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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHen I lived in Eastern Europe, you had to pay for admission to the library. It was pretty small, like the equivalent of $1 here, but they didn't have a homeless problem in the librayr, that's for sure.

Love this idea. I'd eagerly pay four bucks to take the kids to the library, knowing it'll be super clean and safe and we're funding it with essentially a $4 donation each visit. But the sad reality is I bet the ACLU would sue the pants off libraries who tried this, local outrage-addicted media (who themselves haven't stepped in a library since college) would rip them apart, pandering politicians (who haven't been in a library in 40 years) would tell them it's immoral. Sigh.

There is a long history of free public libraries in the US.

I wonder why you think that members of the media, and elected officials, never go to libraries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like how lawmakers won't make it illegal for homeless to loiter all day in libraries, but you don't see them opening the courthouses, state buildings and other public buildings to the homeless. The courthouse has a great cafeteria and nice bathrooms, why not let the homeless use them??

+1. They should be allowed to hang out in the Capitol visitor's center all day!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to feel safe at the library, get in your car, and drive to an exurb.
You love your walkable, transit oriented neighborhood? So do homeless derelicts.

I have never felt unsafe at nay library in Alexandria, the main library in Arlington (the one in Va Square) or the Shirlington library.

So I am not sure what you are talking about. (I did have an issue when the kids program at Shirlington was so loud it was hard for me to focus on reading).

Did you read this thread? Obviously not. So glad you feel safe in Shirlington. I do too, but I’m not oblivious to homeless dudes hanging around. They’ve never bothered me.
However, if I didn’t want to see them? I’d drive to Middleburg.

I did read the thread (awful though it is). The PP above says to feel safe at the library drive to an exurb and avoid walkable TOD. That is simply not correct. Maybe DC has issues with this, and even a library or two in Arlington (did someone say Clarendon?) but it is NOT a problem at all libraries in walkable places, TOD, or in the inner jurisdictions generally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why even have a public library, install computers with internet in the homeless shelter

Agreed. And why aren't homeless shelters open 24/7? If that's the issue is that they're getting kicked out, why not keep them open? The facilities exist, so it's not like a huge cost savings when you close them during the day.

A lot of people don't want to go to shelters even if they are open because of the rule that you need to be clean and cannot drink or do drugs in a shelter.

But doing in the library with the general public, children is ok? This seems like a loophole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why even have a public library, install computers with internet in the homeless shelter

Agreed. And why aren't homeless shelters open 24/7? If that's the issue is that they're getting kicked out, why not keep them open? The facilities exist, so it's not like a huge cost savings when you close them during the day.

A lot of people don't want to go to shelters even if they are open because of the rule that you need to be clean and cannot drink or do drugs in a shelter.

But doing in the library with the general public, children is ok? This seems like a loophole.

NP. From what I've seen, they shoot up in the parking lots of the libraries or on the street and then they come inside and snooze while high. I've seen plenty of people who were drunk or high in the library but they aren't kicked out unless they're belligerent. After story time with my toddler last week I had to tell a man not to talk to my toddler. He was drunk and swaying. My toddler is so cute and had wanted to go talk to him since he waved at her.

[Anonymous]

If you voted Republican, it is your fault OP. Reagan dumped all of the crazies out on the streets, and now they hang out in the library. Society pays for its ills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you voted Republican, it is your fault OP. Reagan dumped all of the crazies out on the streets, and now they hang out in the library. Society pays for its ills.

If we would let it go full circle and follow republican ideas we wouldnt have any public libraries so people wouldnt be out milling around, they would be dead or working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why even have a public library, install computers with internet in the homeless shelter

Agreed. And why aren't homeless shelters open 24/7? If that's the issue is that they're getting kicked out, why not keep them open? The facilities exist, so it's not like a huge cost savings when you close them during the day.

A lot of people don't want to go to shelters even if they are open because of the rule that you need to be clean and cannot drink or do drugs in a shelter.

But doing in the library with the general public, children is ok? This seems like a loophole.

NP. From what I've seen, they shoot up in the parking lots of the libraries or on the street and then they come inside and snooze while high. I've seen plenty of people who were drunk or high in the library but they aren't kicked out unless they're belligerent. After story time with my toddler last week I had to tell a man not to talk to my toddler. He was drunk and swaying. My toddler is so cute and had wanted to go talk to him since he waved at her.

I need to stop my preschoolers from talking to homeless people too It's so frustrating. They're nice kids and they like to talk to people and I'd really rather not have to explain to a 2 and 4 yo that some people are sick in the head and it's not safe to talk to them. It would give my 4 yo nightmares. Some things are better explained when the kids are a bit older. So instead, I need to basically walk around holding their hands, even though they're super well behaved and know to be quiet, handle books with care, put them back in the right place, etc. And then constantly steer them away from anyone who looks sketchy. It's annoying.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

In addition to kicking out anyone's being disruptive (visibly drunk, high, loud, harassing other patrons, etc), my library also kicks out people who are sleeping. I still see identifiably homeless people in the library and I'm fine with that. As long as they're don't cause problems and actually use the library to read books/use computers, they have as much right to be there as anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as they're not bothering people or doing anything illegal, who cares?

Lord knows there are lots of prescription drug and alcohol addicted parents. Just because they're homeless or have a drug addiction that is "street" rather than prescription, it doesn't make them worse than you.

Yes, a homeless, mentally ill drug addict with a criminal record is "worse" than a healthy, hard-working, productive member of society. Having empathy doesn't mean we have to suspend common sense.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as they're not bothering people or doing anything illegal, who cares?

Lord knows there are lots of prescription drug and alcohol addicted parents. Just because they're homeless or have a drug addiction that is "street" rather than prescription, it doesn't make them worse than you.

Yes, a homeless, mentally ill drug addict with a criminal record is "worse" than a healthy, hard-working, productive member of society. Having empathy doesn't mean we have to suspend common sense.

You might be comfortable calculating a person's human worth based on their health, housing, and employment. I'm not.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

As a librarian who has worked in many areas, I've observed the homeless / drug issues are worse in areas that are the least progressive and offer very few services to the homeless.

Very large urban areas like the DC metro have issues, but the more services available for the mentally ill, homeless or drug users, the fewer problems we have at the library.