As I said, if they had somewhere else to go to safely use, they wouldn’t be doing it on library benches. That’s who the NIMBY comment was directed toward, the councilmen or whoever that vote to remove those benches, but are almost certainly against having the actual solution because NIMBY.
Instead, just complain about how they smell or whatever, and shuffle them around somewhere else.
Maybe you are amalgamating all of the replies to your comment into one user, but I don’t know why you’re so aggressive… I don’t think I attacked you in any way.
I’m not sure why you are taking what I said so personal… Are you a councilman?
Edit: Damn that was a quick edit, I could have sworn your comment was much different when I replied. Now mine just looks like nonsense.
To reply to your edited comment: I literally said they should have somewhere else to do it.
As I said, if they had somewhere else to go to safely use, they wouldn’t be doing it on library benches. That’s who the NIMBY comment was directed toward, the councilmen or whoever that vote to remove those benches, but are almost certainly against having the actual solution because NIMBY.
It was a library decision. The decision was because they were doing it in front of kids.
Libraries are funded by taxpayers. The library was getting complaints about kids walking past homeless people on the benches near the entrance shooting up and smoking meth. They were asked to leave multiple times, but they would just come back. So, there are three options here:
Call the cops. They didn’t want to do that for reasons I think should be obvious.
Just let them keep doing it. This seems to be your preferred option and it’s a good way to get a library shut down via tax referendum.
Remove some of the benches.
But sure, they could have just gotten shut down and then there would be almost no free services for the homeless at all. That would be a possibility.
I think what Prole is saying is that it shouldn’t fall to the library in the first place. The city should be responsible for finding a solution. I don’t think their comment was opposed to your actions (although I also initially interpreted it that way).
It was a bit of both. Mostly the former, but I did take umbrage with the part about people complaining that they smell and are a nuisance and “maybe I’m bias because my wife, but I tend to agree” or whatever it was. So I guess I purposefully made it open to being interpreted as having both meanings if one so chooses. I figured they’d only take it personal if they themselves were a NIMBYs — a self-report of sorts.
No? What about my comments conflict in any way? I’m just saying that they should have somewhere safe to do it so the library is never a necessary option to begin with. But there aren’t because NIMBYs prevent that shit from happening.
Perhaps I’m overgeneralizing, and your specific situation is different.
The thing is that you can give people every resource and they still will go where they feel like it. Whether because they don’t care or because they lack the mental facilities to make reasonable decisions due to mental health issues. There may not be a very good and safe answer for dealing with some folks.
Absolutely should give the resources, but be aware that won’t ensure they use those resources instead of doing things a way that is unsafe and/or unfairly inflicting problems on folks.
The thing is that you can give people every resource and they still will go where they feel like it. Whether because they don’t care or because they lack the mental facilities to make reasonable decisions due to mental health issues. There may not be a very good and safe answer for dealing with some folks.
Are we talking about homelessness or about people walking?
And it’s not deflecting. I’m not talking about homeless shelters, I am talking about comprehensive, government-funded, public housing (it doesn’t have to be shitty, look at what Finland has done). I am talking about safe injection sites. I am talking about social workers on the ground, every day, making sure that these people have what they need.
As I said, if they had somewhere else to go to safely use, they wouldn’t be doing it on library benches. That’s who the NIMBY comment was directed toward, the councilmen or whoever that vote to remove those benches, but are almost certainly against having the actual solution because NIMBY.
Instead, just complain about how they smell or whatever, and shuffle them around somewhere else.
Why is it a library’s job to facilitate drug use?
Maybe you are amalgamating all of the replies to your comment into one user, but I don’t know why you’re so aggressive… I don’t think I attacked you in any way.
I’m not sure why you are taking what I said so personal… Are you a councilman?
Edit: Damn that was a quick edit, I could have sworn your comment was much different when I replied. Now mine just looks like nonsense.
To reply to your edited comment: I literally said they should have somewhere else to do it.
Why is it a library’s job to facilitate drug use?
Please go back and look at my initial reply, I literally said the opposite.
This was what you said:
It was a library decision. The decision was because they were doing it in front of kids.
Libraries are funded by taxpayers. The library was getting complaints about kids walking past homeless people on the benches near the entrance shooting up and smoking meth. They were asked to leave multiple times, but they would just come back. So, there are three options here:
Call the cops. They didn’t want to do that for reasons I think should be obvious.
Just let them keep doing it. This seems to be your preferred option and it’s a good way to get a library shut down via tax referendum.
Remove some of the benches.
But sure, they could have just gotten shut down and then there would be almost no free services for the homeless at all. That would be a possibility.
I think what Prole is saying is that it shouldn’t fall to the library in the first place. The city should be responsible for finding a solution. I don’t think their comment was opposed to your actions (although I also initially interpreted it that way).
Yes. Well mostly yes.
It was a bit of both. Mostly the former, but I did take umbrage with the part about people complaining that they smell and are a nuisance and “maybe I’m bias because my wife, but I tend to agree” or whatever it was. So I guess I purposefully made it open to being interpreted as having both meanings if one so chooses. I figured they’d only take it personal if they themselves were a NIMBYs — a self-report of sorts.
But yes mostly what you said.
My initial comment:
So I should just ignore the comment after that?
No? What about my comments conflict in any way? I’m just saying that they should have somewhere safe to do it so the library is never a necessary option to begin with. But there aren’t because NIMBYs prevent that shit from happening.
Perhaps I’m overgeneralizing, and your specific situation is different.
The thing is that you can give people every resource and they still will go where they feel like it. Whether because they don’t care or because they lack the mental facilities to make reasonable decisions due to mental health issues. There may not be a very good and safe answer for dealing with some folks.
Absolutely should give the resources, but be aware that won’t ensure they use those resources instead of doing things a way that is unsafe and/or unfairly inflicting problems on folks.
If only we had some real life data to see if things like safe injection sites work….… oh well I guess we’ll just have to make assumptions instead.
He laid out that that sort of accommodation is available, just that some people will still fail to avail themselves of it.
It may be even mostly working around his library, but that doesn’t mean there still are people falling to use those facilities.
Are we talking about homelessness or about people walking?
I agree we should build a homeless shelter right next to your house. And I’m sure you will be at the forefront to see that it happens…
Lol buddy, you don’t know where I live/work. No need to do that.
And where did I say “homeless shelter”?
Nice try at deflection.
And to continue the internet meme-- “I ain’t your buddy, Pal.”
I am not meming.
And it’s not deflecting. I’m not talking about homeless shelters, I am talking about comprehensive, government-funded, public housing (it doesn’t have to be shitty, look at what Finland has done). I am talking about safe injection sites. I am talking about social workers on the ground, every day, making sure that these people have what they need.
YIMBY. Bring it all on.
Finland isn’t real. Fake news.
And yes, I am memeing, but only to drop this little doco re: Finland for the curious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jt_6PBnCJE
Their program is a marvel.
I already have people sleeping next to my house so that would be a huge improvement. YIMBY!
Sure, but I’m in favour of more permanent solution.