Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

When you were in your clinical depression did you stop bathing for several months, mumble obscenities under your breath at other patrons, talk out loud to the air, leer at young girls, reek of smoke and alcohol and urinate in the stairwell? Or did you show up at the library and search the internet and browse the stacks, albeit very sadly?

+1

It's not even just about not bathing for several months, but also sitting/laying around in filth including their crap and other people's crap, eating things out of trash cans, sleeping with vermin, etc. The homeless population has high rates of any or all forms of hepatitis, among other things. Diseases they then spread around by leaving their filth everywhere when they sit or lay on seats and couches at the library, use the bathrooms, DON'T use the bathrooms but just leave their excrement wherever they choose, etc. It's disgusting. Containing them should be a public health requirement.

If you want to ban leering, or loud talking, urinating, just ban them. (but no I am not going to discuss my depressive symptoms with you - depression is not the same as sadness, BTW - you really should learn more about mental illness in general).

And AFAIK, there is no evidence that homeless people in libraries are creating a public health problem - we have real public health problems we are doing too little about though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Way to deliberately miss the point.

Not at all. Its a way to tease out the real point. Is it mental illness that is the problem? Is it residential status? Is it certain behaviors? Is it that you have managed in your mind to dehumanize certain others?

I am trying very hard not to wish that you some day suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, and learn the other side.

A paranoid schizophrenic should be institutionalized and not wandering around families and unsupervised children at the local library. I have personally known two schizophrenics in my lifetime - one blew his head off with a shotgun and the other broke a bottle over a stranger's head for no reason. The second person person was a woman I had worried about and reported to social services. I was repeatedly told by others that she was ill but harmless. There is no way to tell who among the mentally ill might harm themselves or others. I think it would be far more compassionate to institutionalize these people and provide treatment, meals and proper bathroom facilities.

The question of the advantages and disadvantages of institutionalization is complex. I think if we increase institutionalization, it should be for the benefit of the mentally ill - I am leary of forced institutionalization because people are put off by smells. And of course its nmot possible to tell who among the general, non smelly population if going to commit an act of violence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I use public libraries constantly, as do my children. Most of the daily users are people without internet at home, so low income but not homeless. There are some homeless people, on occasion, but I've seldom noticed a problem. The security guy seems to keep a lid on it.

+1

At my local library, people, including the homeless, get kicked out for bad behavior. I have noticed homeless people but rarely a problem.

So you don't think it's a problem that there even needs to be a security guard (or specially trained librarians) in order to kick people out of libraries who are obviously off their faces with drugs, masturbating, urinating in the stairwells or walkways, harassing people, etc?

I'm a former academic so I have spent many years in many different libraries, including public ones. I have never seen homeless people do what you described. I'm sure that it happens but it's rare. The only people I have ever seen do drugs in a library were college students. I mostly saw homeless people get kicked out for sleeping followed by causing a disturbance of some kind (being loud, harassing other patrons, etc). And being extremely unsanitary/smelly/carrying bags of garbage counts as causing a disturbance- I have seen people get kicked out/denied entry for that.

I do think that it's reasonable for large multi floor libraries to have security personnel. Small neighborhood libraries should have one public safety officer in case of emergencies.

Anonymous wrote:This has already been pointed out--you have to be clean to be in a shelter. You can't bring in drugs and alcohol, and you can't be drunk or high.

A lot of people who have addictions choose not to be in the shelter or are turned away.

So you have to be clean to go to a shelter but not a library?

Can libraries refuse to admit people for smelling or does every patron have to tolerate men who haven't showered in weeks and reek of feces?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it always like this? As a child and young teen I was always in the library (usually Chevy Chase, Wheaton, or Tenleytown) and I don't remember anything like this. Is it because I was in the children's room or oblivious?

Possibly two reasons...
The burbs of DC don't have that many homeless, or did not in the past.

And, if you were a child before Reagan became President, there were still mental institutions available to house patients long term, instead of being out in the community.

I don't remember so many homeless as a child, but after the 80s there was a definite uptick.

It is incorrect to say 'Reagan closed the mental institutions.' Deinstitutionalization was a wider longer term movement and much of it was motivated on humanitarian grounds that institutionalization was inhumane. Also, many institutions were state hospitals, so those decisions were taken at the state not federal level. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation

Moreover, there were certainly homeless in the 70s and 80s and lots of junkies in those years as well. Prostitutes also plied their trade on the streets instead of the net so you could add them to the general mix of street life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I use public libraries constantly, as do my children. Most of the daily users are people without internet at home, so low income but not homeless. There are some homeless people, on occasion, but I've seldom noticed a problem. The security guy seems to keep a lid on it.

+1

At my local library, people, including the homeless, get kicked out for bad behavior. I have noticed homeless people but rarely a problem.

So you don't think it's a problem that there even needs to be a security guard (or specially trained librarians) in order to kick people out of libraries who are obviously off their faces with drugs, masturbating, urinating in the stairwells or walkways, harassing people, etc?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it always like this? As a child and young teen I was always in the library (usually Chevy Chase, Wheaton, or Tenleytown) and I don't remember anything like this. Is it because I was in the children's room or oblivious?

Possibly two reasons...
The burbs of DC don't have that many homeless, or did not in the past.

And, if you were a child before Reagan became President, there were still mental institutions available to house patients long term, instead of being out in the community.

I don't remember so many homeless as a child, but after the 80s there was a definite uptick.

Thank you for offering these possibilities. I was a child in the 80's/early 90's so perhaps it was a neighborhood thing

Yes. It is illegal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Way to deliberately miss the point.

Not at all. Its a way to tease out the real point. Is it mental illness that is the problem? Is it residential status? Is it certain behaviors? Is it that you have managed in your mind to dehumanize certain others?

I am trying very hard not to wish that you some day suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, and learn the other side.

A paranoid schizophrenic should be institutionalized and not wandering around families and unsupervised children at the local library. I have personally known two schizophrenics in my lifetime - one blew his head off with a shotgun and the other broke a bottle over a stranger's head for no reason. The second person person was a woman I had worried about and reported to social services. I was repeatedly told by others that she was ill but harmless. There is no way to tell who among the mentally ill might harm themselves or others. I think it would be far more compassionate to institutionalize these people and provide treatment, meals and proper bathroom facilities.

More ignorance. The vast majority of people with mental illness, including paranoid schizophrenics, live relatively normal lives managing their illness at home.

Only 25% of schizophrenics fully recover. The others live relatively normal lives when they have an entire support team in place - supportive family members, social services, doctors, etc. These are not the people at the library.

First off, what does "fully recover" even mean? It's a chronic illness. Secondly, nobody saying that the people at the library are or should be any mentally ill person's support system, but that doesn't mean that paranoid schizophrenics should all be institutionalized.

Fully recovered means being able to manage symptoms to the point that they can lead active, fulfilling lives. It does not mean that they are cured or are free of symptoms or can stop taking meds or receiving therapy.

Secondly, I stated that the ones wandering around the library should be institutionalized. Obviously, they are ones without any support system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Way to deliberately miss the point.

Not at all. Its a way to tease out the real point. Is it mental illness that is the problem? Is it residential status? Is it certain behaviors? Is it that you have managed in your mind to dehumanize certain others?

I am trying very hard not to wish that you some day suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, and learn the other side.

A paranoid schizophrenic should be institutionalized and not wandering around families and unsupervised children at the local library. I have personally known two schizophrenics in my lifetime - one blew his head off with a shotgun and the other broke a bottle over a stranger's head for no reason. The second person person was a woman I had worried about and reported to social services. I was repeatedly told by others that she was ill but harmless. There is no way to tell who among the mentally ill might harm themselves or others. I think it would be far more compassionate to institutionalize these people and provide treatment, meals and proper bathroom facilities.

More ignorance. The vast majority of people with mental illness, including paranoid schizophrenics, live relatively normal lives managing their illness at home.

Only 25% of schizophrenics fully recover. The others live relatively normal lives when they have an entire support team in place - supportive family members, social services, doctors, etc. These are not the people at the library.

First off, what does "fully recover" even mean? It's a chronic illness. Secondly, nobody saying that the people at the library are or should be any mentally ill person's support system, but that doesn't mean that paranoid schizophrenics should all be institutionalized.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

When you were in your clinical depression did you stop bathing for several months, mumble obscenities under your breath at other patrons, talk out loud to the air, leer at young girls, reek of smoke and alcohol and urinate in the stairwell? Or did you show up at the library and search the internet and browse the stacks, albeit very sadly?

+1

It's not even just about not bathing for several months, but also sitting/laying around in filth including their crap and other people's crap, eating things out of trash cans, sleeping with vermin, etc. The homeless population has high rates of any or all forms of hepatitis, among other things. Diseases they then spread around by leaving their filth everywhere when they sit or lay on seats and couches at the library, use the bathrooms, DON'T use the bathrooms but just leave their excrement wherever they choose, etc. It's disgusting. Containing them should be a public health requirement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it always like this? As a child and young teen I was always in the library (usually Chevy Chase, Wheaton, or Tenleytown) and I don't remember anything like this. Is it because I was in the children's room or oblivious?

Possibly two reasons...
The burbs of DC don't have that many homeless, or did not in the past.

And, if you were a child before Reagan became President, there were still mental institutions available to house patients long term, instead of being out in the community.

I don't remember so many homeless as a child, but after the 80s there was a definite uptick.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Was it always like this? As a child and young teen I was always in the library (usually Chevy Chase, Wheaton, or Tenleytown) and I don't remember anything like this. Is it because I was in the children's room or oblivious?

Possibly two reasons...
The burbs of DC don't have that many homeless, or did not in the past.

And, if you were a child before Reagan became President, there were still mental institutions available to house patients long term, instead of being out in the community.

I don't remember so many homeless as a child, but after the 80s there was a definite uptick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Way to deliberately miss the point.

Not at all. Its a way to tease out the real point. Is it mental illness that is the problem? Is it residential status? Is it certain behaviors? Is it that you have managed in your mind to dehumanize certain others?

I am trying very hard not to wish that you some day suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, and learn the other side.

A paranoid schizophrenic should be institutionalized and not wandering around families and unsupervised children at the local library. I have personally known two schizophrenics in my lifetime - one blew his head off with a shotgun and the other broke a bottle over a stranger's head for no reason. The second person person was a woman I had worried about and reported to social services. I was repeatedly told by others that she was ill but harmless. There is no way to tell who among the mentally ill might harm themselves or others. I think it would be far more compassionate to institutionalize these people and provide treatment, meals and proper bathroom facilities.

More ignorance. The vast majority of people with mental illness, including paranoid schizophrenics, live relatively normal lives managing their illness at home.

Only 25% of schizophrenics fully recover. The others live relatively normal lives when they have an entire support team in place - supportive family members, social services, doctors, etc. These are not the people at the library.