Anonymous wrote:Why have professional librarians rolled over and acquiesced to the humiliation of being assigned social work?

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:It's probably good for the normals to be confronted with the reality of the homeless population living in their neighborhood. They'll be more likely to resource the places to help those folks get out of poverty.

Anonymous wrote:" So many homeless around everywhere. "

Not everywhere. There is a perverse streak of exhibitionism much like flashers. Homeless still prefer "location, location, location."

Anonymous[b 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.[/b]

Anonymous wrote:" So many homeless around everywhere. "

Not everywhere. There is a perverse streak of exhibitionism much like flashers. Homeless still prefer "location, location, location."

Anonymous wrote:" So many homeless around everywhere. "

Not everywhere. There is a perverse streak of exhibitionism much like flashers. Homeless still prefer "location, location, location."

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're *public* libraries. They serve *the public*.

They should be viewed as serving the "taxpayer", rather than the "public". Because the public doesn't fund libraries - taxpayers do. Without taxpayers you can still have a "public", but you won't have any libraries. Or any other community services, for that matter.

While the homeless are certainly members of the public, let's not delude ourselves that they are contributing to funding the library.

There should be a hierarchy of users of public services like libraries, with the needs of those who's taxes sustain libraries placed above the needs of those who contribute nothing and only consume services.

Wow. Ok.

I agree with it. Well said!

I bet you also claim to be a good person, a Christian even. What a disgusting attitude.

What is disgusting? Take a breath. We have a homeless epidemic across this country, are we to allow our libraries (and parks!) to be shelters? It’s a valid question. Don’t act so appalled. I’m of the belief that they should remain for the community to enjoy. They don’t have to be “tax payers” but they ought to be clean, rule abiding and not take advantage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're *public* libraries. They serve *the public*.

They should be viewed as serving the "taxpayer", rather than the "public". Because the public doesn't fund libraries - taxpayers do. Without taxpayers you can still have a "public", but you won't have any libraries. Or any other community services, for that matter.

While the homeless are certainly members of the public, let's not delude ourselves that they are contributing to funding the library.

There should be a hierarchy of users of public services like libraries, with the needs of those who's taxes sustain libraries placed above the needs of those who contribute nothing and only consume services.

Wow. Ok.

I agree with it. Well said!

I bet you also claim to be a good person, a Christian even. What a disgusting attitude.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're *public* libraries. They serve *the public*.

They should be viewed as serving the "taxpayer", rather than the "public". Because the public doesn't fund libraries - taxpayers do. Without taxpayers you can still have a "public", but you won't have any libraries. Or any other community services, for that matter.

While the homeless are certainly members of the public, let's not delude ourselves that they are contributing to funding the library.

There should be a hierarchy of users of public services like libraries, with the needs of those who's taxes sustain libraries placed above the needs of those who contribute nothing and only consume services.

Wow. Ok.

I agree with it. Well said!