[ithought]

Libraries are amazing and should be more celebrated and funded to expand their core mission.

But cities like LA utilize libraries as refugees for homeless people which completely destroys the purpose. It should be a refuge for people working hard and trying to excel in life, not a place for people who have given up on life. I'm happy that the homeless have a place to go but as a society, it seems like we're doing everything wrong trying to fix the problem.

[codehusker]

What is your proposed solution? How does one limit a free, public resource to only people with homes? A literal smell test?

How do people without homes "completely destroy the purpose"? Are they stealing books? Breaking computers? Barricading the doors?

Do you really believe that all people without homes have "given up on life"? Not a single one is "working hard and trying to excel in life"? Have you heard of working people without homes? Particularly in LA, SF, et al. where the cost of a home vastly exceeds the income of many people?

Do you think education could be a productive method for reducing the number of people without homes?

[knodi123]

> What is your proposed solution? How does one limit a free, public resource to only people with homes?

We already limit library use to those who live within the library's community. Just require a library card to get in, too. Morals aside, the logistics would be simple.

> How do people without homes "completely destroy the purpose"? Are they stealing books? Breaking computers? Barricading the doors?

Shooting up heroin in the bathroom? Using the water fountains to wash up. Talking angrily to their schizophrenic delusions? Stinking to high heaven? Saying "completely destroy the purpose" is a bit of an exaggeration - but the mission of the library is hampered a bit if you make them defacto daytime homeless shelters.

> Do you really believe that all people without homes have "given up on life"?

He was exaggerating, but yes - many homeless have no reasonable expectation of improving their circumstances.

> Do you think education could be a productive method for reducing the number of people without homes?

Those who aren't mentally ill or completely socially maladjusted, sure. Of course, there's a difference between "education" and "just putting them in a building full of information and crossing your fingers".

I don't say that all of your criticisms were wrong - but you went off the rails in the opposite extreme of the person you replied to. Any solution we come up with should acknowledge that libraries are vulnerable to the tragedy of the commons, and a great percentage of the homeless are not going to improve themselves without the aid of services that the library has no business providing.

[vacri]

> We already limit library use to those who live within the library's community.

"You have to be in the same physical location to use a building" is one of the softest restrictions in history.

In order to borrow something, sure, you have to live nearby, but a library is more than a book loan service. For example, I was crossing the US and booking the hotel for the next night every morning. If the motel I was at didn't have working internet, I'd find a library and use theirs to make the booking. I was never blocked on account on not living nearby.

[smokey_the_bear]

That isn't even true in California, any resident of California can use any Californian library, and receive a library card to it. Which leads to an ongoing feuds between neighboring cities when one chooses not to have public libraries (see Piedmont, California)

[knodi123]

> In order to borrow something, sure, you have to live nearby,

The question was asked, how can we logistically enforce no homeless people. The answer is (new, non-existing policy here): restrict access to those who can borrow books. That's how we could do it, logistically.

[ericmcer]

I go to the SF library frequently and it is a gorgeous library, but it is absolutely full of homeless. I have seen needles on multiple occasions, almost always you will people hear screaming obscenities or just gibberish, and you guaranteed will at least smell some pretty nasty stuff on any trip in there.

A couple days ago one of them threw themselves from the 5th story and landed in the atrium. He could very easily have killed someone in addition to himself. I have trouble rationalizing this romantic view of the homeless as these poor downtrodden, down on their luck people who just need a hand up, with the realities I see everyday of mentally ill, dangerous, and completely uncontrollable people. They definitely are not there to read. A few have developed the skill set necessary to direct the free access computers to porn sites.

That being said I agree that homeless is not effective as a blanket term to describe anyone without a home, huge difference between someone living out of their car and showering at the gym, and a schizophrenic who hasn't bathed in 6 months.

[sedachv]

> I have trouble rationalizing this romantic view of the homeless as these poor downtrodden, down on their luck people who just need a hand up, with the realities I see everyday of mentally ill, dangerous, and completely uncontrollable people.

That is because this "romantic view" is a straw man you came up with so that you can rationalize writing a comment attacking the homeless and the mentally ill, instead of doing something constructive. Do you participate in the San Francisco Tenants Union? Are you doing anything to help SB562 (single-payer in California)? When was the last time you gave a homeless person change?

You can whine about homeless people all you want on HN but that says more about your inadequacies as a person than about the homeless. Until the lack of affordable access to housing and mental health services is resolved the homeless population in California will keep growing.

[hueving]

Affordable housing will do absolutely nothing for the type of homeless people OP is talking about (drug addicts and the mentally ill). They are homeless because they have no stability in their life and would not be able to hold a job to pay rent regardless of the cost.

The class of homeless you are referring to is people pushed out of their homes due to rising prices and their limited income. These people (in my experience) are not the ones going around screaming at people an not bathing for months. You would most likely not even know they are homeless.

You are not talking about the same groups of people so you are talking past each other and nothing productive will come of your exchange.

[huac]

Hence why the commenter you're replying to supports single payer healthcare, to address mental health issues and addiction.

And having affordable housing obviously creates some stability in a person's life.

[hueving]

Having affordable housing only creates stability if they actually pay the rent.

From what I've observed, the problematic homeless people primarily need health care or to be put in a mental institution (for the really unstable ones). Affordable housing would certainly be nice, but having that isn't going to do anything for the ones that piss on the floor or jump off the balcony of a public library because they wouldn't be able to pay (or want to pay) any price for housing.

[emodendroket]

But what's the point of the distinction here? Are we really going to argue that the best thing we can do with mentally unstable people who are unable to hold a job is throw them on the streets?

[Turing_Machine]

I don't think anyone is arguing that. "Throwing them on the streets" and "discouraging them from hanging out in the library unless they are actually using it" are two different things entirely.

[closeparen]

It is not ok to call someone inadequate as a person for wanting usable and pleasant public spaces. We are not morally obligated to enthusiastically embrace the reallocation of every public space for use as a homeless shelter.

Cities need to get homeless services right. They also need to get libraries, parks, and transit right.

[istjohn]

It's totally OK to call someone out for talking about people with mental illness like they were rats or cockroaches. I don't care what happens to sewer rats. I just want them out of my sight and mind. But when I see people who are sick or suffering, my first concern is with there well-being. I recognize that my own inconvenience or displeasure pales in significance to the human suffering I am witnessing.

[closeparen]

Letting public space rot like that is a deeply regressive policy.

You and I have access to private-sector alternatives. The working-class kid who wants a quiet place to do his homework, the guy on the edge of homeless desperately applying for jobs on the public computer, someone depending on the librarian to help them navigate the welfare bureaucracy... they don't.

You may not realize it, but a great many people on the low end of the socioeconomic ladder depend on libraries as quiet sanctuaries and as a window of access to the modern, networked, intellectual world. Shouted obscenities and excrement vapor in the air ruin it for them too.

You're right, we should be deeply concerned by such dramatic scenes of intense suffering and inhumanity. But if you're even slightly concerned, the last thing you want to do is let the environment deteriorate and fester undisturbed. The guy who might consider defecating on the floor deserves a peaceful and pleasant library, too. He's not going to get it if we let such things become normal there. The characteristics of the spaces we inhabit shape our moods and behaviors, and a library which could be mistaken for a skid row alleyway serves no one.

[djur]

> poor downtrodden, down on their luck people who just need a hand up... mentally ill, dangerous, and completely uncontrollable

These aren't actually incompatible with each other. I would consider mental illness to be "down on one's luck", wouldn't you?

> They definitely are not there to read. A few have developed the skill set necessary to direct the free access computers to porn sites.

I don't know if this is what you intend, but language like this makes it sounds like you're discussing some sort of monkeys, not people. Of course they can use computers. Most homeless people weren't born homeless.

[ZenoArrow]

> "Of course they can use computers"

I believe GP was referring to the skills to get around adult content blocks rather than general computer skills.

[paulcole]

At least here in Portland, OR, you have the option of filtered/unfiltered Internet when logging on to a library computer.

Looks like SF libraries don't filter content:

https://sfpl.org/?pg=2000004301

[emodendroket]

It doesn't seem like selecting unfiltered is a particular feat then.

[DrScump]

I don't know of any Bay Area library system that filters any adult content.

[ZenoArrow]

Maybe they should.

[khuey]

San Francisco's main library had to install industrial strength sewage grinders because "patrons" were flushing all sorts of things that don't belong and were clogging the pipes.

[istjohn]

Not to change the subject, but you know what really grinds my gears? The other day I took my wife out to dinner. We were enjoying a rare care-free night out, and then they sat this family at an adjacent table. The kids were well-behaved, but the youngest child--ugh. She had no hair, a hospital bracelet on her wrist, and bandages on her arms. We couldn't finish our dinner. Our evening was ruined. How are we supposed to enjoy ourselves while this child's pain is flaunted in front of our faces. I was so pissed off. I told the manager if they don't stop allowing these walking TV fundraiser trophies into their establishment I'll find somewhere else to spend my hard-earned money. I shouldn't have to cure cancer to enjoy my Friday night!

/sarcasm

[vacri]

> I have trouble rationalizing this romantic view of the homeless as these poor downtrodden, down on their luck people who just need a hand up, with the realities I see everyday of mentally ill, dangerous, and completely uncontrollable people.

Maybe you should see the demographic as being a little more complex rather than just throwing them all into the one bucket. Rather than 'find another term' to split the demographic itself ('homeless' is a pretty accurate description of 'doesn't have a home'), perhaps you should find a different term for the groups you want to specify.

[irq11]

Rules. No sleeping. No drug use. No bathing in the restrooms. No shitting on anything. No violent or threatening behavior. Period.

Then enforce those rules. One violation, and you're out. Two, and you're out for good.

Librarians know who the troublemakers are. They just have no power to do anything about them. It's not illegal to be homeless, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to do violent, illegal or disgusting things without consequence.

[lebanon_tn]

The library my spouse worked at was terrified of being sued (happened to a neighboring city) and they aren't allowed to touch unattended belongings.

[learc83]

Why are they so afraid of being sued? There are plenty of other public spaces that don't have a problem removing people for similar behavior.

Most people maintaining public spaces view unattended bags as a public safety threat.

[ethbro]

Exactly. Coordinate with police and enforce the rules. Public spaces are created and maintained by enforcing liberal rules of access, not no rules of access.

[jmcgough]

Police have been so defanged in the bay that homeless people do whatever they want with impunity.

[emodendroket]

It says right in the post why they were afraid of being sued.

[learc83]

And yet it doesn't make sense.

[zghst]

They already have these rules in SF however the violators outweigh the amount of enforcers.

[irq11]

They have these rules, but they are rarely actually enforced. Point someone to a homeless person shooting up in public or bathing in the bathroom, and see what happens.

If anything, there's a shrug and a sigh and some rent-a-cop is sent to harass. Almost never is the infraction met with punishment of any consequence.

Start actually arresting or forcibly evicting people who behave this way. They'll stop coming around. San Francisco is particularly feckless in this regard.

[ZenoArrow]

> "Start actually arresting or forcibly evicting people who behave this way."

This is one of those easy solutions that sounds practical on paper, but in reality doesn't hold up.

Let's say SFPD go ahead and do what you suggest. What does that achieve? If they arrest people for shooting up, are you sending them to jail? For how long? Is that going to help them get clean when smack is probably easily attainable in prison anyway? When they're released, now not only are they homeless they've got a criminal record, good luck in the job market with that hanging over you. If they go down the other route and forcibly evict them, where do they get evicted to? All it does is shift the problem to another part of the country, who are probably just as resistant to dealing with it as SF.

You have to treat the root causes of involuntary homelessness as if it's a societal disease. The threat of arresting people isn't a strong enough deterrent to break people out of their addictions, which should be clear by now, otherwise the war on drugs would already have been 'won'.

[irq11]

Are we to overlook all criminal behavior because enforcement might make people less employable, or just selectively ignore some laws that you don't agree with?

Perspective! If someone is shooting up in the library, their future employability is of (at best) tertiary concern to me. The pressing matter is making sure they don't continue the behavior. We can't just stop enforcing laws because it might make lawbreakers break more laws.

The city of SF actually did adopt a policy of forcing addicts into treatment by giving them an ultimatum of jail time for accumulated minor offenses. It worked, but was stopped when some bleeding-heart sued the city. I'm a liberal, but I consider that a tragedy. You can't cure addiction by arresting people, but you sure as hell can stop enabling it on a societal scale.

And also, when I say "evict", I mean "evict them from the library". I don't care where they go to shoot up; watch porn; shit in the sink; sleep or harass people, but they can't do it in the library.

[ticviking]

What if our goal is to allow taxpayers to use public spaces?

What if by doing that people would become willing to invest in the programs that treat these kinds of problems?

[derefr]

Proposed solution: give the homeless a (publicly-funded) place to be that fits their needs even better than a library does.

In chemistry, when you have a both a product and a side-product dissolved in a liquid (say, water) and you want to purify the solution to have only the product, you don't try to take the side-product away directly; instead, you pour in another fluid with different viscosity that the side-product will prefer to its original solute, and then shake things up. After everything settles, the product is in one layer, the side-product is in the other, and you can now drain the layers into separate flasks and wash/evaporate/crystallize out your product.

People, like chemicals, can't just be told what to do; you need to give them a place they prefer to be if you want any hope of them moving there.

[anonacct37]

Look, instead of turning us into strawmen, try and understand.

I love libraries. If someone is reading a book or a magazine or even surfing Facebook on a computer I don't care what they look like, smell like, or whether or not they go back to an apartment at the end of the day.

My city has a beautiful library. They also have very liberal policies, afaik people aren't turned away.

But those tables you'd like to read a magazine at? Full of people camped out, possessions spread around them, talking, dealing.

Those isles of books? Now they are also beds.

It's really an asshole move to assume that if anyone at any point doesn't want their library turned into a shelter, then they are heartless people who hate the poor and mentally ill.

I want better health care in this country. I want better support for ensuring that everyone had a roof over their head. I also want to read a book in the library without being hassled or smelling excrement.

Libraries should be open to everyone to use as libraries.

[ZenoArrow]

> "I want better health care in this country. I want better support for ensuring that everyone had a roof over their head. I also want to read a book in the library without being hassled or smelling excrement."

The first two should be seen as prerequisites for the third. The first one especially.

Is it fair that libraries have inadvertently taken on the role of social care of the homeless? No, it's not. Should, as you put it, libraries be open to everyone to use as libraries? Yes, they should. However, the answer is not to shut the homeless out of yet another place, the answer is to push for cheaper, more comprehensive healthcare (i.e. single payer) so that we can address the problem head on.

[closeparen]

I heard a great name for this line of argument recently: "but first, the revolution!"

I empathize, but this is destructive. Deciding we can't have [basic service that worked fine not long ago] until we have [complete change of heart about philosophical and policy questions at the core of people's political identities] will only run civilization into the ground.

[istjohn]

A civilization that needlessly allows homelessness and untreated illness is already run into the ground. It's morally bankrupt.

[closeparen]

What other services are you willing to abandon on the basis of that argument? Medicare? Public schools? Fire departments?

If a homeless encampment appears on a public transit mainline, should we shut down the city's transit system until poverty is eradicated worldwide?

Our civilization is certainly low, but it could fall a lot further.

[usrusr]

> How does one limit a free, public resource to only people with homes? A literal smell test?

By offering something that is even more attractive than a library to people who want the roof but not the books.

One might even argue that it is undemocratic when funds for one public service (with a lot of popular support) were reappropriated for another, maybe less popular, one. Imagine (in Lennon's voice) the USAF going rogue to set up an NHS clone with money they were supposed to spend on new jets: laudable in a way yet unquestionably out of line. Not their decision to make.

[rubber_duck]

>How does one limit a free, public resource to only people with homes? A literal smell test ?

Member only access where it's free to join but you ban people breaking rules ?

[RivieraKid]

> How does one limit a free, public resource to only people with homes?

By only making it free for students.

> How do people without homes "completely destroy the purpose"?

I wouldn't say it destroys the purpose, but it changes the atmosphere and environment of the place. I don't think people want to spend time with homeless and weird people around them. It sounds harsh but that's the truth.

[istjohn]

More repulsive than "homeless and weird people" is heartless disgust for less fortunate neighbors absent any apparent concern for their well-being.

I don't want to live in a society that solves the stench of poverty and untreated mental illness by corralling people into ghettos and homeless shelters. The only humane solution to the stench of human suffering in public libraries or anywhere else is to minister to the unmet needs. Give them medical treatment, showers, food and a bed.

[ticviking]

I have no problems with homeless and weird people.

I do have a problem with them using the space in a way that actively prevents people from being patrons. I have more of a problem with the tacit assumption that this is some kind of stopgap "shelter" and that the unilateral non democratic appropriation of public spaces to provide a poor substitite is defensible.

[ithought]

Planned communities that allow people to live with less effort and don't put arbitrary restrictions on them.

And homeless push out the people who could be expanding their minds and imagination, trying to improve themselves and society.

They sit there, charge their cell phones, watch youtube, sleep and shower.

No, I don't think education helps. Technology should reduce the cost of living. We need better systems and societies where paying rent shouldn't require 20+ hours of work a week.

[Turing_Machine]

"What is your proposed solution?"

Well, giving the homeless a better place to hang out would be one option. I don't think most of them are there to actually use the library as such (some might be, of course).

As I understand it, many shelters kick them out during the daytime, so they wind up in the library or riding public transportation to get out of the weather instead.

[cmurf]

The city should have public showers, and yes the library should have a smell test, but before even these two things the real problem with homelessness is we do not take mental health care issues seriously, as a society.

[closeparen]

Provide actual, sufficient, high-quality homeless shelters and services, rather than leaving every other public space (libraries, transit, parks, etc.) as a poor stand-in.

[scarmig]

An ex of mine had a knife pulled on her by a (presumably homeless) man for no reason in the main SF public library.

There's an inherent tension between making a space available to homeless people and making it available to all members of the public.

[ZenoArrow]

That sounds more like a mental health issue though. I just hope the US government puts in single payer healthcare so resources can be allocated to deal with it properly.

[knodi123]

> That sounds more like a mental health issue though

Yes, absolutely, the primary causes of homelessness are drug addiction and mental health issues. There are other causes, and I'd never advocate being callous or dismissive toward the homeless- but this is the reason people find large concentrations of them off-putting.

[ZenoArrow]

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I'll hopefully never fully understand what it feels like to have someone you're close to being threatened with a knife, but I can imagine it's horrible, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

What I am saying is that in order to cut down on that behaviour, we need to stop the problem at the source. To my knowledge, no country has ever managed to fully eradicate homelessness, but other places have had success in reducing drug addiction and mental health issues. If those issues are tackled, the issues surrounding homelessness should be greatly reduced, including a large reduction in violent and/or erratic behaviour.

Trust is hard to build once it's broken, and I'm not asking you to forgive anyone, but we have to look beyond our current hardships if we want a future that's worth looking forward to.

[scarmig]

Everything there is factually true. But I hate the idea that we aren't allowed to do anything to improve quality of life of the non-homeless before homelessness as an issue is solved.

Another example: literally every single night, a homeless person sets up a tent with a bunch of trash in my building's fire escape. If there were a fire and we had to use it, it'd pretty much be inaccessible.

It's possible to call the city, but they don't fix it overnight, which is kind of the point. And installing a gate in the fire escape alcove is illegal, because the gate would apparently encroach onto public property.

So what's to be done? Should I just accept that I should just literally die in a fire, for the sake of a homeless person having a place to sleep? And of course it's easy to say, "well in an ideal world there'd be a bed for them!" Unfortunately the world we live in isn't ideal, but anytime anyone complains about quality of life issues, "homeless advocates" will demand that you solve a century old national problem before granting you have even the slightest right to complain.

[istjohn]

You make it sound like solving homelessness would require a Manhattan Project-like effort. It's not a trivial problem, but the solution is within easy reach of our society if we had the will.

What should be done? Give the poor guy a freaking bed with a roof over his head! Why don't you just say we need to take care of that guy so he doesn't have to sleep on your fire escape?

You make it sound like you think that would be asking too much of society. Like it's obvious that would be too much. That guy's going to sleep outside, so the least society can do is make sure he's not doing it somewhere that you don't have to worry about tripping over in case of a fire.

No! There is no good reason anyone should have to sleep outside in this country. And as long as people do have to sleep outside, those of us who sleep comfortably in our homes should respond to their presence not with disgust but with action.

[ZenoArrow]

> "Everything there is factually true. But I hate the idea that we aren't allowed to do anything to improve quality of life of the non-homeless before homelessness as an issue is solved."

There are plenty of quality of life government programs for the non-homeless, and ignoring the issues of the homeless ('out of sight, out of mind') is not going to solve the problems, it's only going to make things worse. I'm sorry that the situation had to get as bad as it has for people to take notice, but now that recognition that something has to be done is there, I'd ask you to be pragmatic, look beyond the current issues and think of the practical steps necessary to stop the growth of the homeless.

> "Should I just accept that I should just literally die in a fire, for the sake of a homeless person having a place to sleep?"

No, you shouldn't accept that, you should take action to ensure it doesn't continue to be a problem. However, whatever action you choose to take, choose wisely. Is a person who can't even get a good night's sleep likely to be even more of a pain in the ass? I'd suggest you already know the answer.

> "anytime anyone complains about quality of life issues, "homeless advocates" will demand that you solve a century old national problem before granting you have even the slightest right to complain."

I'm not suggesting you have to solve 'a century old national problem' on your own. The reason I feel happy to recommend a push for single payer is that there's already growing momentum for single payer. Plus, it won't just help the homeless, it'll help everybody. There's really no reason not to join in the push for single payer (other than apathy, which clearly you don't have).

[knodi123]

> What I am saying is that in order to cut down on that behaviour, we need to stop the problem at the source

Why not do both? Stop using libraries as de-facto daytime homeless shelters, AND attack the problem at the source? I am STRONGLY in favor of dealing with some of the root causes of homelessness, even if it increases my taxes. Non-paradoxically, I ALSO don't want to have to inspect the library bathrooms for loose needles or scary schizophrenics before letting my kid go in by themselves.

[ransom1538]

If you live in SF long enough, a knife will be pulled on you eventually. (Happened to me and a few of my friends.) The trick is to just run. To my astonishment this isn't the reaction of most people.

[coryrc]

They run all the way to the suburbs, where their environmental impact doubles, but at least they can go to the library without getting stabbed.

[zghst]

The first part of your comment is correct, that is very much true. I hope though that no one ever turns to expose their back to the assailant to make a run

[whyenot]

This is a real problem, and one that is difficult to address. San Jose's MLK Library (also shared with San Jose State University) is the day time destination for much of the city's homeless population. Who can blame them -- it's a safe cool place to stay and sleep during the day.

Unfortunately, this limits the space that is available for people to work and study. There have also been two suicides in the past year (people jumping from the 7th floor balcony into the central atrium -- it's now being walled off to prevent this).

[ajmurmann]

This is such a shame. Despite not having been there in a long time I have very find memories of studying in that beautiful building.

[tylerflick]

> But cities like LA utilize libraries as refugees for homeless people which completely destroys the purpose.

I defiantly see this happening in Pasadena. The main library has become a refuge from the summer heat, but I feel like this drives others from using it.

[drawnwren]

This is unfortunately accurate for SF also. Luckily we have the Mechanic's Institute which is a relatively inexpensive private library and some of the small neighborhood libraries are still places for people to learn. However, the main one is more of a homeless respite than a place I enjoy working.

[ZenoArrow]

I've never been to a library in SF, so I don't know what they're like, but is being close to homeless people a distraction? Is it a noise thing? In my local library there are often one or two people that could be homeless, but they were mostly quiet and not causing any fuss.

[grenoire]

I'm not going to lie, homeless people make me uneasy. I'm not rich, white, or privileged that I put myself on a pedestal; I'm simply aware that a great deal of homeless people are mentally ill, and that doesn't make me feel secure or comfortable.

[ZenoArrow]

I appreciate your honesty.

I have found some homeless people hard to communicate with before. I've tried volunteering with homeless people, and it's quite surreal to have them genuinely not remember who you are and speak to you as a stranger even if you spoke with them the week before, which happened on multiple occasions.

The main thing that encourages me to look past that is the thought that I could've easily ended up one of them. I'm not the most emotionally strong person I know, if I wasn't born into a supportive family I can easily see how I'd end up in their shoes.

Mental health issues are unfortunately common. Hopefully more resources can be made available to help people overcome them.

[grenoire]

I completely agree, and appreciate your efforts too. Even developed countries are (I would say) failing at taking care of mentally ill people.

[drawnwren]

In the SF main library, it's mostly a smell thing for me. I would feel the same as you if I didn't have to feel like I was reading a book in a sewer. I agree, I don't care about the socioeconomic status of the library patrons.

[ZenoArrow]

I'm glad we agree on the socioeconomic aspects of homelessness, and I can understand that the smell could be distracting. Are there many programs to help the homeless in SF? From what little I know, I do get the impression that issues surrounding homelessness are becoming a major concern in SF.

[drawnwren]

According to this SF Chronicle article [1], SF spent $241m to combat homelessness in 2015-16. Homelessness is a major concern in SF, but as with everything here - the politics around it are very complicated.

1: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...

[ZenoArrow]

Thanks for the link. It does sound complicated. The main problem is finding programs that allow people to become self-reliant. This seems particularly tricky in SF as one of the key ingredients for doing so is building affordable housing, which could drop property values generally, which existing homeowners may not be too pleased about.

However, aside from relocating people outside SF or continuing with the status quo, there doesn't seem to be much choice. As I'm not a homeowner in SF, I can see the benefits of affordable housing (for homeless people and for people who currently rent), both in terms of reducing social tensions and in growing the local economy, but it's easy to have that view when you've got nothing to lose.

[zghst]

The city tries certain efforts to fix homelessness, no one will ever go hungry or unclothed, but the way they spend money to fix the problem is sometimes asinine. They built a new shelter complete without running water or bathrooms [1]. At over $200m a year, they could have definitely had city sponsored housing for this issue, adding building by building year after year for the affected. But if they took that approach, there would be even more homeless flocking to SF for all of the freebies.

1 - https://www.google.com/amp/www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/neviu...

[ZenoArrow]

With the Pier 80 shelter news story you linked to, looks like it was describing the situation back in February 2016, any news on running water since then? Can't imagine it'd take a year to fix. As for the following section of the article...

"But if homeless campers don’t buy the idea, the city could be headed for an ugly scene. If San Francisco police or Department of Public Works employees go to the campgrounds and order residents to pack up the tents and leave, and the residents refuse, what’s the next step?

Because video of cops and DPW workers rousting homeless people out of tents, with the inevitable shouting and confrontation, would go viral. It would be fodder for the far left fringe homeless advocates and could feed into the uproar about the SFPD."

If it comes to it, and people need to be forcibly moved on to a semi-permanent shelter, so be it. I don't see this as a reason to stop pushing forward with plans like the Pier 80 shelter.

EDIT: Looks like San Francisco's local government bottled it, the shelter was shut less than 6 months after it opened:

https://sf.curbed.com/2016/6/6/11870806/san-francisco-homele...

[zghst]

The smell is unbearable not to mention having to be on edge because it’s very likely someone might touch you or come right up to you and start staring, begging, screaming at you.

[bogomipz]

>"But cities like LA utilize libraries as refugees for homeless people which completely destroys the purpose."

Isn't the purpose of a public library to collect, preserve and disseminate information freely to the public? Please explain how a homeless person "destroys" those purposes when they participate?

>"It should be a refuge for people working hard and trying to excel in life, not a place for people who have given up on life."

That view on what a library's purpose is seems uniquely and selfishly your own.

It's interesting that you declare homeless as "people who have given up on life" yet you yourself have apparently given up on them as human beings. Honestly it sounds like you could stand to learn a little empathy.

[Turing_Machine]

"Isn't the purpose of a public library to collect, preserve and disseminate information freely to the public? Please explain how a homeless person "destroys" those purposes when they participate?"

By destroying books and furniture, screaming loudly when people are trying to read and becoming violent, among other things.

Next question.

[bogomipz]

>"By destroying books and furniture, screaming loudly when people are trying to read and becoming violent, among other things"

Really are all homeless people acting that way? I have seen plenty of suburban teenagers in libraries do some of those same things. Why is it different if it's homeless?

By the way your "next question" comment is quite a display of arrogance. Seriously who goes around saying that?

[Turing_Machine]

"Really are all homeless people acting that way?"

No. The ones that aren't, aren't a problem.

If anyone has proposed ejecting homeless people who are behaving in a civilized manner, I haven't seen it. Have you?

"By the way your "next question" comment is quite a display of arrogance."

Your feigned ignorance of the fact that crazy/drunk homeless people disrupt the library deserved it.

To expand:

If a homeless person (or any other person -- I don't actually care if the guy is homeless or Bill Gates) can comport themselves in the library in a civilized manner, they are welcome there as far as I'm concerned. If they can't, they aren't.

That would include:

1) Not shitting and pissing in the book stacks, or littering them with used condoms and needles.

2) Not yelling obscenities or incoherencies, whether due to intoxication, mental illness, or both.

3) Not pulling weapons on the other patrons or staff, trying to fight them, or making verbal threats to them.

4) If using the public computers, not engaging in public masturbation, playing loud porn videos, etc.

Should there be a place for people who can't control themselves to this minimal extent to go? Yes. Should that place be the library? No.

[noir_lord]

Thank you for replying to GP with a politeness I wouldn't have managed.

I hope he never has mental health issues or similar that result in homelessness.

[moron4hire]

Homeless people are typically people with mental health issues who are unable to find treatment, due to lack of money, insurance, or having been discharged early from state mental health facilities after budget cut backs.

Not "people who have given up on life".

[WalterBright]

Maybe build another building next to the library for people who want a refuge but not books. Have a few amenities to attract the homeless there, like bathrooms, air conditioning, water, a few snacks, laptops for internet porn, a couple security guards to prevent fights and predation, etc. Make it more attractive for the homeless than the library.

[dleslie]

Homeless people deserve access to the knowledge and comfort of a library. It _shouldn't_ be a place of exclusion predicated upon social class.

[remir]

It shouldn't be a refuge to homeless people either. You go to the library to read, study, look at things on the computer if you don't have access to one. Everybody agrees that homeless people should have access to knowledge, but a library is not a place to sleep, bathe and deal/consume drugs.

[true_religion]

I agree 100%. Homeless people should have other places that accommodate sleeping, bathing, and dealing/consuming drugs during the daytime.

The problem is in the US, they generally only have night-time accommodation and even those have strict limits.

[dleslie]

Absolutely. Every time I visit the USA I'm floored by the absence of public spaces and facilities for the lower class and impoverished. It's truly amazing how poorly it seems they handle their national wealth.

[greenyouse]

The situation is the same in Minneapolis but so what? I've been a library patron since I was a little kid and spent time there weekly for the last few years. The majority of people at the library are homeless or low income and yes they take up seating. They're just people though. If it was filled by academics or suits would the limited seating be such an issue?

Maybe the library means different things to different people. For them it's a place to loiter with air conditioning and free wifi. For upper and middle class, a place to gain knowledge or have fun. For aspiring writers, a place to attend workshops and talk with other authors. Does it matter if they loiter though? I've taken naps and played with my phone at the library too.

In over fifteen years of going to the library, I've only ever had one homeless person be aggressive towards me and security gave them the boot right away. You're probably more likely to be mugged on the street than attacked while reading a book at the library.

This feels more like an image problem. Being surrounded by poor people may not feel good but I don't see a problem with it. They're just people doing something at the library. More power to them if they're using the library for job resources or want free internet access.

[mahyarm]

I'm guessing the homeless in your area don't use the library pillars as a toliet daily and smell like something similar.

[madeofpalk]

> a refuge for people working hard and trying to excel in life, not a place for people who have given up on life

What an interesting take.

[zghst]

That sounds like a very good approach, a source of knowledge and public coworking space.

[icantdrive55]

They just gave up, and that's the reason?

You're probably young, and have a wonderful support sysyem (these days, a rich, sympathetic father), but be careful about throwing around aspersions.

Life will throw you some real curves. It might get so ugly, you will look back upon your youth idealism and literally cry?

[icebraining]

Like a Rolling Stone