Millennials are keeping libraries alive(qz.com)
qz.com
Millennials are keeping libraries alive
https://qz.com/1039294/millennials-are-the-ones-keeping-libraries-alive/
238 comments
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.
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.
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?
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?
> 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.
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.
> 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.
"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.
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)
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And having affordable housing obviously creates some stability in a person's life.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Ultimately trying to devise measures to keep homeless people out of a library is curing a symptom rather than a problem.
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.
Uh-huh.
Can the histrionic rhetoric, dude. It's not working.
Perhaps not only, but i'm guessing there's a strong correlation there.
You're totally wrong. And I'm not guessing.
EdSharkey(3)
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.
Cities need to get homeless services right. They also need to get libraries, parks, and transit right.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> "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.
I believe GP was referring to the skills to get around adult content blocks rather than general computer skills.
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
Looks like SF libraries don't filter content:
https://sfpl.org/?pg=2000004301
It doesn't seem like selecting unfiltered is a particular feat then.
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.
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
/sarcasm
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most people maintaining public spaces view unattended bags as a public safety threat.
It says right in the post why they were afraid of being sued.
And yet it doesn't make sense.
What doesn't make sense? Someone else got sued for doing something similar and even if they ultimately prevailed it probably cost them a lot of money.
They already have these rules in SF however the violators outweigh the amount of enforcers.
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.
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.
> "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'.
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'.
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.
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.
> "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?"
I'm suggesting we have to look at the problems holistically. Let's say someone breaks the law. The main aim of throwing someone in jail is to stop them committing more crime, correct? If jail time is going to be effective in doing so, that's fine, but if incarceration only leads to an increase in crime after the person has been released, was it worth it? Perhaps there are other ways of reducing the problem that we should consider instead.
> "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"
Do you have a link to an article showing the effectiveness of this approach in SF?
As for your other points, if someone is shitting in the sink, is the main problem that they're mentally deranged, or is the main problem that you have to witness it?
I'm suggesting we have to look at the problems holistically. Let's say someone breaks the law. The main aim of throwing someone in jail is to stop them committing more crime, correct? If jail time is going to be effective in doing so, that's fine, but if incarceration only leads to an increase in crime after the person has been released, was it worth it? Perhaps there are other ways of reducing the problem that we should consider instead.
> "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"
Do you have a link to an article showing the effectiveness of this approach in SF?
As for your other points, if someone is shitting in the sink, is the main problem that they're mentally deranged, or is the main problem that you have to witness it?
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?
What if by doing that people would become willing to invest in the programs that treat these kinds of problems?
> "What if by doing that people would become willing to invest in the programs that treat these kinds of problems?"
If that's the case, great, but the impression I'm getting from many people here is that it's 'not my problem'. I don't see much of the sympathy that would drive people to act on the behalf of others.
If that's the case, great, but the impression I'm getting from many people here is that it's 'not my problem'. I don't see much of the sympathy that would drive people to act on the behalf of others.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
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.
> "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.
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.
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.
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.
A civilization that needlessly allows homelessness and untreated illness is already run into the ground. It's morally bankrupt.
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.
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.
The idea is to take a stand now. If you further marginalise those that already have almost nothing, where do you think that leads to? Are you ready to step over corpses on your way to work?
Societies are a bit like networks, they're only as strong as their weakest link.
Societies are a bit like networks, they're only as strong as their weakest link.
> 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.
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.
>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 ?
Member only access where it's free to join but you ban people breaking rules ?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
There's an inherent tension between making a space available to homeless people and making it available to all members of the public.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do I have your position correctly, that scarmig is morally obligated to die in fire unless they can pay the rent on an apartment for this person?
What happens when a second person starts sleeping there? How many apartments must scarmig rent before they are allowed to evacuate in case of fire?
What if scarmig doesn't make a high enough multiple of the minimum viable rental price? Have you just decided they're obligated to die because they don't make enough money? That's kind of ironic.
>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?
Because if saying that conjured shelter beds into existence, we wouldn't have a homeless problem anymore.
>the solution is within easy reach of our society if we had the will.
I don't think the American people could message "fuck poor people" any louder or any clearer than they just did by electing Trump. The American electorate doesn't lack the will to help the downtrodden, it actively wills them to die. Are we obligated to fight the good fight? Sure. Are we obligated to die in fires unless we achieve a 100% reversal of the poiltical climate? No.
> not with disgust but with action.
There is no action you can take that will move the needle on homelessness anytime soon. At best, there are actions that a few hundred million people could take together that would achieve a marginal reduction in the problem in in a few decades.
What happens when a second person starts sleeping there? How many apartments must scarmig rent before they are allowed to evacuate in case of fire?
What if scarmig doesn't make a high enough multiple of the minimum viable rental price? Have you just decided they're obligated to die because they don't make enough money? That's kind of ironic.
>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?
Because if saying that conjured shelter beds into existence, we wouldn't have a homeless problem anymore.
>the solution is within easy reach of our society if we had the will.
I don't think the American people could message "fuck poor people" any louder or any clearer than they just did by electing Trump. The American electorate doesn't lack the will to help the downtrodden, it actively wills them to die. Are we obligated to fight the good fight? Sure. Are we obligated to die in fires unless we achieve a 100% reversal of the poiltical climate? No.
> not with disgust but with action.
There is no action you can take that will move the needle on homelessness anytime soon. At best, there are actions that a few hundred million people could take together that would achieve a marginal reduction in the problem in in a few decades.
> "Do I have your position correctly, that scarmig is morally obligated to die in fire unless they can pay the rent on an apartment for this person?"
That's not what was said.
> "How many apartments must scarmig rent before they are allowed to evacuate in case of fire?"
Zero.
> "What if scarmig doesn't make a high enough multiple of the minimum viable rental price? Have you just decided they're obligated to die because they don't make enough money? That's kind of ironic."
Again, you're missing the point. The idea is to tackle the issues collectively.
> "Because if saying that conjured shelter beds into existence, we wouldn't have a homeless problem anymore."
The money already exists within the government to solve it. It's just a matter of priorities.
> "I don't think the American people could message "fuck poor people" any louder or any clearer than they just did by electing Trump."
Bollocks. You do realise that there were poor people who voted for Trump? What message do you think they were trying to send?
> "The American electorate doesn't lack the will to help the downtrodden, it actively wills them to die."
Are you an American?
> "Are we obligated to fight the good fight? Sure. Are we obligated to die in fires unless we achieve a 100% reversal of the poiltical climate? No."
Again, you're twisting words, that's not even close to what was said.
> "There is no action you can take that will move the needle on homelessness anytime soon. At best, there are actions that a few hundred million people could take together that would achieve a marginal reduction in the problem in in a few decades."
What do you propose is done?
That's not what was said.
> "How many apartments must scarmig rent before they are allowed to evacuate in case of fire?"
Zero.
> "What if scarmig doesn't make a high enough multiple of the minimum viable rental price? Have you just decided they're obligated to die because they don't make enough money? That's kind of ironic."
Again, you're missing the point. The idea is to tackle the issues collectively.
> "Because if saying that conjured shelter beds into existence, we wouldn't have a homeless problem anymore."
The money already exists within the government to solve it. It's just a matter of priorities.
> "I don't think the American people could message "fuck poor people" any louder or any clearer than they just did by electing Trump."
Bollocks. You do realise that there were poor people who voted for Trump? What message do you think they were trying to send?
> "The American electorate doesn't lack the will to help the downtrodden, it actively wills them to die."
Are you an American?
> "Are we obligated to fight the good fight? Sure. Are we obligated to die in fires unless we achieve a 100% reversal of the poiltical climate? No."
Again, you're twisting words, that's not even close to what was said.
> "There is no action you can take that will move the needle on homelessness anytime soon. At best, there are actions that a few hundred million people could take together that would achieve a marginal reduction in the problem in in a few decades."
What do you propose is done?
>The idea is to tackle the issues collectively.
Indeed, this is the notion behind liberal politics, which have been soundly rejected by the public.
>It's just a matter of priorities.
The public couldn't be clearer that meeting basic needs for people who are unable to earn a living isn't a priority.
>What message do you think they were trying to send?
"Fuck the even poorer people who are changing my culture and taking my jobs."
>Are you an American?
Um, yes, the context of this thread is the San Francisco public library.
>What do you propose is done?
Make city life as attractive and cheap as possible to bring back the tax base from the suburbs; use the money to fund public housing and mental health services.
Continuing to degrade city life only drives away the resources that could be tapped for real solutions.
Indeed, this is the notion behind liberal politics, which have been soundly rejected by the public.
>It's just a matter of priorities.
The public couldn't be clearer that meeting basic needs for people who are unable to earn a living isn't a priority.
>What message do you think they were trying to send?
"Fuck the even poorer people who are changing my culture and taking my jobs."
>Are you an American?
Um, yes, the context of this thread is the San Francisco public library.
>What do you propose is done?
Make city life as attractive and cheap as possible to bring back the tax base from the suburbs; use the money to fund public housing and mental health services.
Continuing to degrade city life only drives away the resources that could be tapped for real solutions.
> "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).
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).
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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
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).
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).
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I completely agree, and appreciate your efforts too. Even developed countries are (I would say) failing at taking care of mentally ill people.
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.
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.
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...
1: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...
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.
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.
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...
1 - https://www.google.com/amp/www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/neviu...
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...
"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...
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.
[deleted]
>"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.
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.
"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.
By destroying books and furniture, screaming loudly when people are trying to read and becoming violent, among other things.
Next question.
>"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?
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?
"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.
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.
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.
I hope he never has mental health issues or similar that result in homelessness.
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".
Not "people who have given up on life".
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.
Homeless people deserve access to the knowledge and comfort of a library. It _shouldn't_ be a place of exclusion predicated upon social class.
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.
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.
The problem is in the US, they generally only have night-time accommodation and even those have strict limits.
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.
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.
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.
I'm guessing the homeless in your area don't use the library pillars as a toliet daily and smell like something similar.
> 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.
What an interesting take.
That sounds like a very good approach, a source of knowledge and public coworking space.
[deleted]
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?
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?
Like a Rolling Stone
I used to love libraries as a kid, but I stopped going sometime in high school. I realized that my reading habits just aren't fast enough to keep up with library return policies. It takes me a few months to get through a book and libraries don't like that.
After one too many late fees I resolved to buying books instead. Now I have stacks of books that have been waiting for my attention for months sometimes years.
Maybe I should get back into libraries ...
After one too many late fees I resolved to buying books instead. Now I have stacks of books that have been waiting for my attention for months sometimes years.
Maybe I should get back into libraries ...
Usually you can renew a checkout online if there's no reserve queue.
I have some similar situation. besides, when I have more income, a few dollars are not that much (the book price in US is cheap compared to other goods. Obviously not textbook). I end up buying more from amazon.
A thousand ebooks can fit onto a giveaway USB drive, or sync with iCloud iBooks and Dropbox and whatever else you find convenient to use. You get used to reading on a screen, and Kindle Paperwhites are also nice to read on. It won't be exactly like paper, but I find that the convenience (searchability is a big one for me) trumps the feel of a "real" book. I also don't mind it much for fiction. Having stuff to read on my phone which is always with me is pretty tough to beat. I can pull out Cryptonomicon and read a few pages waiting in line at Safeway, in the restroom, during lunch, on a walk, in a Lyft, etc. You can definitely take books with you similarly, but then it's another physical thing to forget / stuff into a backpack / whatever.
Edit: there's also the potential benefit to you of "trying before buying" pretty much anything you want. Just remember to actually support the authors if you value the continued creation of content. I've sent a few bottles of scotch which have been well-received :)
Edit: there's also the potential benefit to you of "trying before buying" pretty much anything you want. Just remember to actually support the authors if you value the continued creation of content. I've sent a few bottles of scotch which have been well-received :)
I have found the time limits helpful in motivating me to read, even though I often end up extending the loan multiple times when I'm too busy to read.
The library system in US is amazing.
Which countries are you comparing to? Asking as I've seen some impressive libraries in european countries (e.g. Sweden) too.
Agreed that libraries are exciting. I too view them as Halls of Learning. I do occasionally check out books still. I'd like to see them be a source of free classes put on by the community like you say. Imagine how many people would sign up for coding, electronics, language, history...etc classes? I know there already are some classes, but I'm not interested in Microsoft Office basics, although I know it is important to some.
> How could a library not excite you? :D
I'll go ahead and answer that for you: $80 a year for a service I have never used nor do I know anyone who has used in the past decade. It's just not a good value for money to me.
I'll go ahead and answer that for you: $80 a year for a service I have never used nor do I know anyone who has used in the past decade. It's just not a good value for money to me.
The same reasoning can be applied to most of the things your taxes pay for though. How often do you need to call the police or the fire brigade? I haven't needed either in a decade either.
There are likely other things your taxes pay for that you use more than other people as well. For example my city allocates a huge amount of money towards maintaining roads, which I never use and sidewalks, which I use more than the average resident.
There are likely other things your taxes pay for that you use more than other people as well. For example my city allocates a huge amount of money towards maintaining roads, which I never use and sidewalks, which I use more than the average resident.
A few things, like police and fire services I think most people are willing to pay for, they can see they may require them. You could make an argument that insurance companies and volunteer fire departments could provide a sufficient level of coverage, but ultimately for police especially you're probably going to pay a fair bit for it.
I think there's good arguments to privatize roadways, or at least some aspects of them. But at least roadways and sidewalks are things that just about everyone uses at some point, even if indirectly.
Libraries on the other hand probably only benefit a relatively small percentage of the population at all and only in a significant way to those who directly use them. They represent a particularly high level of waste in my opinion.
I think there's good arguments to privatize roadways, or at least some aspects of them. But at least roadways and sidewalks are things that just about everyone uses at some point, even if indirectly.
Libraries on the other hand probably only benefit a relatively small percentage of the population at all and only in a significant way to those who directly use them. They represent a particularly high level of waste in my opinion.
What kind of library are you thinking? Public libraries are free.
Looking at my own public library, the city spends $5.7m per year for libraries serving 90000 people ($63/pp). That's 2.85% of the city's total revenue, which comes from sales tax, property tax and business license tax.
It's a small cost but you are paying it.
It's a small cost but you are paying it.
My guess is he's reverse-engineering that number from taxes allocated to public libraries or something like that.
Libraries have adopted technology in more ways than the obvious - my local library is part of a system wherein I can order books from 70-some-odd other libraries (for free!) and return them back to my local library. I can also physically go to those other libraries, take out items, and return them at any other library, all with the same card. The collection is fully searchable online, with gobs of metadata on each item and the location and status of every single copy (out or available), plus e-books. It's amazing.
Recently I ordered Minecraft for PS4 from another library to play with my cousin (again, free) and when I went to pick it up I also went to the shelves and took out Discourse on the Method & Meditations.
As a result of the system, the selection of media is... beyond compare. I could not be happier that my tax dollars are going to my library.
Recently I ordered Minecraft for PS4 from another library to play with my cousin (again, free) and when I went to pick it up I also went to the shelves and took out Discourse on the Method & Meditations.
As a result of the system, the selection of media is... beyond compare. I could not be happier that my tax dollars are going to my library.
I had this at home in Australia! I could order books from countless libraries. In the Bay Area, my own local library unfortunately doesn't have anything like this but the San Francisco library does. I recall having a book brought in from Sacramento.
I'm served by the Santa Clara County library system and I believe any thing of which they have physical possession (DVD/book/tape/etc) can be transferred between any branch for your convenience. Where exactly are you?
Alameda County. As far as I know, my library doesn't have this, at least exposed in through the online catalogue.
Georgia's library system has something similar: https://pines.georgialibraries.org/
They even made their software open source: https://evergreen-ils.org/
They even made their software open source: https://evergreen-ils.org/
I don't think you can draw any kinds of conclusions about who is "keeping libraries alive" based on the data presented. The question is who has visited a library ( at least once ) in the previous 12 months, and even with that extremely broad question millennials only had 8% more people say yes then the next oldest grouping. I imagine if you were to control for children and proximity to a library you might see that margin shrink.
I think there is a case to be made that modern libraries are driving more use with younger generations then previous generations, with my own family being a frequent visitor of our local system. I think there is a social case to be made that modern libraries are fulfilling a broad mission and provide a great return on tax payer investment. Having a question of have you gone to a library in the past year doesn't really show that.
I think there is a case to be made that modern libraries are driving more use with younger generations then previous generations, with my own family being a frequent visitor of our local system. I think there is a social case to be made that modern libraries are fulfilling a broad mission and provide a great return on tax payer investment. Having a question of have you gone to a library in the past year doesn't really show that.
[deleted]
I think it's more supposed to be a riff and a counter to the bs "Millennials are killing X" articles that are so popular lately.
To anyone who's old enough, has the media always been focused on the latest generation? Like did the newspapers write about Gen X'ers being this and that back at the time?
> Like did the newspapers write about Gen X'ers
Yes. It was annoying at the time. Especially how marketing people described every product as "eXXXXXtreme!!!!", because they thought that's how we all talked.
However, strangely enough I DO miss being, well... relevant. Looking around today, it's like my generation never existed. Most of the musicians I listened to are dead, most of my movies and TV shows and childhood toys have been subsumed by reboots, and most people act as if "Baby Boomers" segued directly into "Millennials".
I didn't like being labeled or pigeonholed at the time, but there is something to be said for having a generational "identity". You feel a lot more invisible, even as an individual, when you belong to a smaller generation whose labels don't stay on the forefront.
Not to mention, from a practical standpoint of political clout... we'll probably wind up getting thrown under the bus by your bigger generation in our elder years, just as as we were by the boomers in our younger years.
Yes. It was annoying at the time. Especially how marketing people described every product as "eXXXXXtreme!!!!", because they thought that's how we all talked.
However, strangely enough I DO miss being, well... relevant. Looking around today, it's like my generation never existed. Most of the musicians I listened to are dead, most of my movies and TV shows and childhood toys have been subsumed by reboots, and most people act as if "Baby Boomers" segued directly into "Millennials".
I didn't like being labeled or pigeonholed at the time, but there is something to be said for having a generational "identity". You feel a lot more invisible, even as an individual, when you belong to a smaller generation whose labels don't stay on the forefront.
Not to mention, from a practical standpoint of political clout... we'll probably wind up getting thrown under the bus by your bigger generation in our elder years, just as as we were by the boomers in our younger years.
Gen X definitely had an impact on popular culture that hasn't been forgotten. For example, I'd say modern club culture started with Generation X. It has evolved since then, but it certainly wasn't the same at the time when baby boomers were young.
As for what it means to be part of a generation, all generations disperse as people get older. It's harder to build a shared identity over common experiences as people's overall life experiences vary wildly. If I've read right, and it's the connection you miss, the answer is to connect with people as individuals. We are always more than the labels we assign to ourselves anyway.
As for what it means to be part of a generation, all generations disperse as people get older. It's harder to build a shared identity over common experiences as people's overall life experiences vary wildly. If I've read right, and it's the connection you miss, the answer is to connect with people as individuals. We are always more than the labels we assign to ourselves anyway.
The Internet took off when Gen X was 25-40 or so.
Larry Page, Sergei Brin, Jerry Yang, David Filo, Marc Andreson and more are all Xers.
Larry Page, Sergei Brin, Jerry Yang, David Filo, Marc Andreson and more are all Xers.
I'm in my early 30s, but I've seen similar things happen with previous generations, yes.
However, not all generations are labelled as strongly. I think I'm part of a 'missing' generation. Technically I'm a millennial, but according to the top definition here (I'm aware Urban Dictionary isn't always the most reliable reference)... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Millennial ... I'd be a Generation Y Millennial. I do think there's a difference between Generation Y and Generation Z, not in the way where one is superior to the other, but in terms of the differences in the childhood and young adult experiences that shaped us. When I read articles about millennials they're almost always targetted at the Generation Z Millennials. I'm not complaining, I'm grateful I avoided the type of pigeonholing that Generation Z has unfortunately had to go through.
As for why this media focus on the next generation happens, I think part of it is adults trying to make sense of an unfamiliar culture. Perhaps it's a natural reaction when you have kids to try to make sense of the world they're growing up in (when they're not with you). There's often an undercurrent of negativity, though this can run in both directions (the baby boomer generation is widely seen as greedy, for example, though of course such generalisations don't really hold up to much scrutiny).
In short, yes.
However, not all generations are labelled as strongly. I think I'm part of a 'missing' generation. Technically I'm a millennial, but according to the top definition here (I'm aware Urban Dictionary isn't always the most reliable reference)... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Millennial ... I'd be a Generation Y Millennial. I do think there's a difference between Generation Y and Generation Z, not in the way where one is superior to the other, but in terms of the differences in the childhood and young adult experiences that shaped us. When I read articles about millennials they're almost always targetted at the Generation Z Millennials. I'm not complaining, I'm grateful I avoided the type of pigeonholing that Generation Z has unfortunately had to go through.
As for why this media focus on the next generation happens, I think part of it is adults trying to make sense of an unfamiliar culture. Perhaps it's a natural reaction when you have kids to try to make sense of the world they're growing up in (when they're not with you). There's often an undercurrent of negativity, though this can run in both directions (the baby boomer generation is widely seen as greedy, for example, though of course such generalisations don't really hold up to much scrutiny).
In short, yes.
I feel similarly. I think the best dividing line between Gen Y and Gen Z is "Can you remember a time before internet access was ubiquitous?"
The terminology you link to is interesting, I had not previously seen Gen Y and Gen Z combined with "Millennial" in this way.
The terminology you link to is interesting, I had not previously seen Gen Y and Gen Z combined with "Millennial" in this way.
[deleted]
Yes, absolutely. Starting in the 60s when youth culture was celebrated.
Yes and yes.
Naming it was not always done / well known.
Cronkike called them "youth"
Social scientists invented names. Marketers segmemted them.
The Vietnam era youth created a disruption of authority which has been followed ever since.
Senators (Moynihan) used to count the number of generations since the founding of the country.
These are some of the names generations have been called i can remember in my lifetime
Child of the depression
War baby
Baby boom
Generation x
Generation Y
Womans rights era (ERA)
Mans world
--- Gen x got lots of headlines.. But that group was very bland
Most generations, until recently had the real threat of dying in war. And to know personally getting notice of a loved one or friend dying.
Naming it was not always done / well known.
Cronkike called them "youth"
Social scientists invented names. Marketers segmemted them.
The Vietnam era youth created a disruption of authority which has been followed ever since.
Senators (Moynihan) used to count the number of generations since the founding of the country.
These are some of the names generations have been called i can remember in my lifetime
Child of the depression
War baby
Baby boom
Generation x
Generation Y
Womans rights era (ERA)
Mans world
--- Gen x got lots of headlines.. But that group was very bland
Most generations, until recently had the real threat of dying in war. And to know personally getting notice of a loved one or friend dying.
I've also seen the 'Greatest Generation' term used for those that were young adults around the time of WW2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Generation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Generation
They weren't named that till they got old..
I totally forgot that. I know why.... We call them the Selfish Generation...
I totally forgot that. I know why.... We call them the Selfish Generation...
Selfish generation is used to describe the baby boomers. The greatest generation were the parents of the baby boomers. The common conception is that they were a generation that endured personal sacrifice and laid the foundations for the modern era.
I've never heard the greatest generation being referred to as selfish. However, as we both know, all these labels are nonsense anyway.
I've never heard the greatest generation being referred to as selfish. However, as we both know, all these labels are nonsense anyway.
Selfish is my definition.
I also forgot "net natives" this, to me, will be a label with meaning.
I also forgot "net natives" this, to me, will be a label with meaning.
So the people that went through the Great Depression and WW2 and buried all that shit inside after WW2 ended so their children could live without that burden were selfish? I'd like to hear your explanation on that one!
It's simply my opinion as a first hand?observer of my parents and their friends. Im a BB
I also have the?privilege of family history and writings.
Imo the war victory meant that the winners began "for the first time" thinking about themselves... Previous generations, from my understanding of my family history, were not all about doing for themselves. Its not the fault of BBers to be selfish because it was planted by our parents
I also have the?privilege of family history and writings.
Imo the war victory meant that the winners began "for the first time" thinking about themselves... Previous generations, from my understanding of my family history, were not all about doing for themselves. Its not the fault of BBers to be selfish because it was planted by our parents
Ah! That's why Baby Boomers aren't "The Selfish Generation" to this person. It's because he is a Baby Boomer.
Personal attacks are not helpful.
I don't think calling someone a baby boomer when they actually are a baby boomer is really a personal attack.
Right. I thought it was interesting that this person doesn't think of Baby Boomers as "the selfish generation" (which is the age group I have most heard applied with that label), but the generation before Baby Boomers. But then when he said he himself is a Baby Boomer, it made sense why he wouldn't want to call himself "the selfish generation".
Yes, but less so than today.
I keep forgetting to return my library books, and wind up paying huge library fees, over and over again. I'm sure the library appreciates it, and I only have myself to blame, but I wish there was a better way.
I don't use any of the "extra services" like computers (except for the catalog), meeting rooms, etc. 90% of the time I just read physical books. Occasionally I get a DVD or audiobook CD.
It's nice that libraries have ebooks available these days, but I never check those out because they require me to use DRM readers. If they were plain PDF's I'd definitely use them.
I don't use any of the "extra services" like computers (except for the catalog), meeting rooms, etc. 90% of the time I just read physical books. Occasionally I get a DVD or audiobook CD.
It's nice that libraries have ebooks available these days, but I never check those out because they require me to use DRM readers. If they were plain PDF's I'd definitely use them.
My local library lets you check out books in 3-week intervals.
They let you renew each checkout twice, for a total of 9-weeks.
They email you when a book is coming up due, so you can click to renew it.
They have a drop-off bin (like a bank's night deposit), so you can turn in your books safely if you can't get there during regular hours.
If that's not reasonable or convenient enough, then sheesh... just buy books. But if anyone's life or behavioral habits are so chaotic that buying retail books is cheaper than library borrowing, then I have to wonder how they manage to survive adulthood in general.
They let you renew each checkout twice, for a total of 9-weeks.
They email you when a book is coming up due, so you can click to renew it.
They have a drop-off bin (like a bank's night deposit), so you can turn in your books safely if you can't get there during regular hours.
If that's not reasonable or convenient enough, then sheesh... just buy books. But if anyone's life or behavioral habits are so chaotic that buying retail books is cheaper than library borrowing, then I have to wonder how they manage to survive adulthood in general.
Huge fees? The late fees at my library are $0.10 a day...
If you check out multiple books at once, they add up quick. 20 books, a week late and you're looking @ $14 fine :)
Also, our local library system charges $1/day for CDs and DVD's....
I've made my fair share of "forced" monetary contributions to our local library, but it's money well spent.
Also, our local library system charges $1/day for CDs and DVD's....
I've made my fair share of "forced" monetary contributions to our local library, but it's money well spent.
Well if you forget to return 20 books I can't say i'm hugely sympathetic to your need for them.
I wonder if libraries could work out some deal, like Amazon Prime, where you're not charged late fees or get an extension.
Some libraries are beginning to abandon late fees: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2017/02/librar...
Don't return 20 books a week late!
My library will send me an email just before my loans are due, giving me time to extend the loans, you should check if they offer it, I don't think they're that militant about capturing patrons email's so only those that have volunteered an email get the reminder.
(They used to send me letters, but only after I was overdue).
(They used to send me letters, but only after I was overdue).
My wife makes regularly scheduled trips to the library and always pick up her books on the same day. This way you don't have to deal with books expiring at different times. Simply check on the day you're scheduled to go and return the books that are almost due.
It's nice that libraries have ebooks available these days, but I never check those out because they require me to use DRM readers. If they were plain PDF's I'd definitely use them.
Depending on your legal/moral stance, DRM strippers could be an option.
Depending on your legal/moral stance, DRM strippers could be an option.
The newer Amazon kindle DRM hasn't been cracked yet.
At least my library only charges a nominal fee for late books — something stupid like 1-5¢/day. They don't have a profit motive and would rather you just return books on time (or get an extension) so other patrons can access the material.
If your fees really are significant you should check if your library system has a forgiveness day. In my local system there is one every year where you can return your books with no fees.
So wait, they're incentivizing people with overdue books to wait on average 6 months before returning them?
Wouldn't it make more sense to make "forgiveness day" simply a day where your late fees are, say, 95% discounted or something?
Wouldn't it make more sense to make "forgiveness day" simply a day where your late fees are, say, 95% discounted or something?
> So wait, they're incentivizing people with overdue books to wait on average 6 months before returning them?
In my public library system, at least, you can't check out new books when carrying more than $5 in fines. (I forget whether you have to return the books, or just pay the current balance.) Thus, it's not quite as simple an incentive system as that.
In my public library system, at least, you can't check out new books when carrying more than $5 in fines. (I forget whether you have to return the books, or just pay the current balance.) Thus, it's not quite as simple an incentive system as that.
You're an outlier. You have both a habit - forgetting to check-in books - and a preference - for un-protected media -
that combine to thwart libraries from serving you. Millennials grew up with habits that are more-compatible with the way libraries work these days.
Put the due date in your calendar...
There is a better way - put it in your calendar or something. Not a problem that needs technology.
you should check to see if your library has online services - mine lets you renew online, even if it is overdue (unless there's a waiting list).
> you should check to see if your library has online services - mine lets you renew online, even if it is overdue (unless there's a waiting list).
I can't resist mentioning my library's bizarre set-up here: if books are due on day X, but are in the drop-box at the time of opening on the next open day (for that branch, so one can game the system a bit by returning to branches that are closed on particular days), then they are counted as having been returned on time.
Once, I took advantage of this, but, just to be on the safe side, also renewed the book online. (I've had problems, usually eventually resolved, with re-shelvers forgetting to mark the books as checked in, so that fines accumulate for a day or two.) It was treated as overdue. When I asked about this, they told me that it was the intended functionality of the system.
I can't resist mentioning my library's bizarre set-up here: if books are due on day X, but are in the drop-box at the time of opening on the next open day (for that branch, so one can game the system a bit by returning to branches that are closed on particular days), then they are counted as having been returned on time.
Once, I took advantage of this, but, just to be on the safe side, also renewed the book online. (I've had problems, usually eventually resolved, with re-shelvers forgetting to mark the books as checked in, so that fines accumulate for a day or two.) It was treated as overdue. When I asked about this, they told me that it was the intended functionality of the system.
I desperately miss the time when I had access to an academic library membership. The depth and breadth of materials you have access to is truly staggering. I remember when I first learned that I could order art exhibition catalogues from other institutions all over the world, free of charge, I almost cried.
The myth that everything is out there on the web is really belied by a few hours spent in a subject-oriented academic library.
The myth that everything is out there on the web is really belied by a few hours spent in a subject-oriented academic library.
Depending on where you live, some academic libraries give membership (possibly for a fee) to people living within a certain distance, as a kind of local outreach/PR gesture. May be worth a look at a few universities near you to see if that's the case.
One extreme example is that anyone who lives in Texas can apply for access to any library in the "TexShare" system of public libraries, which includes the state university libraries. You first get a library card from your local public library, and then apply through the TexShare program for access to the university library you want: https://www.tsl.texas.gov/texshare/card
Generally none of these programs allow you to use the interlibrary loan service though, only resources the library itself has.
One extreme example is that anyone who lives in Texas can apply for access to any library in the "TexShare" system of public libraries, which includes the state university libraries. You first get a library card from your local public library, and then apply through the TexShare program for access to the university library you want: https://www.tsl.texas.gov/texshare/card
Generally none of these programs allow you to use the interlibrary loan service though, only resources the library itself has.
I can highly recommend "The Oxford Guide to Library Research", which hammers down this point and is an eminently practical book.
I found it ten years after being a student. I think every student should read it at the beginning of their studies.
I found it ten years after being a student. I think every student should read it at the beginning of their studies.
I'm always surprised more libraries are not coupled with good coffee shops. Seems a perfect match.
There is a bookstore in Austin that has a great coffee shop inside, and it certainly attracts folks to come in and browse.
There is a bookstore in Austin that has a great coffee shop inside, and it certainly attracts folks to come in and browse.
Seems a perfect match.
There's a nice coffee in our main downtown library
> There is a bookstore in Austin that has a great coffee shop inside, and it certainly attracts folks to come in and browse.
BookPeople?
BookPeople?
> a bookstore in Austin that has a great coffee shop inside
That's the majority of bookstores in Austin.
That's the majority of bookstores in Austin.
I'm going to have to say that _older_ people(seniors) are keeping libraries alive.
I've seen programs at libraries to help the Elderly learn basic computing skills, or have activities together(knitting clubs, boardgames, etc), to get them out of their homes/retirement communities and to a new place.
I've seen programs at libraries to help the Elderly learn basic computing skills, or have activities together(knitting clubs, boardgames, etc), to get them out of their homes/retirement communities and to a new place.
probably depends on the community. The library I usually visited were mostly kids and their parents. the librarians are probably the only older people. Another one, I did not notice many kids in the libraries.
The common theme is that there is much less demand for large stores of book and more demand for internet access and adult education.
We chose our place in part because it was two blocks from the regional library. You can go on the website and order books from the central lib downtown as well so just about anything can be at our fingertips within a few days.
We really need it to keep our daughter entertained as well because we "cut the cord" many years ago. She's an avid reader now, and I'm a proud dad. We're reading the Never Ending Story currently, and it really is never-ending!
We really need it to keep our daughter entertained as well because we "cut the cord" many years ago. She's an avid reader now, and I'm a proud dad. We're reading the Never Ending Story currently, and it really is never-ending!
Cut the cord?
It's a common phrase that typically means getting rid of cable and/or television.
Typically means canceling cable tv/Internet
My local library has a 3d printer accessable to everyone. You just have to pay for filament cost really. It has laptops for borrowing, quiet spaces for coding or studying. I don't know of anywhere else I could casually use a 3d printer and have it printed out to me. Even the local hackerspaces around me require you to get certified or something.
So apparently millenials love the public library for anything but the books. "Many public reference centers have shifted their focus from offering things to browse and borrow to providing services and being a social space.” How this represents a library in any sense escapes me.
I'm old enough to have been taught to use the paper card catalog in school, and I was a library aide from middle school through high school. I always thought of them as temples of knowledge, but temples in which the relics could be borrowed by anyone. This along with the concept of borrowing and returning always seemed to be a cornerstone of the ideal of an egalitarian society. So it breaks my heart to walk into literally any of the local public libraries and see what has become of their collections. They all now compete at offering the most salubrious lounge experience, to facilitate which they have in some cases removed as much as half of their former floor collection.
I do believe that in the 21st century the library has an important function to serve in providing a place to access the Net for people who cannot otherwise do so. Making space for this is justifiable in my view. Making space for someone to drink a latte in a taxpayer-funded place of access to information is not. There are many, many places that will provide such services far better than the public library.
I'm old enough to have been taught to use the paper card catalog in school, and I was a library aide from middle school through high school. I always thought of them as temples of knowledge, but temples in which the relics could be borrowed by anyone. This along with the concept of borrowing and returning always seemed to be a cornerstone of the ideal of an egalitarian society. So it breaks my heart to walk into literally any of the local public libraries and see what has become of their collections. They all now compete at offering the most salubrious lounge experience, to facilitate which they have in some cases removed as much as half of their former floor collection.
I do believe that in the 21st century the library has an important function to serve in providing a place to access the Net for people who cannot otherwise do so. Making space for this is justifiable in my view. Making space for someone to drink a latte in a taxpayer-funded place of access to information is not. There are many, many places that will provide such services far better than the public library.
Didn't realize they got rid of card catalogs - I learned that, too!
I go to the public library for the extensive DVD collection and quiet air conditioned space to work in away from the office/home. I live in Santa Clara County so a lot of older apartments/homes don't have air conditioning. They have a different selection than Netflix DVD or streaming.
I wish it were a "thing" for libraries to take on the goal of also hosting non-profit hackerspaces or makerlabs within their facilities. The for-profit makerspaces are just too cost-burdensome for me to interact with. Ironically, in a way, this is why I've got a fairly decent electronics lab in my study. I see the pricetag for a single day pass at the local for-profit makerspace, and balk at the cost, then just settle on buying the equipment myself. The only times this hasn't been an exorbitant affair is when I need to use the CNC mill or a high-quality 3D printer, for which a day pass at a local for-profit shop is the only real option. Even then, about half of the for-profit maker shops seem to not have high quality equipment. Like a 3D printer that allows them to check the "3D printer" block on advertising for a day-pass, but actually is not a good 3D printer. I feel like libraries and non-profit hackerspaces or makerlabs come from the same sort of intellectual genesis, and would make easy partners.
In my sabbatical 2014 I went to libraries quiet much.
Cheaper than coffee shops and especially quieter than coffee shops...
But they got a big construction site on one library here now and the other one isn't so nice... it looks like a prison for books :\
https://www.baunetzwissen.de/imgs/1/2/8/4/6/0/5/6272648125_1...
Cheaper than coffee shops and especially quieter than coffee shops...
But they got a big construction site on one library here now and the other one isn't so nice... it looks like a prison for books :\
https://www.baunetzwissen.de/imgs/1/2/8/4/6/0/5/6272648125_1...
I love the library and will frequently check out books. I much prefer physical books to digital books. There's something satisfying about holding a book, opening up the cover, flipping the page, etc.
A few areas for improvement:
- Most of the libraries I frequent have very slow wifi, but this may be on purpose.
- Most digital library catalogs have terrible UIs (broken back buttons, poor search results, etc.) They work, but they're not fun to use.
A few areas for improvement:
- Most of the libraries I frequent have very slow wifi, but this may be on purpose.
- Most digital library catalogs have terrible UIs (broken back buttons, poor search results, etc.) They work, but they're not fun to use.
> - Most digital library catalogs have terrible UIs (broken back buttons, poor search results, etc.) They work, but they're not fun to use.
Talk to your librarians! In my experience, they welcome feedback, including of this sort. Sometimes the response is "all the systems suck, and this one is the best compromise we could find between suckiness and cost" (it always has been for me), but it's also a good way to get involved in efforts to fix it (for example, UI tests for proposed new systems).
Talk to your librarians! In my experience, they welcome feedback, including of this sort. Sometimes the response is "all the systems suck, and this one is the best compromise we could find between suckiness and cost" (it always has been for me), but it's also a good way to get involved in efforts to fix it (for example, UI tests for proposed new systems).
I recently checked out the local library for the first time and was surprised at how modern and alive it was. Aside from the expected books and magazines were DVDs for borrowing, multiple computer centers for browsing or study, workrooms and mini classrooms that were available for reservation, and a simple self checkout.
I work at a university so getting books hasn't been too big an issue for me, but the public libraries near me have been pretty good about offering classes to a broad group of people, and pushing their makerspace & 3-D printers. I know my craftier friends are there frequently for the 3-D printers.
Many public reference centers offer targeted classes for emerging adults in particular, teaching everything from car repair and financial literacy to job hunting and general adulting. “Things that used to be taught in schools,” Clarke notes.
Sad. Really sad.
Sad. Really sad.
Isn't it a good thing that these skills are disconnected from formal education so they can be made available to people of all backgrounds and ages?
The right to education was loosely actualized in America but remains low quality if people exit without skills in personal finance, for example. Unfortunately, there is no "right" to a library, let alone one that offers such enrichment. I'm all for programs in libraries that also help adults learn how to read at an 8th grade level, but the need for that in the first place I see it as symptomatic of how badly our schools would be doing, not as a positive thing in and of itself.
Community colleges in California provide this sort of thing for everything from the hard sciences to vocational training. Classes often have a mix of demographics: high school students, students using the CC as the first two years of a four year uni degree (it used to be easy to transfer to a four year state school, of which CA has about 30), professionals earning continuing education credits for certain licensed fields, career changers, veterans on the GI bill, 30/40/50 year olds getting a college degree for the first time, and even some bored old people there for fun.
One thing doesn't prevent the other.
What's really a shame is that people aren't taking home economics classes in school, and then are exiting school saying "I don't know how to adult". All of the "adulting" skills are taught in home ec! I'm a late-20s male who can crochet, sew, cook, balance a checkbook, load a dishwasher, and tons of other basic household tasks that other millennials fail to do. It's not because my parents taught me. It's because I took home economics classes as an elective in middle school and high school.
If your school offers home ec, take it! These are valuable life skills that you absolutely need to have. You don't need an "adulting 101" book, you need home economics in school.
If your school offers home ec, take it! These are valuable life skills that you absolutely need to have. You don't need an "adulting 101" book, you need home economics in school.
The 4,000 page Sam's Teach Yourself Adulting in 24 Hours needs to happen.
as a gen-x person, I love my library. I don't know how much of this is "San Francisco, tech stuff" or how much is broadly available, but I'm able to get books online via amazon (with a 3 week borrow period), quite a few comic books (via hoopla), and quite a few audiobooks (both amazon and hoopla) through their digital services.
I can also, of course, get books in paper form, requesting them online to be delivered to my nearby branch, or just going to a branch and browsing. My wife has read over 110 books this calendar year, the vast majority of which were gotten via the SFPL.
I can also, of course, get books in paper form, requesting them online to be delivered to my nearby branch, or just going to a branch and browsing. My wife has read over 110 books this calendar year, the vast majority of which were gotten via the SFPL.
The LA public library system is great. Has saved me a lot of money on books over the years plus the have video streaming platforms as well as let you access (for free) places like Lynda.com. I've been going to the library since I was a kid (34 now) and used to hide out in the stacks at college. It feels like a comforting place to me.
I think I've not visited a public library since I first used Amazon in 2001.
While studying I've used the university ones a few times, but I've also always preferred to buy my books if they were important enough to be read thoroughly and repeatedly.
On the one hand I'm kinda sad about this, on the other hand I like to own and revisit the books I read.
While studying I've used the university ones a few times, but I've also always preferred to buy my books if they were important enough to be read thoroughly and repeatedly.
On the one hand I'm kinda sad about this, on the other hand I like to own and revisit the books I read.
Libraries can be a great source of finding books to later order on Amazon.
Funny, I do the opposite. When I find a book on Amazon, I'll see if it's at my local library and if not put in a request to have it shipped from another library in the same system (in my case, that system covers a number of nearby cities and towns).
If I can't get it for free from the library then I'll consider ordering it from Amazon.
Another advantage of the library is you don't accumulate more and more books over time, unlike if you buy them.
If I can't get it for free from the library then I'll consider ordering it from Amazon.
Another advantage of the library is you don't accumulate more and more books over time, unlike if you buy them.
One thing I think libraries really need to get on is digital preservation. Look at what the Internet Archive has done and think about how important and how expensive it will be in the future. Public libraries collectively have the funding but perhaps not the expertise.
I think this is great but I also found the headline 'weird' since in the very real sense that 'millenials' are the majority of the adult population of working age they keep everything 'alive.'
It makes more sense in the context of all the arrticles talking about the things that "millennials" are killing.
Millennials are keeping libraries alive because we can't afford to buy books.
Books have always been expensive. My mother ran a bookstore, and in the early 90s there was a new form of sales tax (Australia's GST) where books would no longer be exempt - it was a real concern that this minor increase in price might kill the business, taking books to just that little bit too much for everyone.
The price of books over the years has been pretty stable, in adjusted dollars: https://theawl.com/how-much-more-do-books-cost-today-28fea1a...
The price of books over the years has been pretty stable, in adjusted dollars: https://theawl.com/how-much-more-do-books-cost-today-28fea1a...
Libraries are about the worship of information. All media should be welcome and the needs of educating and providing the public access to that high quality information in formats useful to them should be the focus.
If by 'keeping libraries alive' you mean 'still using them' then millenials may be just like any other person who doesn't want to spend their own money for temporary access to varied information sources.
US Libraries in the 1970s, 80s and 90s were still logical places to do research and work. I don't believe they are anymore. They are mainly archives and public resources for those that can't afford information access privately.
I remember very fondly visiting the library in the 70's and reading for hours there as a child but much prefer private access now.
US Libraries in the 1970s, 80s and 90s were still logical places to do research and work. I don't believe they are anymore. They are mainly archives and public resources for those that can't afford information access privately.
I remember very fondly visiting the library in the 70's and reading for hours there as a child but much prefer private access now.
To me libraries hold a romantic idea of being halls of knowledge, or even the place in which studying and teaching is done. It's a temple of learning - and no matter what you're studying, writing, or reading about - being in a place surrounded by so many other excited, eager learners is a big rush.
I went to the public library near one of the universities and every surface was filled with a laptop, with an energized student starting at it getting work done. It was amazing.
I don't really check out books, but I'm hoping maybe the library could be a future venue for me to teach free classes to people - it does seem like they have educational classes running almost every day of the week.
How could a library not excite you? :D