Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Books are expensive, and libraries are a saving grace to families who pinch pennies. Free story time, free after school tutoring, free internet access, a cozy “safe” place for families and children. I will ALWAYS put their needs first. Homeless have to get the boot.

You seem not to grasp that there are homeless families that include children.

Anonymous wrote:Books are expensive, and libraries are a saving grace to families who pinch pennies. Free story time, free after school tutoring, free internet access, a cozy “safe” place for families and children. I will ALWAYS put their needs first. Homeless have to get the boot.

Anonymous wrote:My toddlers adore the library but I feel increasingly like they only cater to the homeless. For instance, they wanted to go tonight and I had my days mixed up. It closed at 5pm right as we arrived. Saturday and Sunday have limited hours. Basically they have bankers hours which don’t work for my family who works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no law against homelessness. There is a law against public intoxication. Big difference, although there is obviously some overlap between the two.

You were just telling us about Indiana's effectiveness in reducing the population of homeless people by locking up homeless people.

I pointed out that Indiana has a chronic homelessness rate that was 1/38 the level of DC's in 2018, and that one of the likely factors was that Indiana has very strong public intoxication laws. I think it would be appropriate for DC, Virginia, and Maryland to incarcerate intoxicated people who are passed out on park benches, sidewalks, and other public places. As a previous commenter noted, sometimes an arrest for public intoxication can save peoples' lives. I would also expect that the threat of incarceration for public intoxication would cause other people to choose not to go down the path of addiction. Now, if you are upset with the idea of jail, maybe you could think of it instead as a publicly-funded studio apartment.

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?

Alas, probably won't help. The Reston library is right next door to a homeless shelter. Nevertheless, they come into the library, watch porn on the computers, wash themselves in the restroom (which pretty much makes it unusable for normal people, especially children, I'd never send DS in there), periodically expose themselves to women, and generally stink up the place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no law against homelessness. There is a law against public intoxication. Big difference, although there is obviously some overlap between the two.

You were just telling us about Indiana's effectiveness in reducing the population of homeless people by locking up homeless people.

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?

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.

Not really sure what that kind of comment even means? Charity as performance art? You tell that to the 200-300 folks that lined up on the square at 11:45 am
on Sundays. Most were regulars. I can tell you it is a pretty big operation to feed that many people particularly on the street. We passed out numbers.
The homeless had leaders who helped maintain the lines. There was a pretty significant amount of volunteer labor by the 5 involved. Bananas
were generally donated from the grocery stores. Bread was bought from the bread store. Etc, etc. etc. Not sure what your cutesy comment about "performance art" means.
I helped out several times and I can tell you that there was not time to take videos, photos or perform other art functions. I was all out working.

Somebody give Mother Theresa her peace prize so she and her know-it-all sanctimonious self can get the applause she so desperately desires.

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?

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.

Not really sure what that kind of comment even means? Charity as performance art? You tell that to the 200-300 folks that lined up on the square at 11:45 am
on Sundays. Most were regulars. I can tell you it is a pretty big operation to feed that many people particularly on the street. We passed out numbers.
The homeless had leaders who helped maintain the lines. There was a pretty significant amount of volunteer labor by the 5 involved. Bananas
were generally donated from the grocery stores. Bread was bought from the bread store. Etc, etc. etc. Not sure what your cutesy comment about "performance art" means.
I helped out several times and I can tell you that there was not time to take videos, photos or perform other art functions. I was all out working.

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn’t the best solution be to conscript the single homeless into the army. Clean them up, straighten them out, get them the right meds, have strong discipline, teach them some skills — and they’ll be a credit to the military and to society.

Anonymous wrote:I can tell you that in the 60's or 70's if you were in the public library with your feet hanging out of your shoes and you
were sleeping the police would be called and you would be
rousted out for vagrancy. You probably would not have
been fined or arrested but you would have been shown out the door.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is no law against homelessness. There is a law against public intoxication. Big difference, although there is obviously some overlap between the two.