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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.