Starbucks to require purchases to hang out in stores

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of homeless people suffer from mental illness and/or addictions. No one grows up wanting to be a vagrant that desperately needs their fix. And too often the resources we set aside to help the homeless are vacuumed by cynical NGOs who are only interested in enriching themselves. We need a sensible carrot and stick approach to deal with the difficult issues that the homeless bring. And that includes building long term asylums for those who are too far gone as well as serious addiction treatment facilities that give people the 90 days or so it takes for the crap to get out out of their system and for their brains to reset. The homeless need a choice - compassionate treatment or jail. Until then, homeless addicts will continue to be a public burden.

I definitely agree that we need more services for the homeless who are often in that situation due to mental illness. But currently, we don't have the social nets and services that support them. So one of the only places they can go and not freeze to death is the library.

That’s just not true - DC has Day programs and keeps additional shelters open during cold and heat emergencies. And of course it’s an issue in any weather.

1) DC most definitely does not have enough to accommodate everyone
2) DC area is much bigger than DC proper.

Oh are the day shelters full? I seriously doubt it. DC makes extensive plans every winter to provide shelters: https://streetsensemedia.org/article/d-c-approves-winter-plan-adding-shelter-beds-amid-high-shelter-occupancy/

[Anonymous]

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.

That's why I don't go to Starbucks - there are no tables because of the people using it as an office. I actually thought the new policy is to get rid of people who park there for hours with their laptops.

+1

I won’t go to Starbucks to meet up with friends because it’s taken up by people using it as a mobile office and there are no tables. If you’re buying a coffee every 30 minutes sure, but most people buy one cup for an eight hour day. Talk about entitled.

Disagree. Tables should have a time limit, regardless of if you purchase. Your coffee purchase shouldn’t entitle you to renting an entire day’s worth of office space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of homeless people suffer from mental illness and/or addictions. No one grows up wanting to be a vagrant that desperately needs their fix. And too often the resources we set aside to help the homeless are vacuumed by cynical NGOs who are only interested in enriching themselves. We need a sensible carrot and stick approach to deal with the difficult issues that the homeless bring. And that includes building long term asylums for those who are too far gone as well as serious addiction treatment facilities that give people the 90 days or so it takes for the crap to get out out of their system and for their brains to reset. The homeless need a choice - compassionate treatment or jail. Until then, homeless addicts will continue to be a public burden.

I definitely agree that we need more services for the homeless who are often in that situation due to mental illness. But currently, we don't have the social nets and services that support them. So one of the only places they can go and not freeze to death is the library.

That’s just not true - DC has Day programs and keeps additional shelters open during cold and heat emergencies. And of course it’s an issue in any weather.

1) DC most definitely does not have enough to accommodate everyone
2) DC area is much bigger than DC proper.

Oh are the day shelters full? I seriously doubt it. DC makes extensive plans every winter to provide shelters: https://streetsensemedia.org/article/d-c-approves-winter-plan-adding-shelter-beds-amid-high-shelter-occupancy/

Yes, they are!!!!!! And you think they all have the means to get to them??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of homeless people suffer from mental illness and/or addictions. No one grows up wanting to be a vagrant that desperately needs their fix. And too often the resources we set aside to help the homeless are vacuumed by cynical NGOs who are only interested in enriching themselves. We need a sensible carrot and stick approach to deal with the difficult issues that the homeless bring. And that includes building long term asylums for those who are too far gone as well as serious addiction treatment facilities that give people the 90 days or so it takes for the crap to get out out of their system and for their brains to reset. The homeless need a choice - compassionate treatment or jail. Until then, homeless addicts will continue to be a public burden.

Homeless junkies are also often ex cons and registered sex offenders. And they don’t shower so they smell like feces and often have lice or bed bugs. Only in liberal la la land is it kosher to share space with such disgusting people.

[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.

If they bring bedbugs and make people ill from the stink, they are indeed very different from me.

So don't go. I'd much rather see them there than you.

— says a library fat cat paid six-figures to sit on her ass in an office, blow money on paid conferences (read vacations), and retire with a pension

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If they bring bedbugs and make people ill from the stink, they are indeed very different from me.

So don't go. I'd much rather see them there than you.

— says a library fat cat paid six-figures to sit on her ass in an office, blow money on paid conferences (read vacations), and retire with a pension

Literally none of that is true, but even if it were still wouldn't change the fact they belong there just as much as anyone else

[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.

That's your opinion but the librarians hate it too; not just patrons.

I never said that. Stop acting like a hero. I don't want to goto the library b/c there are homeless people there, some of whom seem unstable. I don't want to take my kids there while there are nasty men sitting there watching porn. I don't think that our public libraries turning into a place to shelter homeless and unstable people is a good thing. Librarians don't want to police this either. This doesn't make me gross. I am a dem who votes to keep taxes high so that there can be programs for people. Get serious and grow up.

Am I supposed to care about what the librarians want? You would literally rather see people freeze to death than share a space with them because you deem them less than you. You are gross.

[Anonymous]

Starbucks is not a defacto homeless shelter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Starbucks is not a defacto homeless shelter.

Well, not anymore, thanks to this change in policy.

One reason I support moves like this from Starbucks, and would also support moves to restrict how the homeless sometimes use libraries is that I think in the last few years since Covid, we've adopted dysfunctional attitudes towards social problems like homelessness. We are still acting in some days like we are in the pandemic, and we are making triage decisions to just get through a temporary hard time. Turning libraries into ad hoc shelters is a crisis decision. So is expecting a private business like Starbucks to allow homeless and otherwise indigent people to park there all day long because that's just how bad our homelessness problem has gotten. Schools and hospitals are also offering a lot of services to the homeless right now, even as it can also limit resources for others. The tent cities are also one of the most visible examples of a crisis approach to homelessness, though thankfully tolerance for those appears to have run out in the last year and we are seeing far more efforts to take them down and prevent them from being established.

We aren't in the pandemic anymore. Our homelessness crisis is ongoing and is due to a number of economic and social factors. What we need is to come up with actual solutions that will address both the underlying causes of homelessness and provide longer term solutions that don't rely on filling all our public spaces with the homeless. I also think we need to enforce the cultural expectation that people are expected to be housed. There are homeless people who are actively seeking housing or shelter, but there are also increasingly people who have embraced homelessness as a lifestyle (in part due to how easy we've made it in recent years to just live in a tent in a park and spend your days bumming around libraries and coffee shops). There has always been a certain portion of the homeless population who just want to live on the street and resist efforts to help them find housing. It is essentially a pathology -- people who become so divorced from social norms that they prefer homelessness as a lifestyle because it allows them to avoid submitting to anyone's expectations. This group has grown in recent years and reflects a broader trend toward anti-social behavior. We need to shift the tide and stop condoning the *choice* to live on the street because it's easier than trying to participate in civilization.

[Anonymous]

I remember when Starbucks used to have couches and comfy living-room style seating which made it a pleasant place to catch up with friends over coffee. At some point they replaced all the comfy seating with hard metal chairs and tiny tables, presumably to discourage people from camping out for hours, but as somebody who would like to use a coffee shop for its intended "third place" purpose it makes me not want to go there.

[Anonymous]

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

Libraries are a public good that ”belong” to everyone (unlike private companies).

Are you seriously suggesting homeless people shouldn’t be allowed to read or apply for a job or other service from the library? That’s really your opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If they bring bedbugs and make people ill from the stink, they are indeed very different from me.

So don't go. I'd much rather see them there than you.

— says a library fat cat paid six-figures to sit on her ass in an office, blow money on paid conferences (read vacations), and retire with a pension

You are calling LIBRARIANS fat cats!!!! Ha ha! Public librarians? Who often make 40k a year with a grad degree. I sense some sexism.here, wanting female librarians to be at beck and call of these men who choose to shun society--but they are still men after all and need to be catered to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Libraries are a public good that ”belong” to everyone (unlike private companies).

Are you seriously suggesting homeless people shouldn’t be allowed to read or apply for a job or other service from the library? That’s really your opinion?

What wasn't clear in her post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to like going into Starbucks to take a piss.
But not with homeless living in the restrooms.
Happy to pay $10 to take a piss in a clean place. I will give the uneaten Starbucks crap to some street person.

Exactly. The homeless aren't simply using the restrooms. They set up camp in them for the day. Just like they do at Union Station. Have you been there lately? Fking hell trying to find a bathroom that doesn't have every stall occupied by a homeless person living in it. It's gotten so bad that my DC office now allows us to fly to our Boston and NYC offices instead of having to take the train because Union Station is so terrible and frankly, dangerous after dark for females.

Why can't some of the thousands of empty corporate offices be flipped to spaces where homeless can congregate during the day?

I also fly for work for the same reason.

[Anonymous]

I think its fair and also to limit the tables to an hour.

Public libraries are different.