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.

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.

YES!!
Please just move already and take all the rest of these prissy whining posters with you.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to kicking out anyone's being disruptive (visibly drunk, high, loud, harassing other patrons, etc), my library also kicks out people who are sleeping. I still see identifiably homeless people in the library and I'm fine with that. As long as they're don't cause problems and actually use the library to read books/use computers, they have as much right to be there as anyone else.

Why do they have a “right” to any local library? They don’t pay taxes. Can they verify they’re even a resident in a library system’s boundaries? In NYC there are city parks that require verification you live within the park’s boundaries to enter. Some community public golf courses have that policy too.

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.

Are you being dense deliberately? They ARE causing problems. That’s why the OP started the thread, and it’s the reason numerous other posters have written that they’re causing problems in their neighborhoods too.

If they weren’t filthy and under the influence of something or looking mentally deranged then nobody would notice or care. When your living or mental health situation starts affecting other people, it becomes their business.

There should be like a bouncer at the entrance who don't let the riff raff in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to kicking out anyone's being disruptive (visibly drunk, high, loud, harassing other patrons, etc), my library also kicks out people who are sleeping. I still see identifiably homeless people in the library and I'm fine with that. As long as they're don't cause problems and actually use the library to read books/use computers, they have as much right to be there as anyone else.

Why do they have a “right” to any local library? They don’t pay taxes. Can they verify they’re even a resident in a library system’s boundaries? In NYC there are city parks that require verification you live within the park’s boundaries to enter. Some community public golf courses have that policy too.

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.

Are you being dense deliberately? They ARE causing problems. That’s why the OP started the thread, and it’s the reason numerous other posters have written that they’re causing problems in their neighborhoods too.

If they weren’t filthy and under the influence of something or looking mentally deranged then nobody would notice or care. When your living or mental health situation starts affecting other people, it becomes their business.

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should be allowed in public libraries unless they are otherwise breaking a law, like disturbing the peace.

How about catcalling the young girls who are library patrons? That's probably not breaking the law so I guess you think it should be allowed. This happens every time I take my daughter to our public library.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to kicking out anyone's being disruptive (visibly drunk, high, loud, harassing other patrons, etc), my library also kicks out people who are sleeping. I still see identifiably homeless people in the library and I'm fine with that. As long as they're don't cause problems and actually use the library to read books/use computers, they have as much right to be there as anyone else.

Why do they have a “right” to any local library? They don’t pay taxes. Can they verify they’re even a resident in a library system’s boundaries? In NYC there are city parks that require verification you live within the park’s boundaries to enter. Some community public golf courses have that policy too.

If you don’t have a residence how can you prove you are a resident?

By your theory should I have better access to the library b/c I pay more in taxes than many people.
Or maybe you think homeless people shouldn’t be able to walk on the streets b/c they don’t pay taxes.
And then let’s keep homeless kids out of school b/c their parents don’t pay taxes. It is a slippery slope.

The library is and should continue to be open to the public. Anyone who is being disruptive (that includes noisy kids running around) should be reminded of the rules and asked to leave if they can’t abide by them.

Anonymous wrote:As a librarian who has worked in many areas, I've observed the homeless / drug issues are worse in areas that are the least progressive and offer very few services to the homeless.

Very large urban areas like the DC metro have issues, but the more services available for the mentally ill, homeless or drug users, the fewer problems we have at the library.

There is a hepatitis A outbreak in California (the most liberal utopia in the US) from homeless drug addicts crapping on the street.

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/Immunization/Hepatitis-A-Outbreak.aspx

I lived in the suburbs and worked in the barrio in a major TX city and not once did I see feces on a public street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to kicking out anyone's being disruptive (visibly drunk, high, loud, harassing other patrons, etc), my library also kicks out people who are sleeping. I still see identifiably homeless people in the library and I'm fine with that. As long as they're don't cause problems and actually use the library to read books/use computers, they have as much right to be there as anyone else.

Why do they have a “right” to any local library? They don’t pay taxes. Can they verify they’re even a resident in a library system’s boundaries? In NYC there are city parks that require verification you live within the park’s boundaries to enter. Some community public golf courses have that policy too.

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:I've noticed everything OP mentioned at my local library (west coast sanctuary city). It's awful and I seldom go to the library anymore, especially the main branch downtown. It's like a homeless shelter and I feel unsafe. The bathrooms are used for bathing and drug use. There are dogs everywhere, loud (LOUD) talking, bugs (I've been bitten by fleas and bedbugs in two different branches) etc. Homelessness has become a major problem in this country and it needs to be addressed. I don't have the answer though.

I live in Seattle.
Protesters without permits, heroin junkies, illegal immigrants , homeless are ALL above the law.


Hack!!!

Anonymous wrote:In addition to kicking out anyone's being disruptive (visibly drunk, high, loud, harassing other patrons, etc), my library also kicks out people who are sleeping. I still see identifiably homeless people in the library and I'm fine with that. As long as they're don't cause problems and actually use the library to read books/use computers, they have as much right to be there as anyone else.

Why do they have a “right” to any local library? They don’t pay taxes. Can they verify they’re even a resident in a library system’s boundaries? In NYC there are city parks that require verification you live within the park’s boundaries to enter. Some community public golf courses have that policy too.

Interesting..a movie coming out based on this premise:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Public_(film)

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

Anonymous wrote:You can advocate for more day shelters in your community and/or for a housing first policy for homeless people.

So you think that homeless people will prefer a day shelter full of other homeless people to the library? I think not. Homeless people that I've talked to don't want to hang out with other homeless people, for all the reasons others have described above.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are these even questions being asked in a civilized society? "Can a public accommodation ban members of the public for not having homes?" "Can a public accommodation ban members of the public who are drug addicts?"

The problem isn't that homeless people and drug addicts are allowed to enter libraries. It's that libraries are the last places left to go that are free and have bathrooms and any modicum of privacy.

If you hate seeing homeless people in your library, get agitated about the fact that the options are so bleak, and vote like you prioritize improving them.

People like you would oppose the obvious solution, which is institutionalizing many of them against their will. Or putting them in work camps with there square meals.

Damn right I oppose it. Did you know it’s cheaper to just provide housing than it is to “institutionalize” people against their will?

Not the PP you're responding to, but did you know that providing housing to these people isn't going to solve the problems? I acknowledge that there is a small percentage of homeless who really 'should not' be homeless, in the sense that they make good (or at least not usually shockingly bad) decisions and aren't mentally ill and aren't addicted to drugs and are willing and able to follow the rules of a civilized society. These people were generally the paycheck-to-paycheck types who suffered some sort of loss and then everything spiraled down and now they're homeless and they really, really don't want to be. They're the types approaching businesses and holding up signs asking people for OPPORTUNITIES TO WORK because they want to feed themselves or their families and get back into mainstream society. This is a very small percentage. I would be very happy to help those people. I might even employ them myself, if I found myself in a position to do so. However, the majority are not like that. They spread filth around, promote crime, they bring down the tone of the cities and neighborhoods and generally make things worse for the vast majority of people living in those places. The majority of homeless people don't want to play by the rules, either because they're addicted to some sort of substance, or because they otherwise aren't mentally capable of making good decisions. You can give those people a house each, and they'd wreck it and sell it for drug money or whatever else. If it was as simple as just giving them money, the problem would have gone away. Plenty of people and money give them money. Those people are broken, and the question is what do you do with people who are broken.