Is it illegal for public libraries to ban homeless and drug addicts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be separate libraries for the homeless and addicts. Maybe we can just donate some books to the shelters and they can create a library bookshelf for them

New rule:

People who literally don't have a clue about the topic simply should not post.

Shelters are not open during the day. Libraries are open during the day. Unemployed homeless people need a place to be during the day, so they often frequent libraries. Putting books in shelters will not address the underlying issue that homeless people need a place to be during the day.

The solution would be to keep shelters open during the dsy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be separate libraries for the homeless and addicts. Maybe we can just donate some books to the shelters and they can create a library bookshelf for them

New rule:

People who literally don't have a clue about the topic simply should not post.

Shelters are not open during the day. Libraries are open during the day. Unemployed homeless people need a place to be during the day, so they often frequent libraries. Putting books in shelters will not address the underlying issue that homeless people need a place to be during the day.

The solution would be to keep shelters open during the dsy.

Which would require funding shelters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be separate libraries for the homeless and addicts. Maybe we can just donate some books to the shelters and they can create a library bookshelf for them

New rule:

People who literally don't have a clue about the topic simply should not post.

Shelters are not open during the day. Libraries are open during the day. Unemployed homeless people need a place to be during the day, so they often frequent libraries. Putting books in shelters will not address the underlying issue that homeless people need a place to be during the day.

The solution would be to keep shelters open during the dsy.

Wrong.

Nobody wants to be in a shelter. Have you ever been in one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be separate libraries for the homeless and addicts. Maybe we can just donate some books to the shelters and they can create a library bookshelf for them

New rule:

People who literally don't have a clue about the topic simply should not post.

Shelters are not open during the day. Libraries are open during the day. Unemployed homeless people need a place to be during the day, so they often frequent libraries. Putting books in shelters will not address the underlying issue that homeless people need a place to be during the day.

The solution would be to keep shelters open during the dsy.

Wrong.

Nobody wants to be in a shelter. Have you ever been in one?

Yeah. It really sucks a beach front property is not a human right. I'd totally sign up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be separate libraries for the homeless and addicts. Maybe we can just donate some books to the shelters and they can create a library bookshelf for them

New rule:

People who literally don't have a clue about the topic simply should not post.

Shelters are not open during the day. Libraries are open during the day. Unemployed homeless people need a place to be during the day, so they often frequent libraries. Putting books in shelters will not address the underlying issue that homeless people need a place to be during the day.

The solution would be to keep shelters open during the dsy.

Wrong.

Nobody wants to be in a shelter. Have you ever been in one?

Yeah. It really sucks a beach front property is not a human right. I'd totally sign up!

Please show us where anyone has said that beach front property is a human right. There's a huge space between beach front property and being in a shelter where people are violated and have their belongings stolen. Maybe when they find Relisha Rudd, you can ask her about her experience in a homeless shelter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be separate libraries for the homeless and addicts. Maybe we can just donate some books to the shelters and they can create a library bookshelf for them

New rule:

People who literally don't have a clue about the topic simply should not post.

Shelters are not open during the day. Libraries are open during the day. Unemployed homeless people need a place to be during the day, so they often frequent libraries. Putting books in shelters will not address the underlying issue that homeless people need a place to be during the day.

The solution would be to keep shelters open during the dsy.

Yep. This would also prevent them (I hope) from panhandling at every intersection.

[Anonymous]

This has already been pointed out--you have to be clean to be in a shelter. You can't bring in drugs and alcohol, and you can't be drunk or high.

A lot of people who have addictions choose not to be in the shelter or are turned away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be separate libraries for the homeless and addicts. Maybe we can just donate some books to the shelters and they can create a library bookshelf for them

New rule:

People who literally don't have a clue about the topic simply should not post.

Shelters are not open during the day. Libraries are open during the day. Unemployed homeless people need a place to be during the day, so they often frequent libraries. Putting books in shelters will not address the underlying issue that homeless people need a place to be during the day.

The solution would be to keep shelters open during the dsy.

Wrong.

Nobody wants to be in a shelter. Have you ever been in one?

Well, now nobody wants to be at the library.

In my neighborhood the library serves as a sort of refuge for low-income children. Many of these children likely come from bad home situations. The library provides snacks, meals and educational activities. The majority of these children come to the library without a guardian. Kids only need to be nine and up to be alone and those under eight only need to be supervised by a child aged thirteen and up. Would anyone on here want their nine year-old to be around a bunch of drug addicts or mentally ill people? Why are we putting the rights of the homeless above the safety and well being of children? These people ruin the library for everyone, not just the UMC. They ruin the parks for everyone. I've seen grown men urinating in broad daylight next to the playground. I do feel sorry for the very small percentage of the homeless population who truly just need a helping hand. We should definitely help those people. However, most of these people are mentally ill and should be institutionalized or they are drug addicts who made a very conscious choice to start using drugs in the first place. Providing free housing is not going to solve either of these problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well, now nobody wants to be at the library.

In my neighborhood the library serves as a sort of refuge for low-income children. Many of these children likely come from bad home situations. The library provides snacks, meals and educational activities. The majority of these children come to the library without a guardian. Kids only need to be nine and up to be alone and those under eight only need to be supervised by a child aged thirteen and up. Would anyone on here want their nine year-old to be around a bunch of drug addicts or mentally ill people? Why are we putting the rights of the homeless above the safety and well being of children? These people ruin the library for everyone, not just the UMC. They ruin the parks for everyone. I've seen grown men urinating in broad daylight next to the playground. I do feel sorry for the very small percentage of the homeless population who truly just need a helping hand. We should definitely help those people. However, most of these people are mentally ill and should be institutionalized or they are drug addicts who made a very conscious choice to start using drugs in the first place. Providing free housing is not going to solve either of these problems.

It would, however, solve the problem of being homeless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, now nobody wants to be at the library.

In my neighborhood the library serves as a sort of refuge for low-income children. Many of these children likely come from bad home situations. The library provides snacks, meals and educational activities. The majority of these children come to the library without a guardian. Kids only need to be nine and up to be alone and those under eight only need to be supervised by a child aged thirteen and up. Would anyone on here want their nine year-old to be around a bunch of drug addicts or mentally ill people? Why are we putting the rights of the homeless above the safety and well being of children? These people ruin the library for everyone, not just the UMC. They ruin the parks for everyone. I've seen grown men urinating in broad daylight next to the playground. I do feel sorry for the very small percentage of the homeless population who truly just need a helping hand. We should definitely help those people. However, most of these people are mentally ill and should be institutionalized or they are drug addicts who made a very conscious choice to start using drugs in the first place. Providing free housing is not going to solve either of these problems.

It would, however, solve the problem of being homeless.

Not for the long-term. You think mentally ill people or drug addicts know how to live independently? Do you think they can live in an apartment and keep it clean and take out the trash? Not invite other drug addicts into the building or deal drugs themselves? They do not possess the most basic life skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, now nobody wants to be at the library.

In my neighborhood the library serves as a sort of refuge for low-income children. Many of these children likely come from bad home situations. The library provides snacks, meals and educational activities. The majority of these children come to the library without a guardian. Kids only need to be nine and up to be alone and those under eight only need to be supervised by a child aged thirteen and up. Would anyone on here want their nine year-old to be around a bunch of drug addicts or mentally ill people? Why are we putting the rights of the homeless above the safety and well being of children? These people ruin the library for everyone, not just the UMC. They ruin the parks for everyone. I've seen grown men urinating in broad daylight next to the playground. I do feel sorry for the very small percentage of the homeless population who truly just need a helping hand. We should definitely help those people. However, most of these people are mentally ill and should be institutionalized or they are drug addicts who made a very conscious choice to start using drugs in the first place. Providing free housing is not going to solve either of these problems.

It would, however, solve the problem of being homeless.

Not for the long-term. You think mentally ill people or drug addicts know how to live independently? Do you think they can live in an apartment and keep it clean and take out the trash? Not invite other drug addicts into the building or deal drugs themselves? They do not possess the most basic life skills.

Exactly this. I am a mental health provider and the main goal of the program I work for is to foster independence for people with mental illnesses. Keeping them housed, out of the hospital, and out of shelters. Many (not all, but maybe 20-30%) go through a revolving door of homelessness, being housed, letting the housing deteriorate or being evicted due to poor living skills, then back to shelter, hospital, housing, eviction... Or for whatever reason they have delusions about their housing, or just simply enjoy being homeless. Some of them pay for a portion of their housing out of their SSI checks, but don’t really feel like they are responsible for the condition of their place because the money was free to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these even questions being asked in a civilized society? "Can a public accommodation ban members of the public for not having homes?" "Can a public accommodation ban members of the public who are drug addicts?"

The problem isn't that homeless people and drug addicts are allowed to enter libraries. It's that libraries are the last places left to go that are free and have bathrooms and any modicum of privacy.

If you hate seeing homeless people in your library, get agitated about the fact that the options are so bleak, and vote like you prioritize improving them.

People like you would oppose the obvious solution, which is institutionalizing many of them against their will. Or putting them in work camps with there square meals.

Damn right I oppose it. Did you know it’s cheaper to just provide housing than it is to “institutionalize” people against their will?

Not the PP you're responding to, but did you know that providing housing to these people isn't going to solve the problems?

Sigh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had this issue at my library too and felt uncomfortable bringing my two preschoolers there. Also, the smell can be intolerable. To be honest they are all over the city parks too and I don’t like that either... I don’t think there is anything you can do. My solution is to drive out further to the suburbs where this isn’t an issue.

Father of two preschool-aged DDs here, one who we're currently potty-training. It's an "adventure" to visit the men's room stalls in some libraries, to put it nicely. Now we seek drive to libraries not easily accessible by public transportation to avoid such situations. My girls love the library, but I need to consider their health and safety also.

I wonder if the solution is some kind of private library? I guess that's what the various play places are, since you have to pay to enter, but there's not as much of a focus on reading or books, except for a few of them (Playseum in Bethesda I guess).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these even questions being asked in a civilized society? "Can a public accommodation ban members of the public for not having homes?" "Can a public accommodation ban members of the public who are drug addicts?"

The problem isn't that homeless people and drug addicts are allowed to enter libraries. It's that libraries are the last places left to go that are free and have bathrooms and any modicum of privacy.

If you hate seeing homeless people in your library, get agitated about the fact that the options are so bleak, and vote like you prioritize improving them.

People like you would oppose the obvious solution, which is institutionalizing many of them against their will. Or putting them in work camps with there square meals.

Damn right I oppose it. Did you know it’s cheaper to just provide housing than it is to “institutionalize” people against their will?

Not the PP you're responding to, but did you know that providing housing to these people isn't going to solve the problems?

Sigh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First

Housing first doesn’t mean “housing at any costs.” I’m the mental health worker above and tons of people get evicted from housing first programs due to drugs, trash, infestations, having people living with them, and the rules.

[Anonymous]

Of course it doesn't mean "housing at any costs"--who said it does?

The argument here is about whether "housing first" would solve more of the problems that currently play out in public libraries more cheaply and with a more acceptable social cost than "institutionalizing many of them against their will or putting them in work camps."

$5 says the "work camps" guy/gal has never heard of "housing first" as a practice, or of the data showing that it costs less than institutionalization, until this thread.