End Homelessness

Oops! I could have sworn I saw a Voting button at the top of the page here. Oh, well. The sentiment remains the same.

It seems to me that a lot of peoples idea of solving the homeless problem. Is simply to keep homeless people out of sight. People complain about homeless people in libraries, on public transportation and congregating in other public areas.
The only viable solution that I see. Is to make sure that everyone has a home they can go to.

I wish there was a Voting button on the top of the page. I'd vote for it.

good question?

It is so sad to live in a country where many people have multiple homes...empty most of the time and many. many more have no shelter at all. Maybe a little "socialism" wouldn't be such a bad thing!

I live in DC and the homeless thing bugs me too. The only positive thing I see on the street that helps the homeless is a newspaper called "street sense". Its a paper the covers issues of the homeless that is written by the homeless, and it includes poetry, photographs and artwork for the homeless. Its also used as a means of support, registered homeless sellers keep 75 cents of the 1 dollar cost of the paper and must check in sober and be actively involved in programs that help get them off the street.

Other than that...just tell everyone in your family DO NOT GIVE ANY MONEY to pan-handlers. They can make about $100 a day in a decent location.

What elitist, intolerant thoughts are presented in the article.

The public library is one of the few resources that the homeless have at their disposal.  Developing a hygiene code to gate the enjoyment of a comfortable scholastic environment and block access to information and community is a shame worthy, hateful idea.

Anyone who is offended by the presence of the "unseemly  homeless" in the library and elsewhere are precisely those most in need of such exposure! (i.e. the coddled, ivory tower-esque type)

We are all human beings, deserving of comparable levels of respect. A homeless presence in our libraries serves not only as an educational opportunity for the homeless, but as a reminder for people like me who might be so foolish as to believe that all people are as fortunate as I am.

Instead of running away from the homeless, why not ask them their story? Try to make a friend and gain a perspective? Humans remain human, regardless of the character that a ragged appearance may suggest.

I posit that children, especially, benefit immensely from the early exposure to diversity that libraries provide.

Mr. Ballentine implies that the library would be a safe place to drop off his children or grandchildren if there were no homeless people there. In fact, this is a false sense of security. No public building should be considered a safe place to "drop off" children. Dangerous individuals can't be identified by their clothing or odor - or lack of odor.

That said, we should all be working to ensure that every member of our communities has access to food, clothing, and a roof over their head.

So how do we help in this problem? Please do not tell me government. This is not a governmental problem. This is a societal problem and to help we need to take individual responsibility for our own families, our own communities. But what I found is that those that are better off than the homeless only want the rich or the government to help out. They themselves do not want to separate from their money or resources because they compare themselves to someone better off then they are. I would ask some of you; would you allow a homeless person to come home with you for a week, a month, a year?

Compassion is a state of the heart. Many want to take a high ground of morality , yet they fall in other areas. We all chose our poisons but choose them we do. Jesus spoke much about the poor and our responsibily to them. He did not say the Jewish government, or the Roman government is responsible to do this. He said YOU. But He also knew that to have a society that would do this means that it needs to be transformed by God's Spirit, meaning faith in Christ. o not do this we as a society will just foght a losing battle and it will always be those that are richer than us that we will believe should bear the burden. This will never work.

I am not saying we do nothing and I do not have answers except a complete transformation of society from a secular one to one that believes in God of the Bible. Even so, Jesus said the poor we will always have with us. It is a lot in life because of the sin of mankind, rebellion to God. My point is that many will claim the high ground in saying , yes , let them use the ,a public facility that belongs to each and every person---but they would never allow them into their own home--just other's homes or what others pay for (pubic facilities).

"That said, we should all be working to ensure that every member of our communities has access to food, clothing, and a roof over their head."

Not that I totally disagree, but I woud ask WHY do we have to ensure that every member of our community has access to food, clothing and shelter in any way that is different than any other person has? Is this something that our Funders said was a right? Or was it the pusuit of those things that which the government is responsible with protecting. The right, not the substance.

We as a Country should be ASHAMED of the way we treat the less fortunate.  As the economy worsens, a new breed of HOMELESSNESS is occuring.  The HIDDENED HOMELESS, those that live with friends & family members, they oo. are indeed HOMELESS.  They just don't live under bridges or sleep on the sidewalks; their numbers a rapidly increasing and we must act to help.

leatrice,
This is where I disagree. This is who should be helping the homeless first---family. This is what families are for. They help each other. Now if someone doesn't have any family, and there are those that don't, then friends should help or the church, which hopefully is their friends. Then if that fails, community should step in. Last of all is government. This is not their duty or role. I can see situations (mentally ill)where government might be needed, but once you get them invoolved then they try to expand it's role. Even your definition of homeless is evidenced of that mentality.

Homelessness is a terrible problem. I agree that families should be the first line of defense. Surely, as the economy worsens, this problem will only compound. However, I've been in many cities in this country and _many_ of the homeless are obviously suffering from extreme psychological problems. Many of these folks, sadly, will likely never function at a level that is considered "within the spectrum of 'normality'" within a functioning society. I do not believe that allowing libraries and other so-called "public" places to become repositories for deranged people is any kind of an answer. Politicians attempting to "save" money have allowed institutions to purge themselves of "non-dangerous" people. Who are we kidding? Some people simply need to be institutionalized. While I fully acknowledge the horrors on institutions -- there must be some sort of compromise that will give people a place to go that prevents them from using doorways for public toilets.
And what of people who have lived from check to check and then have lost all hope of having a job? Is there not something that can be done for their situation? Somehow there has to be a way to provide some sort of safety net, but at the same time, require a high standard for personal hygiene and personal responsibility. If people cannot meet certain standards, and if counciling fails -- then there is still a need to transfer these types to facilities that prevent them from lowering the quality of life for the rest of "functioning society." I also fully acknowledge the dangers of allowing a government to determine who's "right" it is to live "where," but far too many homeless people have problems that are so profound and so obvious that they should not be left to roam our streets and public places. Libraries are not a good answer.

Great point Robert. I agree that the majority of homeless--the permanent kind, are the ones with psychological problems and bad ones. They do need institutionalized. I know the word sounds bad because of past practices, but the word should not scare us. Even the library is an institution. We need hospitalized institutions. This is where government could help out for those that do not have family to help or desire to help. I do not want government to run or oversee them, but to provide funding for private, qualified institutions to spring up, that will be help to the highest standard of medicine.

I have compassion for the truly homeless. But again, I think that term need to be qualified and in our society, tighened so that we do not see homeless as 'those that do not own their own homes' as many tend to do or those who just don't want to try because they want it all or nothing and then expect the government to bail them out. Believe me, there are a lot of those type of 'homeless' out there too.

As part of the conversation at the Sentinel it amuses me to see such a biased take on the article that Mr. Ballentine wrote.

Taken out of context this might seem to lack compassion. Taken IN context it is simple.
It's a library.
Not a homeless shelter.

Mr. Ballentine, while he certainly lacks finesse and uses terms I would not choose to, certainly hits the nail on the head.  Downtown Orlando has no structure on what to do with the homeless that pervade the streets - though there are multiple organizations designed to help and support them (Churches, Salvation Army, an extremely strong Coalition for the Homeless which provides meals and shelter, etc).  The Downtown Orlando library looks like a campground. That is not what a library is.

The homeless are not there perusing books, or utilizing the structure for the purpose it is meant to have.
They are there sleeping, squatting, camping out, washing in the restrooms, and panhandling all who enter the structure.So is there a homeless problem in Downtown Orlando.Yes.Is the library a homeless shelter?No. Not at all.Should we have compassion? Yes.  And that compassion is to support and strengthen the facilities and support groups for the homeless. Not turn every building into a shelter for them.

And as to those who would want to excuse the behavior of the homeless by saying that they are mentally unstable or disabled - that is even more argument for them NOT to be in the library.  That is not where we should want our children.  "Oh, it is ok honey, he is not homeless, he is just mentally unstable - go sit with him."

Please.  Plain and simple.  Stop clouding the argument with a "call for compassion" and attempting to falsely point out that those who do not want the homeless living in a library are heartless or misguided. That is not the case.

Encourage support and help and compassion for these individuals who need our help - yes (donations/volunteer time/understanding.  It is not a shelter, it is not a bathing area, and it is not a place to sleep.

For some reason my last sentence did not post correctly!  Here is is (thankfully I save blog entries)

But recognize once again that the purpose of the library is to provide books and knowledge - It is not a shelter, it is not a bathing area, and it is not a place to sleep.  If a homeless individual chooses to use the library for its intended purpose, he/she should be welcomed with open arms.  If they choose to use it for means that are not its purpose - they should not be welcomed but encouraged to go where those facilities are provided for them.  Plain and simple.

I agree that the library is not homeless shelter, it is also not a bathing area nor is it a place to sleep for those that do not have homes. On the other side, it is not a drop off child care facility for those working parents that just need an hour or two while they perform other family duties such as grocery shopping. That false sense of security that they have that they can drop their kids off assuming they are protected by adult supervision while they save money on paying for short term child care. We can kick the homeless out, bring Child Welfare to admonish irresponsible parents but it isn't a solution. These problems are not isolated and doing this will just move the problem somewhere else.

Colin -
That is more a sign of the times in terms of danger to children. However, a parent should feel confident and safe in dropping off say a high school age student at the library.  They do not it seems - I know I would not - because of the environmental situation that we are discussing here.
The "problem" of dropping kids off is a matter of parents using their brains.  The solution to the problem of the "homeless" in the library is a bit more far reaching wouldn't you say?  But the minute you say "They should not squat there" - as you would because you acknowledge all of what I said - then you are considered inconsiderate, lacking in compassion, unfeeling, and not willing to understand. That is completely incorrect.

Once again. It all comes down to what the purpose of the building is.  Is it "public" as the above title tries to wittily say? Of course it is.  But only when it pertains to the professed usage of the building, a "place in which literary, musical, artistic, or reference materials (as books, manuscripts, recordings, or films) are kept for use but not for sale"

Do some of the homeless read when in there? I have not seen it, but as I said before, if they come in to do research, read, better themselves then most will be sure to applaud them.  That is not the situation that Mr. Ballentine is discussing.  He is discussing in essence a number of individuals who practically live in the structure. Who go in not to improve their minds, read the books, use the building for the reasons it should be used -  but for a place to squat throughout the day. 

Homelessness is an issue that indeed must be address on the individual and community levels.  But to say that the only way to fix it is by changing from a secular society to a christian theocracy is still placing the blame in the wrong place.  Now I am all for people applying the golden rule for whatever reason; be it by following the teachings of jesus, belief in karmatics or the rule of three, whatever.  But seeing as how our secular society is majority christian and homeless is still a problem, obviously simple religiosity is not working. 
That being said, our secular society is what allows me, a religious minority, to help those i see need helping.  Yes, i would take in a homeless person, so long as i knew they weren't mentally unstable.  I have taken in friends who needed a couch, and my friends and family know it is always available to them.  I work within my community, as part of my community to solve the problems i think i can help with.
Public libraries are public, yes.  but people sleeping in one is not what its meant for.  That is where community shelters step in.  The story in the opening comment is, however, exactly what its meant for: for people who do not have resources of their own.  To say that womeone should not be allowed in there because of their smell is a bit extreme.  But we should also eqiup our public staff with the information and tools to direct these people to where they can find the things they that public libraries are not designed to provide.

"Kindness should become the natural way of life, not the exception."

Why do we turn the other cheek when we see a homeless person? instead of giving them a helping hand we reject them and make sure we send a notion that they are no good to society. Some may be substance abusers, with mental issues, etc but there are people that aren't homeless with the same issues. The homeless are still our kind. By rejecting them we will make the problem worse. 

Miriam X
Why not stick to the subject? Once again there are the many who would like to turn this into an issue of compassion and kindness when it is not.  It is about a public library being mis-used for things it was not meant to be used for.
I give a helping hand with each donation to the Coalition for the Homeless, or the Salvation Army that I make.
I give a helping hand when I give food or money or goods to those same or similiar organizations.
I give a helping hand whenever I give a person asking for help a kind word and a few dollars.

This is not about that and stop trying to make it so.  You say the "homeless are still our kind" - then do you bathe in the bathroom at the Public Library? Do you accost each and every person that walks by the library? Do you sit there with your packs in the library not reading? 

You also say - "By rejecting them we will make the problem worse" - once again, kindhearted philosophies that are meaningless to this topic.  No one is rejecting the homeless. IN fact many who would not want them living in the library do much to help them.
They are saying - there are so many places to help - don't live in a library!  It is not what it is for! That is all anyone is asking.

Read Erin's post above yours, especially the last paragraph. She sums it up very nicely.  And every time someone makes the only valid point that exists here - that a library is NOT a homeless shelter - someone else comes on and says "But compassion - but kindness - bud don't you see - "
Yes we do see.
We see a library here, and homeless shelters there. Plain and  simple.

The library is not a homeless shelter. Suggested rules:
Not allowed - dogs, bikes, packs larger than one book bag, sleeping, eating, loitering, loud conversation, panhandling or publically disruptive behavior as per the discretion of the on duty Security Officer.

Group needs trump individual theoretical "human rights". We, the taxpayers paid for our library, the homeless did not. They can use it IF they follow our rules, otherwise get OUT.

 If a city is having problems with the library being used as such, it's obvious the city needs  a real homeless shelter.
 Having been homeless in my younger years, IMO a homeless shelter should have:
lockers, showers, phones, Internet, water, food, toilets, newspapers, books, locked bicycle parking, facilities for care of companion canines. Trained, tough but compassionate security and social workers and lockable single-bed cubicles to sleep in.

The mentally ill? If they can't/won't take their meds unsupervised, then the answer is obvious. Institutions of some sort are necessary. Human rights are a concept. Crazy people terrorizing downtown shoppers and worker is a reality.

Question: If  PUBLIC facilities become overrun with the 10% problem population that chases away the other 90%, then are they really PUBLIC anymore, deserving of all the funding and rules thereof????

Mr. Ballentine, which is probably a spin off of my pursurer Kidd Valentine, this Ballentine dude, yeah, from Orlando, the home of my father and sister, the temporary home of me growing up, had stolen my own words: "We are mad as hell and we're not going to take it any longer."  Why would he do that?  Because I care passionately about the homelessness issue and have friends who are homeless.  He also knows that I am a target of the U.S. government, so, yes, he is probably watching me like many, many in the media are.  Also, he steals from me because it is rumored that I steal things from others, so he feels justice is served here.

Hey, Ballentine, I'm all over you, man.  I know what you're up to.

As a long-time patron of public libraries and a friend of several public librarians, I am pleased to see that most of the important arguments have been raised. I would like to add a few clarifying points:
No one wants the libraries to be public more than the librarians. Their lives are dedicated to putting as many resources as possible in the hands of as many patrons as possible. They do not judge their patrons; they want to serve them. If some people show up every day to read the newspaper for free, or peruse back copies of PLAYBOY, or seek proof they're descended from Martians, a librarian will help as much as possible. Some of these people may be homeless, many of them are lonely, but if they don't disrupt the library, no one will bother them. Sleeping is frowned upon, but a librarian will usually just wake up a sleeping patron and ask if she is OK.
 
Many librarians are happy to help people find work. Here in New York City, the main libraries have vocational counselors on staff and free classes on computer literacy, English as a second language, and other job skills.
Librarians do get annoyed, however, when people assume they will take on responsibilities that others shun, or cannot do themselves. Teachers who simply send 35 kids to the library with an assignment, rather than aranging a group excursion where the basics can be covered in half the time. Parents who, lacking access to day care, park their kids at the library, especially after school. Many libraries now spend their entire children's book budget on after-school activities. It's also worth noting that, in difficult budget times (like now), it's the public libraries that take the cuts first, just as demands on their services increase.

Librarians are trained in information science, not social work. They cannot offer help that many homeless people need. If a psychotic junkie strips nude and floods the men's room, to cite an event I saw myself, librarians will call the cops. In fact, the New York Public Library has closed most of its toilets in midtown Manhattan, simply because they had so often been rendered useless by a handful of wackos. And this in a city with a vast network of public and private agencies devoted to serving the homeless. 

Which brings me to my final point: there is no easy solution to homelessness. It's easy to say "Be compassionate," but how do we convert this advice into action? I refuse to give money to a panhandler I'm sure will use it only for drugs. The New York State constitution makes care for a poor and disadvantaged a legal requirement. Here in the city, the Bloomberg administration has adopted a range of programs: support in gaining public assistance, eviction-prevention counseling between landlords and tenants, making city-owned buildings available to private support programs, improved follow-up on patients discharged from hospitals, and replacing large, impersonal shelters with smaller centers where counseling is available. 
But all these efforts have led to only small reductions in the number of homeless in the City. I've been observing this problem for 30 years, and I have no respect for people who think there is a glib and simple answer.

Is it surprising that this has become an issue? I'm remembering the funding cuts that dumped many mentally ill people out on the street to fend for themselves that happened over ten years ago.

I'm not sure that people who have a home know what it is really like to be homeless. Food stamp programs bragged that it got many people "off welfare," but the new laws merely limited how long qualifications last, leaving those disqualified without resources to eat.

Did you know that homeless shelters shoo their occupants and their possessions away at 7am each morning and do not allow them back until 5pm each night? It's a problem to decided where to go. It's exhausting to "keep moving" walking aimlessly all day, especially when pain or other orientation problems are issues. You must carry all your possessions. It costs money to use a pay phone to look for a job; if there is no voice-mail to contact a prospective employee, they are disqualified. You may have no place to clean up for a job interview anyway, so some people give up.

I personally knew a homeless man who "lived rough" illegally in a broken van on some property he had saved up to own. He had a job cleaning up the town that was offered by the community center. When it came to light he was living illegally, they decided that his alcohol use was reflecting on the community image, and they replaced him with someone more socially acceptable. Without a phone and no money to fix his tools as they broke, his income dwindled to no work at all. He committed suicide in the community center to prove his point that they had killed him by taking away his only way of making a living that he could manage.

I know quite a few homeless people. I talk to them. They aren't scary. They all know and will tell you who is doing what, because they must learn this information to survive. Most of them are generous, kind people who have various social, emotional and mental problems. Taken to an extreme these problems are present in most of us.

I believe there are going to be quite a few more "homeless people" out on the streets, as more and more people are foreclosed and lose their jobs. How to be "homeless and happy" is going to be a skill many will need to cultivate to survive.

Perhaps if you regard yourself as fortunate enough to be able to pass judgment on "those people", you and your children could "adopt a homeless person" and help them as you are able, (as one of the commenters above has done.) Talk to the homeless at the library and choose wisely who you "adopt." There are plenty of homeless who are not drug users or alcoholics who are a good bet to help out with personal contact. "There but for fortune, go you or I."

I knew of a family who decided to "sponsor" another poor family; 13 members with only two wage earners who were struggling to run an auto detailing shop. The family who was better off hit on the idea to purchase vehicles and hand them off to the unfortunates to fix up; they paid for the work and then sold the cars at a profit after they were reconditioned. Then they gave the difference to the poor family when they dropped off the next car to be detailed.

I'm sure other possible win-win situations could be originated by the intelligent people here to bring helping the poor and homeless into the realm of personal influence that any of us could put into action.

Put on your six thinking caps!

When did kindness become a radical concept?

I have known some people who used the library to wash and to sleep, then they wandered the streets at night. They used the library becasue it was warm and they could sleep without fear of being hurt.

There has been some problem with suberban teenagers beating homeless and even setting them on fire. They are safer on the move after dark. The library is sometime the only safe sleep they get.

SOme shelters here are dangerous because they are undermanned. Sometimes thye are actually safer on the street. The shelters are also often full.

I have no problem with the homeless using the library. I DO have a problem with them having to....a BIG problem.

Sorry for my typos!

Just because they're homeless doesn't mean they're violent disgusting people. They're people, just like the rest of us. Sure, some of them are drug users and stuff, but some people that have homes are drug users, too, and we don't look down on them so much. Some of them aren't drug users. They're just unlucky people. Perhaps they're going to the library to use the computer and try to find a JOB. You can't put them down for that.

Once again many are confusing the need to help the homeless which is undeniable, with the purpose of a library.  The simple point is - a library is NOT meant for sleeping and bathing.  If there is someone who wishes to dispute that I ask you to please show support for the libary having as its mission to allow its members and/or guests to bathe and sleep (and saying that a library is so boring of course you fall asleep is not the sort of commentary I mean)

From Carman -
"I have known some people who used the library to wash and to sleep, then they wandered the streets at night. They used the library becasue it was warm and they could sleep without fear of being hurt."

TO CARMAN - How nice. But is that what a library is used for? Sleeping and washing?  Why not simply do that in a restaurant then? Perhaps just walk into the hospital, take a shower, and sleep?  A library serves varied purposes - but a homeless shelter it is not.  Plain and simple.  That is the only point at discussion here.

And from Miranda.
"Perhaps they're going to the library to use the computer and try to find a JOB. You can't put them down for that. "

TO MIRANDA - Yes you are correct. Except the point of the original article was the fact that this is decidedly NOT what they are doing in this particular library.  In this library, the sleep outside the front doors, ask for money from those entering, go inside for storage for their belongings, hang out all day - not to read or research but to simply hang out - and bathe in the bathroom.
If a homeless person in Orlando chooses to use the library for its purpose - then anyone who tried to stop them would be completely wrong.
That is not the case I am afraid.

Please stop deflecting the issue into the idea of "we have to help the homeless" - We know that. That is why we are all on this blog.

The issue here is simply "Is a working library the place to house them."

Of course it's not the right place for them to be, but until there is something better for them I can't argue with them trying to survive as best they can.

Instead of throwing them out because they don't belong there make a place for them to go so that they don't have to use the libraries.

I think we can all agree that the homeless "shouldn't" be using the library for this, but there "shouldn't" be homeless in the first place.
Some DO use restaurants to wash in-until they are thrown out. Some use gas station rest rooms to wash in-until they are chased away.

To solve the problem with the libraries, solve the fact that there is nowhere for them to go so they don't freeze to death.

I have to agree with Stop Now. We need to use our heads on this. Just because someone wants to use the reason that there is nothing better, they need to understand that it  still affects the 99% of the other citizens that use the library for what it is intended for. If they have no other place then let's address that, but let us not use the library as a temporary flophouse for them. Sometimes I think too much compassion blurs any logical judgment and it becomes an all in all in itself. This is not good.

Why can't a homeless person use a library to look for employment, enrich their mind, read a newspaper, access the internet, or stay warm while reading? Cities with a high homeless population could alleviate this "problem" by providing safe shower and locker facilities. The lack of hot running water is the primary reason many homeless people cannot get a job, and believe it or not, hauling around a heavy pack full of everything you own is a pain in the neck. They don't want to be dirty, there is simply no place to wash in except for the above mentioned bathrooms...but these are inadequate. At any rate, libraries shouldn't be an elitest institution accessible only by landed (homed) gentry.  

Jennifer -
There is nothing elitist about it - "but these are inadequate. At any rate, libraries shouldn't be an elitest institution accessible only by landed (homed) gentry."

If the homeless want to use the library for the purposes you mentioned, for enriching, searching for employment, etc - MORE POWER TO THEM and I and others have stated that all along.

As someone who lives in Orlando, worked with the homeless, and has gone to this library, let me once again state what they do there (notice none of it will be reading, enriching their minds, or using the library to look for employment)

1) They sleep out side the front doors. We have multiple places they can go such as the Coalition or the Salvation Army.
2) Upon waking they ask everyone who comes by for money.
3) They hang out inside and outside the library all day asking for money.
4) They go into the library, pile their belongings somewhere, and fall asleep.
5) They go into the bathrooms and take sponge baths and leave the place very inhospitable so to speak.

I am sorry, but none of that was any of the things you mentioned.  And none of those things are what a library is for.

Now. As to the weather.  It was close to 80 here today, and right now it is about 76 degrees outside. So anyone stating "they need to get out of the weather so they don't "freeze to death" as Carman stated is quite off the mark (as far as this particular story is about).One thing you did say though was the idea about safe shower and locker facilities.  I think that is a fabulous idea!  While the Coalition and the Salvation army do provide many services, I do believe that a place dedicated to that would be a huge boon to the homeless in this area!  Not only that, but in agreement with Carman - perhaps it can provide a place for them to be.So while I disagree with your take on the entire "library" situation, you have certainly posed some great solutions that can alter things. Bravo on that!

Jennifer,

You say there shouldn't be any homeless. On what do you base that assertion? Do we live in heaven? Is this world a perfect place. Jesus himself said, the poor you will always have with you. That doesn't mean we don't try to help, but to have some utopian level belief causes you to believe that they can do no wrong. I know they are trying to survive. I may even do the same thing if I were in their shoes, however, that doesn't justify it. Do we justify stealing because someone has no money? Do we justify killing for it? Do we justify the crimminal because he has it rough? That is what you are doing, not that they are crimminals but that you are saying that because they are homeless they can do what they want. There is a difference between empathy and compassion. Both may be present at the same time , but true compassion does not allow empathy to cloud its judgement and judge is what we have to do. Everything is a judgement, meaning we have to weigh all things involved. As I said , there are the 99% that are not homeless to that deserve consideration. 

When I mentioned the homeless freezing to death I probably should have mentioned that I am from a very cold state and several freeze to death here every year. I was thinking of that.

I gathered signatures for a petition to put an Independent candidate on the Presidential ballot all of last year.  People were assholes to me, not because they didn't believe in what I was doing, they were just insulted that anybody would ever approach them.  Americans hate the homeless.  They hate their guts.  "Sweep the homeless under a bridge, or a rug.  Keep them out of my sight!"  To them, Homelessness exists, they just don't want to see it, or help, because they don't give a damn.

Shannon Moriarity nailed the problem squarely on the head.  Homeless people in the library means that there is a homelessness problem, and some people don't want to solve the problem at the roots, but would rather instead bully homeless people some more.

I agree Johnny. I suspect that the real issue here is that people don't want to SEE the homeless. Most don't like the fact that they are visible. Most people (and I know I'm generalising from my conversations with people and my experience with the homeless here) just are offended by seeing them. They find it disturbing...well, they should find it disturbing. They're human beings.
The real issue is the huge homeless problem we have here.

Carman -
The real issue is indeed the homeless problem, and that is why some of the suggestions above were fruitful.  However, your idea that people are offended by seeing them is not directly on the money in this particular situation.
It is not just seeing, but being approached every five steps by them in this area of Downtown Orlando.  And unfortunately there is a good mix down there of genuine homeless, and those who are taking advantage of the situation.
Seeing a homeless person is not a bad thing, it is a thoughtful thing to me since I see them often.  Having them come up to young mothers just trying to bring their kids to the library is another issue.  Having a child go into the bathroom at the library only to find a half dressed man bathing is also another issue.  That is what we are discussing here.
So, where do we stand since we keep drifting completely off subject?
1) We all agree there is a homeless issue
2) We all agree that othe facilities need to be provided, and some have made some great suggestions above.
3) We all agree that a Library is not for sleeping or bathing (at least I hope we all do)
4) So.  Back to the original premise. If a homeless person goes into the library to use the library for the purpose it was established, more power to them. But the issue here is those individuals using the library for purposes it was never intended, and how to solve that problem.

Oh and Carman, yes, I figured that you lived in a cold state from your posting, I was simply referencing the original article that referred back to Mr. Ballentine's blog which is occuring in Orlando Florida.  That is how I came to change.org in the first place, from posting on that blog and seeing someone mention this site.

So, as someone who does help the homeless, I ask you to please not switch the argument to a general "we must care for the homeless" argument.  That is avoiding the question of - should people (notice I did not even say homeless) be allowed to sleep in and outside of/ask for money from the patrons of/store their belongings in/bathe in the bathrooms of - A. Library and not use it for the purpose it was intended.

And if that is what should happen there, then please suggest where instead we should keep books and research materials?

Stop Now, it does not surprise me that you are a fan of the media which is actually being controlled by the mafia which is in turn controlling Americans which is in turn leaving targeted individuals out in the cold which in turn leads to homelessness. 

I do work with the homelss here, and we have a lot of them here and are getting more every day.
I don't believe I am diverting the subect at all.
hmm..maybe I wasn't clear enough so...No, it SHOULDN"T be a place for the homeless in an ideal world. In an  ideal world they shouldn't need a place to go. I am quite aware that it isn't the place for them, but I am saying that it is going to happen until people realise what the situation really is and address it.

My only solution is that instead of kicking them out we come up with alternatives for the homeless. What has to happen is that more people see the homeless as somethign other than a bother and to help on a personal level instead of ignoring it.

If we can do that then there will be no need for the homeless to be there-THEN if they go there they can be removed and sent to the appropriate place.

I know that this won't happen over night, but it would happen much faster if more got involved instead of simply trying to ignore them.

As far as the child in the bathroom-anyone who lets their child go into ANY bathroom alone (even a church) is (not intentionally) putting that child in danger. Children need to be watched anywhere in this day and age. That is another subject all together, however.

Fred Pursely and the anonymous cyber-bully, Stop Now, are completely wrong.  Stop Now continually states that everybody else is diverting from the topic, when he is the one doing it.  If houseless people had a place to bathe, sleep, and eat, just like you do, then they wouldn't be in the library.  If you want to solve the houseless people in the library problem, then get them a house.  Because they will need to bathe, sleep, and eat somewhere, pushing them underneath a bridge doesn't solve the situation.  And I bet, Mr. so-called "Stop Now", that when houseless people are forced to find refuge underneath a bridge, you'll divert the issue into: well, should these bums be allowed to live under a bridge?  You'd contend that living under a bridge is illegal, and they are not above the law, instead of solving the REAL problem of houselessness.  Fred and Mr. Now would rather continue to profile people who are constantly discriminated against anyways.  My guess is that houseless people annoy them, and their shortsightedness makes them only care about the nuisances THEY go through, ignoring the Big Picture.  But instead of the law following with what annoys you, why not address the REAL issue.  It should be self-evident that homeless people have a fundamental right to Life.  Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is meaningless without Life.  It is a perverted abomination that any single American has to go without basic sustenance--especially in the richest country on the planet.  The only decent thing to do is to provide enough bed, food, and plumbing for all who need it.  So if you want to stop stinky houseless people with all of their belongings from going to the library and taking a nap, get them a house.  Never again will they have to sleep or bathe in ANY public place.  Problem solved.

Sherri -
"Stop Now, it does not surprise me that you are a fan of the media which is actually being controlled by the mafia which is in turn controlling Americans which is in turn leaving targeted individuals out in the cold which in turn leads to homelessness."

Sherri - not to engage you again in the conspiracy theories that you post here - I respect your right to post them, though as you know severely disagree with you.  

The only issue I have with your posting is - where did I say anything about being a "fan of the media" .  In fact, I do not like the general media at all, and did not in any way even mention them.  Go look at some of my other blogs where my main problem IS the media.  Not sure what you were reading into there, but it is not there at all.  I respectfull let you now that you are incorrect by attributing that to me, and nothing else is said - we have already had a run in on these conspiracy theories, and I respectfully wish for no more.  I do not choose to engage you with them.  Thank you.

AS TO JOHNNY MASTERS -
I work with homeless shelters Johnny.  This is not a question of helping the homeless - the entire blog is SHOULD HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS BE ALLOWED TO SLEEP/EAT/BATHE/PANHANDLE in a LIBRARY.

That is the ONLY question posed in the original article in the Orlando Sentinel, and the reason that Shannon brought it here. So any other discussion is diversion from the question.

So nothing is being diverted by anyone here who says:
1) We must help the homeless
2) It is a disgrace that there are not enough places for them, especially during the day
3) Homelessness is a huge problem
4) That STILL does not make it right for anyone - a multimillionaire even - to sleep/eat/bathe/ask for money in a LIBRARY.

If someone working for a brokerage firm were in a three piece suit sitting in the library for the sole purpse of sleeping, or taking off his clothes to bathe in the bathroom, you can rest assured they would be either asked to leave or arrested. 

I have never said "Stinky houseless people" JOhnny.  Stop trying to attack anyone who disagrees and attribute things to them they have never even implied.  Believing that a library is not a place to sleep or bathe does not make someone lack compassion.  In fact, in what I do  I would love to compare time and donations to the homeless with you - let us see who actually gives more. Those of us trying to help, or those of you complaining about it and pointing fingers at others. 

As to Carman.  A child walking into the bathroom with a parent to discover a half naked person bathing is still something that should not occur.  Unless you think that is appropriate in a public place?  You know very well Carman that if that same three piece suited multimillionaire was stripping down in a bathroom, and a young mother and child walked in he would be arrested on the spot.  But when a homeless individual does it we must understand.  

So, while people would rather point fingers of horror at those of us saying "a library is not a place for this" they continually divert (and actually fully ignore anything else being said by those same individuals) to the topic of "BUT WE MUST HELP THEM and if you don't you LACK COMPASSION" - 

So your solution then it seems, based on the question of this blog, is to let them just live in the library?  What a great solution.  So  then again I ask you - where should we then put the services of a library?

So I will entertain this by asking you a direct question Johnny, answerable ONLY by a yes or a no.

"Is it part of a Library's purpose/mission/services to have people (regardless of their home status) sleep there/eat there/Bathe there/Ask for money there/store belongings there."

Again. Only answer this question yes or no.  That is the only question at hand.

Then, after answering that, we can discuss elsewhere on this wonderful blog, solutions to helping the homeless.

CARMAN SAID -
"My only solution is that instead of kicking them out we come up with alternatives for the homeless. What has to happen is that more people see the homeless as somethign other than a bother and to help on a personal level instead of ignoring it."

Carman - I must say I wish I had addressed this above. This IS exactly the question at hand.  You are not judging as Johnny does, diverting, or ignoring the situation.  I truly admire your posts because while it may seem that we are coming at the situation from opposite sides, we are in fact not.  We both know this is a situation that should not be occurring - but - what then?

I think it was you that posted the shower/locker question above, and I am sending an email to some of the places I donate to to ask what that status is in the services they offer, and if they do not have enough accomodations for this - what is a possible solution?  I would also love to add to that in having a place for them to not just rest their heads at night, but a place to congregate in the day not to hide them, but to give them a destination place where they can feel safe and secure.

Bravo for recognizing the issue, while demanding a tangible solution.  I don't need to compliment you privately - I am doing it quite publicly.

Johnny and many others here are missing the point I am trying to make. WHO is going to take care of these homeless? You want it to be me and everyone else you can force to get on your self-righteous bandwagon. You are all liberals, of course. I imagine you support Senate Bill 2433, which is in line with the UN's Millennium Development Goal, which will place the burden of helping the world's poor on us Americans.  You people are so ideological you can not see past the ends of your noses. All you see is your cause. Is it my fault these people are homeless or in poverty? All you folks want is to make government so bog that it will completely control us. Compassion? I can bet there are a million other places where you show no compassion or even empathy for the plight of others. This is just your pet project to make yourselves feel righteous, but most of you want me to be part of your righteousness.

The problem of the poor is a moral problem and only moral people can fix that . We as a country are not moral when we just stand for one cause and believe that makes us moral. Moral begins with the love of God and a changed heart. It is not government. It is God. All I see here is people wanting to increase government. You want to make a difference, then get out there like Shannon and do what you can personally to help. Quit trying to make it everyones crusade. It is not mine , except when I personally run into it. Then I will do what I can and that usually involves getting personally involved with the homeless person---not just a cause. You people are wanting Communitarinaism. Sorry, I am against that, not because I don't have a heart, but rather because I do.

I apologise for inferring that many of you have inferior motives, but when I am attacked as being heartless I do tend to get irritated. The homeless issue is a real issue. Where I differ with most here is how to solve it, which I do not believe can be done and also how do we deal with it. I do not want to see massive government programs put in place. I have lived long enough to know how government does things. This is a private issue. Yes it takes people pulling together, but I guarantee you, some homeless choose their plight so you will not solve the problem.

Humanitarian help? YES. We can let someone starve or freeze to death. But then if a person just wants hand out and will not work or try, then how far do we keep extending ourselves. At what point is personal responsibility for one's own lives come into play?

If you folks want to help the homeless after the fact, instead of getting at the root (morals)of most of the homeless issue, then start your own flop houses or get involved with someone that has one such as the SA and others. Quit trying to make it a government issue. They can not do anything and in fact will acerbate the problem.

Anyway, Johnny, I think you are right about supplying assistance in obtaining shelter for people in need.

I wanted to tell all of you that I was on HUD for my kids and me, since, as I've sort of blabbed about, our lives haven't exactly been kosher here, and then I looked into getting a low interest government loan through USDA, Rural Development in my town here in Iowa.

They pay a subsidy on my house.  I have a $125,000 house, and I pay between $600 and $700 per month, they pay about $300 dollars a month for me.  I think that generally the programs are there for families with children.  I'm not sure how this applies to just a single person, but I just wanted to post this, cuz I know homeless people read this cause.  So, yeah, I'm very thankful to have my house, to be able to afford it, and to live a relatively normal life.

Sheri

Sheri, I am not judging you about your mortgage, but I am judging the government. Can you not find a house that you can pay 650 a month without getting aid? See, I can not even afford 650 a month. I live in a rental that I pay 300 a month. Can I find a house for 300 a month? No, and even if I could it would requires so much work that I would be defeating my purpose. I do not make much money, but I guarantee you that I spend a lot more in proportion to many others in helping others. I do it out of a personal sense of duty, and not out of one that I believe should be imposed on others.

What I sense is that you want others to help the poor but you can not or will not out of your own money. You will say your family comes first. So how about others? Even rich people feel that way. You want them to give up from what they earn , but you will not because you feel you are poor. Poor is many times just a perception and in America that is definitely true. Can you not raise your family and live in cheaper housing so that you can give more to the plight of the homeless? Or is it everyone else that has to do this? Just some thoughts deriving out of your comments. Yes be thankful---now sacrifice and help the homeless and do not worry if Joe Blow does it.

There is an organization in Michigan called MCREST. It works with churches who provide shelter for the homeless (not many do in this area, unfortunately) and they also take the homeless people on the weekends to local schools so they can shower.
I think this is a great idea.
Another idea is all the schools that are sitting empty could be made into housing for the homeless, but only if there are enough people who care enough to volunteer their time and fundraising efforst to support it. They would have to be manned.
Another thing that COTS has done in my area is take an old hotel and use that for housing for the homeless. They also are in need of donations of supplies and financial support. Unfortunately the need is is so overwhelming that they can't begin to make a dent in it. Many of the homeless they are helping are women and children.
This can certainly be done in other places, if enough people get interested in doing it.

Carman, those  sound like workable ideas. You concern about volunteers is the good issue. People say they want to do something , but what they mean is they want government to do it. This is the point of contention. I do not see government as being the main thrust of any attack against homelessness. But I do see some good ideas in what you have presented.Thanks

Bravo again Carman.
Those are actually out of the box concepts that I doubt Orlando is capable of. Sadly, while we have some AMAZING institutions that I have mentioned time and time again such as the Coalition/ The Church in the Sun, Salvation Army, etc etc, the administration itself has done little to assist.  It would take that kind of political support to take over an abandoned school/hotel/etc.
Many churches do help with food and support thankfully.
Again - Bravo for thinking that is outside of the norm on helping the homeless - finding additional destinations for them to "hang their hats" if only temporarily.
Any help counts.
I look forward to communicating with some of the organizations I mentioned on all of that.

Thanks, but these are not my ideas. They are already being done in some areas. The biggest issue has been getting people interested enough to volunteer time and/or supplies and money.
Another think that some volunteers do with MCREST is every weekend a volunteer gets a bag or more of laundry that belongs to the homeless and they do the laundry in their own homes and someone picks it up and returns it to the owners.
My own mother has done this on many weekends in order to help. It's something she could do from home.

What Carman has illustrated is exactly what needs done. It has to be at the grassroots level, not at the governmental level. I hope that people will start seeing that government is not the answer to our civil and moral problems . In many cases they are the cause. Let's get back to a nation of and by the people---not of an aristocracy of elitists who think they know what we need. I am tired of us always looking to the government to solve problems and take care of us. When you allow that, then they own you----which is what many of them want to do.

What happened to my posts?

Come on Sheri. No one is attacking you. You seem like a very nice person. We disagree with you. That is not attacking you. That is disagreeing with ideas or thoughts. If you feel you are right then articulate your point in a logical manner. It is called argumentation or rhetoric. We as a society have taken everything down to the level of emotionalism , sentimentalism. We must get the bar back up to logic and reason.

I do not know why your post were deleted and I may disagree with that, but let us dialogue in a reasonable manner.

You lack of knowledge is evident Johnny. One, this is NOT a pure democracy. A pure Democracy is nothing but mob rule and tyranny. Of course from your post that is exactly what you seem to want. You are a Marxist in you ideology. The schools have taught you well. Maybe the reason the two of us have posted so much is because the majority of Americans today know nothing about the vision of our Forefathers. You sure don't seem to. You just spout off your vitriolic speech and then try to pull a dialectical process on Stop Now and I. It won't work. We are on to you. Now back to the regular topic.

This is the type of reaction I have been getting so much of the time. This is the kind of nation we have become. I believe the Leftist's in America and many of the Rightists also have ruined this country and pitted us in a class warefare, IE black /white, rich/poor, homeless/home, men/women/ homo/hetro, pro/anti, conservative/liberal, and of cousre the above writers , old/young. Pure Marxists tactics. How blind some are. Enough said.

We are not actually a Democracy. We are a Republic. Big difference.

Quite right Carman.It is not a majority rule as many believe today. What if that majority is wrong? All one has to do is persuade unknowing citizens and they would vote for anything. (sound familiar?)No , it is representative and those representatives are to be the most honorable, moral and ethical people in the society. They are servant leaders, not tyrannical leaders as it seems we are headed for today. If we fail to do that, then this system will never work either.

This is why a dicussion on what to do with homeless becomes so divisive. No one denies it is an individual responsibility and that the private public should be in the forefront. The divisiveness comes over whether government should be the major contributer to this cause. I say no. Of course there are those today that believe government is the answer to all our problems. This is what Marxism would teach. This is no different than a monarchial government , except now it is ruled by a party elite instead of a family elite.We are losing our foundations folks and many here can not see that. They have boughten into a lie that is being propagated on "we the people" .

Greetings, all.

Thanks for reading and participating in this important conversation. A quick note on our comment policy:

Comments, actions, and videos on End Homelessness are meant to be used for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in our posts. Please note that, while constructive disagreement is fine, insults and abuse are not, and will result in the content being deleted, and possibly a ban from posting content.

We will also delete at will and without warning comments or other content we believe are designed to disrupt a conversation rather than contribute to it.

Well I must have missed a lot in the early morning hours here on change.org! 
As always reading the posts of Fred and Carman I get a good feel for what went on.  Shannon thank you for all you do to keep the convo flowing and the rest far away.

FRED -
"This is why a dicussion on what to do with homeless becomes so divisive. No one denies it is an individual responsibility and that the private public should be in the forefront."

Bravo Fred - That is probably the most truthful statement on this entire line.  The fact is, everyone is on this particular blog line because they DO care and accusations of lack of compassion is built upon the flimsiest knee-jerk emotionalities.  It is not a question of compassion at all when you look at individual situations such as the library's purpose.

Everyone has posted some great thoughts and amazing ideas.  I will be honest with you, Orlando as I mentioned earlier - save for the individual groups that strive unendlessly to help those who are homeless - is NOT very friendly to this population.  A number of years ago our former Mayor even stated "there are no homeless in Orlando" - jeez.  

Unfortunately what that has caused is the very disruption we are here talking about.  Shannon is correct in that this problem at the library - which is a large problem and do not dismiss it with cries of "compassion" - is caused by a larger citywide (county wide - go even further) problem.

Carman - can you if you feel comfortable doing so, either send me by private mail on this site, or post publicly right here for all to benefit from, an internet link to the programs you were discussing?  I am not familiar with them, and whether they can help down here or not, it would be a great thing to discover how they worked what they are doing.

COTS:
http://www.change.org/cots_community_housing_development_organization

http://www.cotsdetroit.org/

They are an excellent organization. The first link is to their page here on Change. The second to their own site.
They have grown from a small group into a large widespread organization.

The other was MCREST:
They don't have a page here (yet).

This is their own page:
http://mcrest.org/member.htm

If you will notice, the churches involved are not of any one denomination. They are working together to help regardless.

You can contact both through their respective websites. You might find more ideas of how to help by reading their sites.

Both are very good organizations. I don't mean they are perfect, no organization is...but I know they care and they work very hard to help. I respect both (and that is not as common as one might thing..lol).

I am in the Tombstone publik library write now. My uncle Cletus cleans the place up at nite time and he lets me in and use the cumputers as long as I dont look up the nasty stuff.

So what if homeless peoples use the library. theys are people too and how and why are you guys threatened by them being there?

I am glad there are libraries where the homeless can be safe during the day.