Anonymous wrote:I would pay a membership fee for a private library. Just sayin’.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree completely and marvel at those who insist the rights of mentally ill homeless people to hang out at the library among families and children supersedes the rights of those families and children to peacefully read or work at the library without feeling threatened or harassed.

Mentally ill people with homes are okay though? I have suffered from clinical depression, and found valuable resources at the library. Thankfully I was not homeless. Should I have been excluded?

Anonymous wrote:
I agree completely and marvel at those who insist the rights of mentally ill homeless people to hang out at the library among families and children supersedes the rights of those families and children to peacefully read or work at the library without feeling threatened or harassed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because they're still people, members of our society, fellow citizens, and so on. If they're not causing any problems, they should be able to use the library. You can be practical and compassionate at the same time.

Aside from overt harassment or law breaking, wondering what you think of the following:

Is bringing bed bugs into the library "causing a problem"?
Is bringing flees into the library "causing a problem"?
Is urinating or defecating in your pants so the seat you use smells like feces "causing a problem"?
Are ex-cons, sex offenders, opioid addicts hogging all the computers Mon-Sun "causing a problem"?
Are ex-cons, sex offenders, opioid addicts making the library reek of body odor, alcohol, and feces "causing a problem"?
Are ex-cons, sex offenders, opioid addicts trashing library restrooms "causing a problem"?

Anonymous wrote:
Because they're still people, members of our society, fellow citizens, and so on. If they're not causing any problems, they should be able to use the library. You can be practical and compassionate at the same time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be separate libraries for the homeless and addicts. Maybe we can just donate some books to the shelters and they can create a library bookshelf for them

New rule:

People who literally don't have a clue about the topic simply should not post.

Shelters are not open during the day. Libraries are open during the day. Unemployed homeless people need a place to be during the day, so they often frequent libraries. Putting books in shelters will not address the underlying issue that homeless people need a place to be during the day.

The solution would be to keep shelters open during the dsy.

Wrong.

Nobody wants to be in a shelter. Have you ever been in one?

Well, now nobody wants to be at the library.

In my neighborhood the library serves as a sort of refuge for low-income children. Many of these children likely come from bad home situations. The library provides snacks, meals and educational activities. The majority of these children come to the library without a guardian. Kids only need to be nine and up to be alone and those under eight only need to be supervised by a child aged thirteen and up. Would anyone on here want their nine year-old to be around a bunch of drug addicts or mentally ill people? Why are we putting the rights of the homeless above the safety and well being of children? These people ruin the library for everyone, not just the UMC. They ruin the parks for everyone. I've seen grown men urinating in broad daylight next to the playground. I do feel sorry for the very small percentage of the homeless population who truly just need a helping hand. We should definitely help those people. However, most of these people are mentally ill and should be institutionalized or they are drug addicts who made a very conscious choice to start using drugs in the first place. Providing free housing is not going to solve either of these problems.

I agree completely and marvel at those who insist the rights of mentally ill homeless people to hang out at the library among families and children supersedes the rights of those families and children to peacefully read or work at the library without feeling threatened or harassed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should be separate libraries for the homeless and addicts. Maybe we can just donate some books to the shelters and they can create a library bookshelf for them

New rule:

People who literally don't have a clue about the topic simply should not post.

Shelters are not open during the day. Libraries are open during the day. Unemployed homeless people need a place to be during the day, so they often frequent libraries. Putting books in shelters will not address the underlying issue that homeless people need a place to be during the day.

The solution would be to keep shelters open during the dsy.

Wrong.

Nobody wants to be in a shelter. Have you ever been in one?

Well, now nobody wants to be at the library.

In my neighborhood the library serves as a sort of refuge for low-income children. Many of these children likely come from bad home situations. The library provides snacks, meals and educational activities. The majority of these children come to the library without a guardian. Kids only need to be nine and up to be alone and those under eight only need to be supervised by a child aged thirteen and up. Would anyone on here want their nine year-old to be around a bunch of drug addicts or mentally ill people? Why are we putting the rights of the homeless above the safety and well being of children? These people ruin the library for everyone, not just the UMC. They ruin the parks for everyone. I've seen grown men urinating in broad daylight next to the playground. I do feel sorry for the very small percentage of the homeless population who truly just need a helping hand. We should definitely help those people. However, most of these people are mentally ill and should be institutionalized or they are drug addicts who made a very conscious choice to start using drugs in the first place. Providing free housing is not going to solve either of these problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Housing first doesn’t mean “housing at any costs.” I’m the mental health worker above and tons of people get evicted from housing first programs due to drugs, trash, infestations, having people living with them, and the rules.

Anonymous wrote:
MoCo has housing first, though I believe it's for veterans only. It hasn't noticeably reduced the problems in my area, from what I've seen.

Anonymous wrote:Of course it doesn't mean "housing at any costs"--who said it does?

The argument here is about whether "housing first" would solve more of the problems that currently play out in public libraries more cheaply and with a more acceptable social cost than "institutionalizing many of them against their will or putting them in work camps."

$5 says the "work camps" guy/gal has never heard of "housing first" as a practice, or of the data showing that it costs less than institutionalization, until this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had this issue at my library too and felt uncomfortable bringing my two preschoolers there. Also, the smell can be intolerable. To be honest they are all over the city parks too and I don’t like that either... I don’t think there is anything you can do. My solution is to drive out further to the suburbs where this isn’t an issue.

Father of two preschool-aged DDs here, one who we're currently potty-training. It's an "adventure" to visit the men's room stalls in some libraries, to put it nicely. Now we seek drive to libraries not easily accessible by public transportation to avoid such situations. My girls love the library, but I need to consider their health and safety also.

I wonder if the solution is some kind of private library? I guess that's what the various play places are, since you have to pay to enter, but there's not as much of a focus on reading or books, except for a few of them (Playseum in Bethesda I guess).