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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

There are private libraries in New York City that you pay to belong to. It's a great place if you are worried about your safety which many are, or if you want your kids to have a place to go to do homework and study after school (especially since NYC apartments tend to be small, even nice ones).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

MoCo has housing first, though I believe it's for veterans only. It hasn't noticeably reduced the problems in my area, from what I've seen.

[Anonymous]

I would pay a membership fee for a private library. Just sayin’.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
MoCo has housing first, though I believe it's for veterans only. It hasn't noticeably reduced the problems in my area, from what I've seen.

Depending on whose numbers you use, veterans are 8-16% of the homeless population. It would be shocking if an intervention that addressed 8-16% of a population moved the needle much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm kind of stumped by a mental health worker who doesn't think that providing housing will reduce the number of people who don't have housing..

[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?

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.

I agree completely and marvel at those who insist the rights of mentally ill homeless people to hang out at the library among families and children supersedes the rights of those families and children to peacefully read or work at the library without feeling threatened or harassed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I agree completely and marvel at those who insist the rights of mentally ill homeless people to hang out at the library among families and children supersedes the rights of those families and children to peacefully read or work at the library without feeling threatened or harassed.

Especially when the homeless aren't reading books, they aren't researching things on the internet or browsing the stacks- they're snoozing in every comfortable chair, browsing the internet all day, bathing in the restrooms, etc.

[Anonymous]

Homeless and addicts taking over both urban and often even suburban libraries around the country doesn't feel organic. I'm convinced library leadership cater to street vermin to prop up library usage numbers, to keep their jobs, and gravy train of funding coming in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Because they're still people, members of our society, fellow citizens, and so on. If they're not causing any problems, they should be able to use the library. You can be practical and compassionate at the same time.

Aside from overt harassment or law breaking, wondering what you think of the following:

Is bringing bed bugs into the library "causing a problem"?
Is bringing flees into the library "causing a problem"?
Is urinating or defecating in your pants so the seat you use smells like feces "causing a problem"?
Are ex-cons, sex offenders, opioid addicts hogging all the computers Mon-Sun "causing a problem"?
Are ex-cons, sex offenders, opioid addicts making the library reek of body odor, alcohol, and feces "causing a problem"?
Are ex-cons, sex offenders, opioid addicts trashing library restrooms "causing a problem"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because they're still people, members of our society, fellow citizens, and so on. If they're not causing any problems, they should be able to use the library. You can be practical and compassionate at the same time.

Aside from overt harassment or law breaking, wondering what you think of the following:

Is bringing bed bugs into the library "causing a problem"?
Is bringing flees into the library "causing a problem"?
Is urinating or defecating in your pants so the seat you use smells like feces "causing a problem"?
Are ex-cons, sex offenders, opioid addicts hogging all the computers Mon-Sun "causing a problem"?
Are ex-cons, sex offenders, opioid addicts making the library reek of body odor, alcohol, and feces "causing a problem"?
Are ex-cons, sex offenders, opioid addicts trashing library restrooms "causing a problem"?

Trashing a restroom should come with consequences. Overstaying your computer time when other are waiting should.

I don't think ex cons should be excluded - they have served their time and should have the rights we all have. And people with illnesses like opiod addiction should too. Would you have librarians check people for their criminal records? For their drug use status? How would that work exactly? Also how would you check people for bed bugs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree completely and marvel at those who insist the rights of mentally ill homeless people to hang out at the library among families and children supersedes the rights of those families and children to peacefully read or work at the library without feeling threatened or harassed.

Mentally ill people with homes are okay though? I have suffered from clinical depression, and found valuable resources at the library. Thankfully I was not homeless. Should I have been excluded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree completely and marvel at those who insist the rights of mentally ill homeless people to hang out at the library among families and children supersedes the rights of those families and children to peacefully read or work at the library without feeling threatened or harassed.

Mentally ill people with homes are okay though? I have suffered from clinical depression, and found valuable resources at the library. Thankfully I was not homeless. Should I have been excluded?

Way to deliberately miss the point.

[Anonymous]

Some people just hang around the library because there is water, bathroom and quiet spots to rest. But, it is not what I want to see when I go to the library. Nor is someone hanging around outside looks safe to me when they are soliciting for money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would pay a membership fee for a private library. Just sayin’.

It wouldn’t help. They would just find someone (or some program) to donate the fee. Especially since there would of course be reduced fees for low income or unemployed, etc. They’d still take over the space and ruin it, just like they do for many YMCA gyms that they use for toilets and lockers and showers.

[Anonymous]

I was in a MoCo library yesterday afternoon (all computers in use, of course) and they have a separate computer just to SIGN UP to use the computers. Does this mean the computers enforce the time limit automatically, since there is a separate computer tracking signups?

Glad tehy have one computer devoted just to the library catalog, as that's all I need it for.