Libraries as homeless centers

[Anonymous]

I'd be perfectly OK with a $5 entry fee for libraries, maybe no charge for under 18 years old. I know traditionally they have been free, but times have changed.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, I would so much rather see homeless people keeping warm in the library than kids. I use the library all the time. The homeless don't want to deal with your kids either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Right but the purpose is for borrowing books, doing research, etc. not for housing people 12 hours a day who don’t have a home. I don’t know a good solution but I agree, the library often feels like a homeless shelter and despite it being public, that is not the purpose it is meant to serve

+1

And what about when the homeless are a *public* nuisance, as so many PPs have said?

Any INDIVIDUAL who is a nuisance or breaks rules should not be permitted in the library, homeless or otherwise.

Yes, but the city is actually using libraries as de facto day shelters for a category of people called "the homeless"...is using one service for another....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I would so much rather see homeless people keeping warm in the library than kids. I use the library all the time. The homeless don't want to deal with your kids either.

Well here is the difference. I've never walked into the library on a rainy day and been overpowered by the smell of kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I would so much rather see homeless people keeping warm in the library than kids. I use the library all the time. The homeless don't want to deal with your kids either.

Well here is the difference. I've never walked into the library on a rainy day and been overpowered by the smell of kids.

No? I have. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, they should. They're contributing more, they should get something for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lice lady here. You are not going to catch lice from a homeless guy. Unless you hug him.

Wrong!

Sitting in the same chair an infested person was sitting in minutes earlier is a very, very effective means of picking up lice and fleas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one thinks libraries serving as de facto homeless shelters is the best possible path, but the DC government isn't going to build a bunch of space places for those homeless people to go during the day. So kicking them out of the libraries won't help the overall situation.

We're not even properly naming the problem. We don't have a homeless problem, we have an addiction problem. The issue is addiction (to meth or heroin), and homelessness is one of the results of that problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one thinks libraries serving as de facto homeless shelters is the best possible path, but the DC government isn't going to build a bunch of space places for those homeless people to go during the day. So kicking them out of the libraries won't help the overall situation.

We're not even properly naming the problem. We don't have a homeless problem, we have an addiction problem. The issue is addiction (to meth or heroin), and homelessness is one of the results of that problem.

We also have a treatment-of-mental-illness problem.

AND we also have a the-rent-is-too-damn-high problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lice lady here. You are not going to catch lice from a homeless guy. Unless you hug him.

Wrong!

Sitting in the same chair an infested person was sitting in minutes earlier is a very, very effective means of picking up lice and fleas.

No, not wrong. You basically need head-to-head contact for head lice.

As for fleas, seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, they should. They're contributing more, they should get something for that.

Maybe you think they should get faster ambulance response time and cleaner public water, too. Any time you ask for municipal services, be ready with your property and income tax statements, so they can decide what level of service you should get.

[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.

Plus 1. Many homeless don't want the strings/screening attached to services. The library offers something to do, heat in the winter, AC in the summer and toilets with no strings attached. The library also offers a place where the homeless can safely sleep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one thinks libraries serving as de facto homeless shelters is the best possible path, but the DC government isn't going to build a bunch of space places for those homeless people to go during the day. So kicking them out of the libraries won't help the overall situation.

Yes it will. Who cares where they go - if they're not in the library, the overall situation is definitely improved.

[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.

Plus 1. Many homeless don't want the strings/screening attached to services. The library offers something to do, heat in the winter, AC in the summer and toilets with no strings attached. The library also offers a place where the homeless can safely sleep.

None of which is the purpose of, or an appropriate use of, a public library.

[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.

This is why the current movement is housing first, with very few rules attached. In other words, you can't expect people to solve their addiction problem before getting a place to live. Give them a place to live, and they are much more likely to be successful in solving their addiction issues.

Um, whut? Giving them a place to live just gives them a free place to be high, not a way to stop being high.