https://dhs.dc.gov/page/day-services-centers

I think it’s entirely reasonable for a library to preserve what it actually is - a place to access media - and not turn into a homeless shelter.

A homeless person sitting there reading is no different than you sitting there reading. They have every right to be there.

No they don’t. use your head.

Say what you really want to say.

I'll repeat: they have just as much right to be there as you do. You are not better than a homeless person. You just happen to have money.

I said what I wanted to say - nothing hidden about it! Public space and facilities are for the public to use for its intended purpose. Sidewalks are for walking, not camping. Parks are for kids to play in, not drug dealing and loitering. Libraries are to access media, not homeless shelters.