Libraries as homeless centers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when have the homeless saints been revered on a par with religious hermits?

They're people who need somewhere safe and warm to be during the day.

Fellow liberal here. yes, they are people, but libraries also have a distinct purpose for the public (including the homeless/poor public) to be a place to read and study. So no, libraries should not be de facto homeless day shelters. Homeless people should be welcome as long as they are using the facilities appropriately.

Interestingly, as a child you never saw homeless people in any library anywhere in any state. This was in the 60's and 70's. I suspect they would have been run out of the
libraries at that time....i.e. police called for vagrancy. Libraries in the 60's and 70's were well populated with Moms and their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

When homeless get to be "fairly safe" in the library, they make it less safe for everyone else, especially women and children. Great solution.

Some homeless people actually are women and children.

Woman and children get put on the top of all lists to be homed. Generally when they sign up with social services they are pretty quickly put into temporary motels if need be.

[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.

No, those who solve their addiction problems are those who want to solve their addiction problems. Throwing housing at addicts does not magically make them clean. Their
are free resources for addicts to become clean if they want to. The problem is many don't want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

When homeless get to be "fairly safe" in the library, they make it less safe for everyone else, especially women and children. Great solution.

Some homeless people actually are women and children.

x100 this. The homeless are our fellow community members, i.e., part of the public.

Yes, and they still need to follow rules for usage of public space.

No one said they shouldn't. The same as if your toddler is going around bugging people and trying to rip the books.

Nobody said that, but there is a superwoke response that "homeless people have just as many rights to use the library, how dare you!!," which ignores the fact that they indeed pose big challenges to librarians to keep the library safe and clean. avoiding reality doesn't help anyone.

Yes, in the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's the homeless would have been called hobos, vagrants, and bums. Vagrancy laws would have been enforced in public buildings.
No it is superwoke to have homeless taking over parks and libraries.

[Anonymous]

The homeless generally have one or all of the following:
mental illness/ alcoholism/ addiction/ prior felon (unable to get jobs)

Many don't want public services because of the screening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The homeless generally have one or all of the following:
mental illness/ alcoholism/ addiction/ prior felon (unable to get jobs)

Many don't want public services because of the screening.

Your generalization of the homeless is very convenient. Reducing them to one-dimensional caricatures thru disparaging labels takes away their humanity allowing you to be unapologetically apathetic to their individual experiences and challenges. Good job

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeless generally have one or all of the following:
mental illness/ alcoholism/ addiction/ prior felon (unable to get jobs)

Many don't want public services because of the screening.

Your generalization of the homeless is very convenient. Reducing them to one-dimensional caricatures thru disparaging labels takes away their humanity allowing you to be unapologetically apathetic to their individual experiences and challenges. Good job

I'm the original poster here. My comment comes from someone who has served 23,000 lunches (self funded) once a week on the street to homeless who lined up for
lunch. How many homeless have you personally fed, clothed or homed with your personal monies?

Generally the homeless also help each other, live in camps and have self appointed leaders. Again, my comments came from someone who has actually served
23,000 lunches (self funded) to the unhomed.

How many homeless have you fed? On your own monies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Public libraries have rules against sleeping, which they will and do enforce. Go to a staff member if you see someone sleeping.

As for homeless people using library services, that is their right just like its your right as long as they follow the library rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeless generally have one or all of the following:
mental illness/ alcoholism/ addiction/ prior felon (unable to get jobs)

Many don't want public services because of the screening.

Your generalization of the homeless is very convenient. Reducing them to one-dimensional caricatures thru disparaging labels takes away their humanity allowing you to be unapologetically apathetic to their individual experiences and challenges. Good job

I'm the original poster here. My comment comes from someone who has served 23,000 lunches (self funded) once a week on the street to homeless who lined up for
lunch. How many homeless have you personally fed, clothed or homed with your personal monies?

Generally the homeless also help each other, live in camps and have self appointed leaders. Again, my comments came from someone who has actually served
23,000 lunches (self funded) to the unhomed.

How many homeless have you fed? On your own monies?

I'm really offended by your comment. I'm the original poster. I helped my friend every Sunday at noon. Five of us would show up to feed the homeless, in an ad hoc
on the street feeding. Food prep took about 3-4 hours every Saturday. We were self funded. Generally we fed around 200-400 lunches each Sunday. Lunches were:
hot dogs with rolls, bananas, hard boiled eggs, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, hot coffee, water, and generally ice cream sandwiches, sometimes home made cookies.
My fried who spear headed this is low income by DCUM standards. I'm guessing he makes about $50,000 per year. He got food donations when possible but spent
a fair amount out of pocket.

So believe me, we are not apathetic to the homeless individual experiences as we were out there rain or shine on Sunday afternoons at noon.

How many homeless have you fed?

And yes, most are unable or unwilling to hold down jobs due to felon history, mental illness, alcoholism or drug addiction or a combination of the above.
Occasionally we had families in our lines for food who were down on their luck, so yes we also fed down on their luck folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Public libraries have rules against sleeping, which they will and do enforce. Go to a staff member if you see someone sleeping.

As for homeless people using library services, that is their right just like its your right as long as they follow the library rules.

Seriously?! I've taken my share of naps in libraries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since when have the homeless saints been revered on a par with religious hermits?

They're people who need somewhere safe and warm to be during the day.

Fellow liberal here. yes, they are people, but libraries also have a distinct purpose for the public (including the homeless/poor public) to be a place to read and study. So no, libraries should not be de facto homeless day shelters. Homeless people should be welcome as long as they are using the facilities appropriately.

Interestingly, as a child you never saw homeless people in any library anywhere in any state. This was in the 60's and 70's. I suspect they would have been run out of the
libraries at that time....i.e. police called for vagrancy. Libraries in the 60's and 70's were well populated with Moms and their kids.

As a child I never saw homeless people anywhere. I don't think the difference between then and now is "vagrancy" laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Really? I've certainly gone to the library for

1. something to do
2. a warm place in the winter
3. AC in the summer
4. toilets

and I'm middle-class and housed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Public libraries have rules against sleeping, which they will and do enforce. Go to a staff member if you see someone sleeping.

As for homeless people using library services, that is their right just like its your right as long as they follow the library rules.

Seriously?! I've taken my share of naps in libraries.

I have definitely seen this in the Rockville library and it is enforced against all people (rightfully). I think it is really the one way to keep the libraries from become shelters. They do it in Union Station too. You are not allowed to recline on the benches.

[Anonymous]

It's true that I am less likely to use the local library because there are many homeless people there. I agree that the children's area should be separated from the general population. As should be the internet access area.

I would not want to be a librarian in the defacto homeless shelter, no. Most homeless people are harmless but I've had encounters with those who have issues. For some, addiction, mental illness, etc. *are* contributing factors to homelessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The homeless generally have one or all of the following:
mental illness/ alcoholism/ addiction/ prior felon (unable to get jobs)

Many don't want public services because of the screening.

Your generalization of the homeless is very convenient. Reducing them to one-dimensional caricatures thru disparaging labels takes away their humanity allowing you to be unapologetically apathetic to their individual experiences and challenges. Good job

I'm the original poster here. My comment comes from someone who has served 23,000 lunches (self funded) once a week on the street to homeless who lined up for
lunch. How many homeless have you personally fed, clothed or homed with your personal monies?

Generally the homeless also help each other, live in camps and have self appointed leaders. Again, my comments came from someone who has actually served
23,000 lunches (self funded) to the unhomed.

How many homeless have you fed? On your own monies?

I'm really offended by your comment. I'm the original poster. I helped my friend every Sunday at noon. Five of us would show up to feed the homeless, in an ad hoc
on the street feeding. Food prep took about 3-4 hours every Saturday. We were self funded. Generally we fed around 200-400 lunches each Sunday. Lunches were:
hot dogs with rolls, bananas, hard boiled eggs, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, hot coffee, water, and generally ice cream sandwiches, sometimes home made cookies.
My fried who spear headed this is low income by DCUM standards. I'm guessing he makes about $50,000 per year. He got food donations when possible but spent
a fair amount out of pocket.

So believe me, we are not apathetic to the homeless individual experiences as we were out there rain or shine on Sunday afternoons at noon.

How many homeless have you fed?

And yes, most are unable or unwilling to hold down jobs due to felon history, mental illness, alcoholism or drug addiction or a combination of the above.
Occasionally we had families in our lines for food who were down on their luck, so yes we also fed down on their luck folks.

NP. Consider me unimpressed by your charity as performance art.