Public library?

It's true that it is not the library employees' job to be social workers, but it seems like moving (or creating) some social service offices in the library might be a way to reach some people who are currently underserved?

I don't think the library should be a replacement for the services you described. Just because the term "public" is in the name, does not mean it should serve the public at the expense of being a library. Should the "public defender" open his offices to the homeless? Government offices are "public," but typically do not allow loiterers of any type for safety reasons, so why should the library?

This may sound cruel, but the better solution to the problem is better services, as you noted. If it's really a problem, I would, if I were a member of the library staff, try to find a service that could help the people in need. Aside from bothering the library users, loiterers can be a security issue, so it's best to find a better solution to their problem, or remove them if they really are a threat.

Tangent: I went to a library once and was refused to borrow a book! The librarian claimed that anyone outside of their local area, whether you had a state-wide library system card or not, was not allowed to borrow books. I think they should have removed the term public and replaced it with "local" or "non-public" or "xenophobic."

Robin says: Not exactly relevant, but I once got a book titled "30 Days to a Better Body" at my local library ... which had a 28-day loan period. I still blame those two missing days for the fact that I never had a modeling career.

Why not: Public funding (city, state or federal) for public restrooms where showering is permitting? --> "extended restrooms"

Some might stay: budgets already overburdened

But: police calls are expensive too, extended restrooms could save money

But: should extended restrooms be constructed in conjunction with homeless shelters?

Need to survey homeless persons and others to find out if they would patronize extended restrooms, or if homeless would avoid them if they become unsafe places, as homeless shelters are often avoided by homeless who would rather hang out in places that are socially normative.

Robin says:Having showers in a library seems like it would create many, many more problems than it would solve ...

I saw this story on the news last night and was asking myself some of the same questions. Do I think that an ID should be required to use the library? No. Do I think that library staff and patrons should be able to feel safe in the library? Certainly. Will I let my daughter go to the library alone? Not a chance, and I'm in a "safe" suburban town. Robin, in answer to the final question in your post, I do think that "public" is being emphasized over "library." Unfortunately, I don't know how to fairly shift that emphasis back. Libraries are losing funding because the numbers of patrons has dropped off. I'm sure that a lot of that has to do with the use of the internet for research, but some of it is surely related to the safety issue. A classic catch-22 - the numbers of staff are reduced because of the lack of patrons, the reduced staff makes it easier for people without "library business" to find a place to catch a nap, thus making people feel less safe and not go to the library.

A few days ago, I entered the BPL during my lunch break with a can of empty gingerale. I had finished it, but was holding on to it until I could get to a recycling bin. A woman at the front of the library said, "Ma'am, you can't bring that in here. You'll have to take it outside." To which I replied, "Oh, no, it's empty." And demonstrated its emptiness by turning it upside down. She shook her head and said "No." And I asked if I could put it in my purse and come in, something I had been avoiding because gingerale, even the slightest drop, is sticky. She told me I'd have to bring it ouside. I asked if there was a recyling bin available. She said no. I needed a particular book, so because of this, I was forced to leave the library, throw away the can, and come back in to get the book.

I just say this because it seemed like needless rule enforcing. If they're that concerned about an empty can of gingerale, I can only imagine how they deal with people who don't meet hygeine standards/what have you.

Robin says: But it doesn't sound as though they deal with the hygiene issue! That's the frustrating thing, if the wrong rules are being emphasized.

I read this article too and found it perplexing. I really can't think of a solution just yet. I have been to the main branch of BPL and never noticed any issues, but that's just me. On the other hand, when I lived in Quincy I saw sketchy types mumbling to themselves in the library or lounging around on the grass outside. It's not just a Boston problem.

I have to say, I don't see how they can be called loiterers, as long as they're actually reading a book. A college student studying at the library for hours at a time wouldn't be considered a loiterer. It's what the library is for.

On the "30 Days to a Better Body" side track, I once borrowed a book on speed reading, that I then renewed twice. Ooops.

When I was a college student using the BPL for research I would notice some intimidating characters were sharing the space with me.

However, I understand why they're there and don't really see a way to solve the problem.

It's sad to be scared to go to the library alone as a petite young woman, but it's equally sad that the "extended patrons" do not have other places to go since shelters fill quickly and often kick patron out during the day. (A fact that few too people realize).

It seems like there isn't anything to discuss. It's a library and anyone there to do anything but a library-related activity should be asked to leave. Public or private, it is a business like any other and when non-patrons threaten its ability to provide its services, it shouldn't be tolerated.

As for the problem of a place to go in the daytime, I wonder if the BPL could partner with places like the Women's Lunch Place to offer folks a better solution for a place to go during the day. The WLP, for instance, has food, showers, and a nap room - definitely better than washing in a sink and sleeping in the stacks!

I agree wholeheartedly with Jen S. above. The Public Library should not become another T stop littered with trash, smelling of urine, and having to deal with obviously troubled people yelling at you from time to time. Patrons should not be distracted from their reading/studying by anything, be it auditory, olfactory or visual. I do feel for the poor, already underpaid, librarians, are they really expected to ask the smelly, troubled homeless person to leave? What can the police do but escort them off the property?

Can someone taking a nap or smelling bad make you feel threatened, honestly? There's a vast difference between actually threatening and extremely annoying.

While our librarians aren't social services and the library isn't appropriate for showering or living, and we'd be a top-notch city if we could provide better services, I'm questioning the perceived risk versus actual risk here. The mugger was already a known problem, in the library or out of the library, and just happened to break down inside the library. Could have happened anywhere. 1.3 million visitors and 13 calls a month? That's a very low hit rate, especially when compared to average Boston street crime rates. You're in more trouble crossing the street or spending time in a bar. And nowhere does that article say anything about those calls to police being about the homeless. So...where's the connection here, really? Are we just internally stirred up by our own fears or actually in danger? And who's the real danger? It's definitely not clear from the article that the homeless people are actually causing problems that require police presence, except for the one mugger. The patrons cited are riled up about annoyances, not dangers.

The librarian spokeswoman was right - once you start asking people not to come back based on economics or looks, it's bad. Libraries were built because not everyone can afford books. You start excluding one group based on preferences, it's easy to move on to others.

It seems like the article builds a false scare mountain from a tenuous molehill, though I'm willing to wonder if it was just poor reporting. And it saddens me to hear people complaining about people being homeless at them without offering to do anything constructive.

Robin says: Who knows what the overlap between the homeless and the actually dangerous/threatening folks is. I'm not in favor of people having to prove they've got a permanent residence before they can enter a library. But old ladies and kids need to be able to use the libraries and feel completely at ease in doing so.

Conflating "threat" with "homeless" is just wrong. Very few violent crimes are committed by the homeless, who, as noted in the article, are much more likely to themselves be victimized. The article highlights one dramatic incident, with one mildly injured victim, in a year with more than 1million patrons served. Every mall, sports arena, park, public or private institution that serves so many experiences far more violent crime.

'd love to live in a world where old ladies and kids can feel at ease, but since both are far more likely to be victims in their own homes, there isn't anything the library can do. The library seems to be functioning just fine as it is, calling in the police as necessary when there's a problem and leaving the well-behaved alone.