Reston Library

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what people don't get is that most homeless aren't down on their luck. They are mentally ill or drug users.

No, we get that they are mentally ill and drug users. Does that somehow make them safer to be around our children?

I think we're arguing the same thing...

Oh, I get it. At first I thought you were defending them as being mentally ill or drug users, but now I see you meant that are not merely harmless homeless people down on their luck, but dangerous (being mentally ill and/or drug users). Got it....sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Reston is folks' view of a utopia, please don't show me your dystopia. Reston is a dump.

Reston is where many taxpayers live and raise families. They would like to do so safely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Reston is folks' view of a utopia, please don't show me your dystopia. Reston is a dump.

Reston is where many taxpayers live and raise families. They would like to do so safely.

Parts of Reston are dumpy, and other parts are very upscale. It's really nice around the RTC, with condos going for as much as $1.5 million and the nearby townhouses going for nearly $1 million, populated by highly educated professionals. So why not put the homeless shelter in the dumpy part, where they'll blend in better, rather than dropping it in next to million dollar homes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Reston is folks' view of a utopia, please don't show me your dystopia. Reston is a dump.

Reston is where many taxpayers live and raise families. They would like to do so safely.

Parts of Reston are dumpy, and other parts are very upscale. It's really nice around the RTC, with condos going for as much as $1.5 million and the nearby townhouses going for nearly $1 million, populated by highly educated professionals. So why not put the homeless shelter in the dumpy part, where they'll blend in better, rather than dropping it in next to million dollar homes?

Why did you buy in Reston if this bothers you? Reston planners want a good mix of incomes throughout Reston. They want apartments next to million dollar houses. This has always been what Reston is about.

[Anonymous]

I once was so viciously attacked (verbally) by some deranged homeless man in the Harris Teeter (it's about three blocks from the shelter) that the store gave me my food for free. Let's not make it as though these homeless people are safe, well-behaved people who are merely minding their own business and not causing any problems. The last place we want them is in a library populated by schoolkids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Reston is folks' view of a utopia, please don't show me your dystopia. Reston is a dump.

Reston is where many taxpayers live and raise families. They would like to do so safely.

Parts of Reston are dumpy, and other parts are very upscale. It's really nice around the RTC, with condos going for as much as $1.5 million and the nearby townhouses going for nearly $1 million, populated by highly educated professionals. So why not put the homeless shelter in the dumpy part, where they'll blend in better, rather than dropping it in next to million dollar homes?

Why did you buy in Reston if this bothers you? Reston planners want a good mix of incomes throughout Reston. They want apartments next to million dollar houses. This has always been what Reston is about.

I'm fine with the subsidized housing and the low-income apartments. Never a problem. It's the homeless people at the library that is unacceptable.

Please, let's no lump together low-income workers and mentally ill homeless people. Two different populations entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:cation and more than doubling it in size.

The homeless shelter should not be in Reston Fown Center at all. There are plenty of undeveloped parcels of land less than 2 miles away.

Privately owned I gather - if commercially zoned, probably very expensive land. And I doubt if it moved to a new parcel in or even near a residential area that there would not be massive opposition. Its much easier to add capacity on the site where it already exists.

But I mean, who really cares about the homeless and/or mentally ill? They aren't as good as we are, and their needs can be cavalierly dismissed.

Are you talking about their library needs, which are the topic of this discussion, or their actual needs, which are beyond the scope of this topic.

I invite you to open a topic to discuss the needs of the mentally ill and how to best address those needs. It is an intractable societal issue and I look forward to reading your insights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:cation and more than doubling it in size.

The homeless shelter should not be in Reston Fown Center at all. There are plenty of undeveloped parcels of land less than 2 miles away.

Privately owned I gather - if commercially zoned, probably very expensive land. And I doubt if it moved to a new parcel in or even near a residential area that there would not be massive opposition. Its much easier to add capacity on the site where it already exists.

But I mean, who really cares about the homeless and/or mentally ill? They aren't as good as we are, and their needs can be cavalierly dismissed.

OP here, and you're one of the "extreme liberals" by virtue of the fact that you are taking the argument to the extreme. Whoever said we don't care about the homeless? Has anyone here objecting to the location of a shelter adjacent to a library serving children suggested we abolish homeless shelters and let the people fend for themselves? NO. We are saying that we should not be giving priority to them over our children, and this PC nonsense has to stop.

And your (sarcastic) bit about them not being "as good as we are" is the problem in a nutshell. The progressives are so eager to prove that since everyone is equal, it would be just wonderful to put homeless men next to schoolchildren, like one big happy family. And what makes it even worse is that the liberal officials know full well of all the problems this has caused, but instead of acknowledging reality and relocating the shelter, they want to double down on their wonderful liberal utopia where catcalling, filthy, homeless men mingle with young teen girls.

I'm getting more disgusted - perhaps some readers note a change in tone - because my research is uncovering no groups going up against this. Apparently, there was a hearing a couple of years ago, where objections about library safety were made, but the county officials decided to proceed.

OP, if you are so afraid of homeless people then you can't let your kid go to Harvard. Lots of homeless are in the square and there is a homeless shelter near the university. I am sure they will fit in with the tiki torch wielding crowd at UVA.

People like you make wish we were staying in Reston so I can help defend the right of a homeless person to use public facilities. There are social workers who operate out of libraries as it is a place where homeless individuals can study for a GED or a certificate and/or job hunt. Everyone deserves dignity.

What's more important to you? The right of homeless men to cause disruptions at the library or the right of children to study in peace and quiet?

NP. Actually for me it would be the rights of the homeless. If need be, the children can study in peace and quiet at home. The homeless have no place else to go.

In point of fact, they can go next door, because they live at the homeless shelter next to the library.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:cation and more than doubling it in size.

The homeless shelter should not be in Reston Fown Center at all. There are plenty of undeveloped parcels of land less than 2 miles away.

Privately owned I gather - if commercially zoned, probably very expensive land. And I doubt if it moved to a new parcel in or even near a residential area that there would not be massive opposition. Its much easier to add capacity on the site where it already exists.

But I mean, who really cares about the homeless and/or mentally ill? They aren't as good as we are, and their needs can be cavalierly dismissed.

OP here, and you're one of the "extreme liberals" by virtue of the fact that you are taking the argument to the extreme. Whoever said we don't care about the homeless? Has anyone here objecting to the location of a shelter adjacent to a library serving children suggested we abolish homeless shelters and let the people fend for themselves? NO. We are saying that we should not be giving priority to them over our children, and this PC nonsense has to stop.

And your (sarcastic) bit about them not being "as good as we are" is the problem in a nutshell. The progressives are so eager to prove that since everyone is equal, it would be just wonderful to put homeless men next to schoolchildren, like one big happy family. And what makes it even worse is that the liberal officials know full well of all the problems this has caused, but instead of acknowledging reality and relocating the shelter, they want to double down on their wonderful liberal utopia where catcalling, filthy, homeless men mingle with young teen girls.

I'm getting more disgusted - perhaps some readers note a change in tone - because my research is uncovering no groups going up against this. Apparently, there was a hearing a couple of years ago, where objections about library safety were made, but the county officials decided to proceed.

OP, if you are so afraid of homeless people then you can't let your kid go to Harvard. Lots of homeless are in the square and there is a homeless shelter near the university. I am sure they will fit in with the tiki torch wielding crowd at UVA.

People like you make wish we were staying in Reston so I can help defend the right of a homeless person to use public facilities. There are social workers who operate out of libraries as it is a place where homeless individuals can study for a GED or a certificate and/or job hunt. Everyone deserves dignity.

^^^ OP here, and this is what I'm talking about - the extreme liberal above who wants to defend the right of a homeless person to "use" the library even if it means the children are placed in an unsafe environment not conducive to study and adults can no longer enjoy the library, either. What about defending them?

The homeless can study for their GED in the shelter, if they choose, but NONE of the homeless at Reston are doing so. Mostly they are sleeping at the desks or begging for money out front. The whole library smells bad when you walk in there.

Finally, I'm not so afraid of the homeless. (There's that extreme position liberals take when arguing a point.) Did you read that I donate to the shelter, which requires me to enter the building? Not a problem. It IS a problem when they meander over to where young teens are study and ogle them.

Listen to yourself. You want to further disenfranchise some of the most vulnerable people in our society because "the children." I bet you give to your church too....as long as they don't have homeless people there, right?

Children are more vulnerable against these homeless men, most of whom are mentally ill and substance abusers. And how is not wanting them to disrupt the library and ogle pre-teen girls "disenfranchising" them? I'd rather protect the children.