Libraries as homeless centers

[Anonymous]

And we wonder why our kids cannot read was well as their grandparents who grew up when libraries like churches were sacred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get it... it seems like very different needs than libraries were designed for or librarians have the skill set for (though I know they try their best). My husband had to work with the librarian to call the police in a homeless creeper in the kids section the other day (not saying they all are, but it's two very different populations in a small space). The only solution I can think of is to offer a homeless service station next door. Warming station, social worker,coffee donuts, paper, computer bank, and bathroom to groom in. Thoughts?

Alas, probably won't help. The Reston library is right next door to a homeless shelter. Nevertheless, they come into the library, watch porn on the computers, wash themselves in the restroom (which pretty much makes it unusable for normal people, especially children, I'd never send DS in there), periodically expose themselves to women, and generally stink up the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're *public* libraries. They serve *the public*.

Meaning what? They could be sued if they don’t let homeless hang out there? Well that sucks for everyone else, doesn’t it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a disgusting way to use a public facility meant to give educational access to people who need it. Robs children of a safe, fun place to explore their interests and curiosity. Making librarians be social workers is just a lazy political cop out.

Yep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get it... it seems like very different needs than libraries were designed for or librarians have the skill set for (though I know they try their best). My husband had to work with the librarian to call the police in a homeless creeper in the kids section the other day (not saying they all are, but it's two very different populations in a small space). The only solution I can think of is to offer a homeless service station next door. Warming station, social worker,coffee donuts, paper, computer bank, and bathroom to groom in. Thoughts?

Even if you offered those things, which you would never get funding for, there will still be people who prefer to go to the library, the same way that there are shelters and there are still people who prefer the street. I think it's fairly irrelevant whether you think it's two different populations in the same space. It is a public space, and while perhaps the "creeper" in question was actually doing something inappropriate, simply being in the children's section, or the rest of the library, is not inappropriate. Homeless people go to the library because it is quiet and calm and there is stuff to do. When I (a social worker) worked with homeless outreach, what I saw over and over was that there is only so much that you can really do to end homelessness. Many of the people on the streets actively refuse services, often because those "services" come with rules that they are not willing to comply with or safety issues that they are not willing to experience. I knew a lot of people who refused to go to shelters, for example, because others would steal their stuff, or because there were strict no-intoxication rules that didn't exist on the street. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be rules or that stealing is okay, but both of those issues were real enough for the people I worked with that they would not go to the shelter except as a last resort.

I disagree. Adults who are not accompanying children (or checking out children's books) should not be in the children's section. Period. The only way to make sure public space is kept orderly for everyone is to have objective rules like this, and enforce them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're *public* libraries. They serve *the public*.

They should be viewed as serving the "taxpayer", rather than the "public". Because the public doesn't fund libraries - taxpayers do. Without taxpayers you can still have a "public", but you won't have any libraries. Or any other community services, for that matter.

While the homeless are certainly members of the public, let's not delude ourselves that they are contributing to funding the library.

There should be a hierarchy of users of public services like libraries, with the needs of those who's taxes sustain libraries placed above the needs of those who contribute nothing and only consume services.

Wow. Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're *public* libraries. They serve *the public*.

They should be viewed as serving the "taxpayer", rather than the "public". Because the public doesn't fund libraries - taxpayers do. Without taxpayers you can still have a "public", but you won't have any libraries. Or any other community services, for that matter.

While the homeless are certainly members of the public, let's not delude ourselves that they are contributing to funding the library.

There should be a hierarchy of users of public services like libraries, with the needs of those who's taxes sustain libraries placed above the needs of those who contribute nothing and only consume services.

Nope. They're free public libraries, not fee-for-service public libraries. Should people who pay higher taxes also get first dibs on the reserve list?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're *public* libraries. They serve *the public*.

Meaning what? They could be sued if they don’t let homeless hang out there? Well that sucks for everyone else, doesn’t it?

Meaning that their mission is to serve the public, and the public includes people who are homeless.

[Anonymous]

Remove the Internet from libraries. Stock them with books instead.

[Anonymous]

Could the city do a public private partnership with homeless shelters to stay open by day? I thought it was bizarre that when they closed down DC General they actually directed buses to pick up homeless at shelters in AM and drop them at libraries. That's the solution? C'mon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remove the Internet from libraries. Stock them with books instead.

Instead? Libraries still have plenty of printed-on-paper books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remove the Internet from libraries. Stock them with books instead.

People without computers at home need the library computers.

[Anonymous]

Don't many homeless shelters close during the day? That's never made sense to me, but libraries seem to be a temperature-controlled, fairly safe fallback for those on the streets. I agree that there should be other welcoming public facilities open to them during the day, but often there are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're *public* libraries. They serve *the public*.

Meaning what? They could be sued if they don’t let homeless hang out there? Well that sucks for everyone else, doesn’t it?

Meaning that their mission is to serve the public, and the public includes people who are homeless.

They mission is not to serve people who are homeless. You made that up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get it... it seems like very different needs than libraries were designed for or librarians have the skill set for (though I know they try their best). My husband had to work with the librarian to call the police in a homeless creeper in the kids section the other day (not saying they all are, but it's two very different populations in a small space). The only solution I can think of is to offer a homeless service station next door. Warming station, social worker,coffee donuts, paper, computer bank, and bathroom to groom in. Thoughts?

Even if you offered those things, which you would never get funding for, there will still be people who prefer to go to the library, the same way that there are shelters and there are still people who prefer the street. I think it's fairly irrelevant whether you think it's two different populations in the same space. It is a public space, and while perhaps the "creeper" in question was actually doing something inappropriate, simply being in the children's section, or the rest of the library, is not inappropriate. Homeless people go to the library because it is quiet and calm and there is stuff to do. When I (a social worker) worked with homeless outreach, what I saw over and over was that there is only so much that you can really do to end homelessness. Many of the people on the streets actively refuse services, often because those "services" come with rules that they are not willing to comply with or safety issues that they are not willing to experience. I knew a lot of people who refused to go to shelters, for example, because others would steal their stuff, or because there were strict no-intoxication rules that didn't exist on the street. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be rules or that stealing is okay, but both of those issues were real enough for the people I worked with that they would not go to the shelter except as a last resort.

I disagree. Adults who are not accompanying children (or checking out children's books) should not be in the children's section. Period. The only way to make sure public space is kept orderly for everyone is to have objective rules like this, and enforce them.

The Tenley library definitely enforces no adults at the computers or tables of the children's section so the homeless people stay upstairs at the adult computers.