Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to let people sleep in campgrounds or give them studio apartments or SOMETHING. No one should be homeless in this country.

This. They used to have old cheap hotels or rooming houses people could have a bedroom in and pay by the week. Plus there used to be large mental hospitals.

Libraries and other places with public bathrooms are already installing special lighting so people can't see their veins to prevent them from shooting up. If people are worried about this, you can help your local library and advocate to get it done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to let people sleep in campgrounds or give them studio apartments or SOMETHING. No one should be homeless in this country.

But the sewage and trash and running water would be $$$. Otherwise you’d have a huge environmental issue.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:They need to let people sleep in campgrounds or give them studio apartments or SOMETHING. No one should be homeless in this country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

As my artisan childhood friend who fell into depression after the death of his mother and slowly spiraled into steadily worsening circumstances resulting in him being homeless would say, "If you gonna draw my picture then use the whole damn box don't try and color me with just one crayon and think you've captured my essence."

So like I said, reducing the homeless to one-dimensional caricatures thru disparaging labels takes away their humanity and it doesn't matter how many lunches you've served or how many monies you've donated.
If you're offended because I had the audacity think you're a presumptuous pissant and didn't take into account the entirety of your individual life experiences how do you think the homeless people you conveniently simplify as drunks, addicts, and felons feel? You think they'd be offended by your dismissal of their individual life experiences?

New poster.

Immediate PP, since you dismiss as "presumptuous" the poster's regularly giving food to people who apparently wanted or needed that food: Please tell us how you personally have helped anyone. Did you interview people to ensure you understood all their "individual life experiences," as you put it yourself, before you handed them sandwiches or poured cups of coffee? Or do you prefer that no one hand out food because you see that as condescending? I get it. You think it's oversimplification to say that many homeless people have issues of addiction and/or issues with law enforcement; will you be less pissed if we add "mental health issues" too, since that's also true? Maybe you're actually focused on not labeling the homeless; fine. There's a point there. But you are coming across as blasting away at people who provide real, material help. Do you really picture the OP standing there saying, "Poor homeless person, you're an addict, have this banana!"

What do you propose, if feeding people is just too condescending to you? Or should individuals not do it? How about better support systems? Housing and health and employment and mental health programs? Sure. Will those be in place in time for tomorrow's breakfast? Maybe by dinnertime?

If you are out there doing something specific and ongoing like OP and her friend, please tell us what it is so we can try it too. If not, why not?

Hello NP. I said homeless people aren't one-dimensional caricatures and opined against negatively labeling them. You and everyone else are the masterminds with all the answers so you don't need me, you're more than capable of determining what should/shouldn't be done with the homeless. I'm just suggesting you show them some respect as individuals in the process. Take care.

DP. So the answer is that you do nothing. Got it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a disgusting way to use a public facility meant to give educational access to people who need it. Robs children of a safe, fun place to explore their interests and curiosity. Making librarians be social workers is just a lazy political cop out.

Yep

Anonymous wrote:Some people are proposing a dedicated children's library in my neighborhood. The renovated libraries also tend to put the children's section on a separate floor, which helps. I also find that the libraries further away from metro stops have fewer problems. I have no issue with homeless people in the library as long as they aren't on drugs, selling drugs, in crisis, or harassing people.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

As my artisan childhood friend who fell into depression after the death of his mother and slowly spiraled into steadily worsening circumstances resulting in him being homeless would say, "If you gonna draw my picture then use the whole damn box don't try and color me with just one crayon and think you've captured my essence."

So like I said, reducing the homeless to one-dimensional caricatures thru disparaging labels takes away their humanity and it doesn't matter how many lunches you've served or how many monies you've donated.
If you're offended because I had the audacity think you're a presumptuous pissant and didn't take into account the entirety of your individual life experiences how do you think the homeless people you conveniently simplify as drunks, addicts, and felons feel? You think they'd be offended by your dismissal of their individual life experiences?

Your friend did not say that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Thank you! Wtf! I’ve noticed this trend too. Why the heck are we putting their rights above children, seniors, etc. They make libraries stinky and unsafe ruining it for everyone.

In our bizarro-inverted world, the old hierarchy has been turned on its head: Behaviors, traits, qualities once esteemed are now condemned, and those once condemned are now esteemed. So, what once were bums and druggies are now "our most vulnerable citizens"...

You can thank Marxist radical egalitarianism...

Anonymous wrote:

Well, yes, if you "solve" your homelessness problem by housing homeless people in jail, your system is not a success.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not follow the example of states that have been successful in combating homelessness? Indiana has the second lowest rate of chronic homelessness in the country, after Ohio. DC's rate was 38 times higher in 2018. That is 1 in 394 people compared to Indiana at 1 in 14,900. Indiana has a law against public intoxication that allows for jail time of up to 180 days. You could argue that this is too harsh. I would argue that it sends the message to people that there is a steep price to pay for throwing your life away to drugs, and the state will not sit idly by and watch you do it.

Incarcerating people suffering from homelessness or addiction is not "success". Indiana is not a model for ANY social policy. Their incarceration rate has increased dramatically over the past 40 years, as has their over representation of minority people in the prison population and under representation of whites.

Some other aspects of how totally horrible Indiana is:

- They charge a $5 copay for health services to people making $0.12 an hour for their labor. This means that their health outcomes are much worse than others.
- Their prison phone charges are among the highest in the country.
- Prisonpolicy.org rates Indiana's parole system an "F-" for fairness.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/IN.html

They have one of the lowest rates of homelessness in the country, but that is negated by the fact that the phone charges in prison are too high. And a website gave them a bad grade.