[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.

[lenkite]

No,I don't want homeless kids from being discouraged from hanging out in the library just because they stink and make rich people uncomfortable. Just because some folks don't acknowledge the dark side of the USA, where is little/no support for your fellow citizens who fall off the train, doesn't mean you can grind them down even more.

[emodendroket]

Ultimately trying to devise measures to keep homeless people out of a library is curing a symptom rather than a problem.

[Turing_Machine]

Only "rich people" are bothered by smelly, loud, violent people, and only "kids" are homeless?

Uh-huh.

Can the histrionic rhetoric, dude. It's not working.

[mbfg]

Perhaps not only, but i'm guessing there's a strong correlation there.

[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.