Every day I start to believe more and more that people won't stop with homelessness until every homeless person is dead. "Emergency housing is a drain on taxpayer dollars." "Job placement is taking jobs away from locals." "Soup kitchens are another drain on taxpayer money." "Homeless services are a waste of money." It makes me sick how people can act when it comes to the homeless population when so many of us are jus…
Library wifi is not a homeless service. An 24 hour open seat on a subway is not a homeless service. Parks where children play is not a homeless service. Public goods being overtaken by an antisocial drug users in the name of homeless support is not progressive.
San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it
101–110 of 184 posts
Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's reasonable for people have access to public services. If you turn every public service--sidewalks, parks, libraries, public transit--into something unusable because it's really an ersatz homeless shelter, there's an entirely expected response: people cease to use those services, because they're not really public anymore. And then people either vote to cut funding for those services, or they defund with their fee…
Call me a radical but I think human beings without homes are a higher priority than paying 10s or 100s of millions of dollars a year to build a new park or pave a road.
Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair there's gotta be a more cost-effective place to house the unhoused than the Castro, West Village or Beverly Hills. I'm sure we can find cheaper stretches of land somewhere in the US.
To be fair... "Go somewhere that rich people aren't" isn't much of a solution.
Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Library wifi is not a homeless service. An 24 hour open seat on a subway is not a homeless service. Parks where children play is not a homeless service. Public goods being overtaken by an antisocial drug users in the name of homeless support is not progressive.
Library Wi-Fi is supposed to be a service for everybody , unless I am missing something.
Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
in hopes the Castro neighborhood’s unhoused population would move on. We really need to implement solutions better than "go be homeless somewhere else."
In NYC the DHS intakes and beds 60,000 homeless people _every single night_. To say that there aren't solutions in place is incorrect. At least in NYC, the folks you see sleeping on sidewalks have broadly chosen that position over a bed in a shelter. It's a point of pride for many New Yorkers that if you're homeless and willing to get clean, the city will provide a bed for you every night. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/…
Sounds reasonable. Then you hear the nuance. A shelter bed was always "available" because one religious shelter would say that one was always "available" even if it didn't in fact exist, and in order to stay there, even if it was, you were required to participate in compulsory religious events multiple times per day.
The gist of the argument was that, among other concerns, Boise was effectively giving the homeless a choice between jail or forced religious indoctrination.
Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why segregate an existing service that's already meant for everyone? Would we need another wifi network for Veterans and yet another for retirees?
> Why segregate a service that's already meant for everyone? Because one group denies it to others. In New York, the potent image is that of a homeless person obviously going through a mental health issue, who hasn’t bathed in what smells like weeks, sitting in a subway car on their own. (When I was younger and naïve, I went into one such car and tried to talk to them. I had a handful of what I’ll pretend was a smell…
Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why segregate a service that's already meant for everyone? Because one group denies it to others. In New York, the potent image is that of a homeless person obviously going through a mental health issue, who hasn’t bathed in what smells like weeks, sitting in a subway car on their own. (When I was younger and naïve, I went into one such car and tried to talk to them. I had a handful of what I’ll pretend was a smell…
How about shoring up the social safety net like other developed countries? The length at which Americans go to ignore the homeless (until they are in close physical proximity) is astounding. And most "solutions" are to keep the homeless out of sight without doing anything about their circumstances.
Genuinely curious: how is the mental-health and drug addiction nexus dealt with when one has an unwilling participant?
Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it
#108As is typical with SF stories about homelessness. This article either seems misinformed about the facts on the ground, or can't seem to wrap its head around the fact that SF goes above and beyond to support the folks living on the streets here.
---
Issue 1: Redundancy. The article seems to completely ignore the SFWiFi program that exists along Market St, and in nearly all public parks: https://sfgov.org/sfc/sites/default/files/San%20Francisco%20...
Here, using the Eureka Valley (Castro) library wifi is fairly redundant, as the library is 250 feet from Market street. Most of the folks I see on the street in the immediate area (north side of 16th) should be able to access #SFWiFi where they are.
---
Issue 2: Location. The area directly adjacent to the library in question is very tight, and very, very residential. Pond St and Prosper St which flank the library can best be described as residential allies. They are tiny, quite streets, with narrow sidewalks. It would be pretty unreasonable that folks staying up using the wifi on these streets wouldn't be a non-negligible disturbance to the residents there. https://goo.gl/maps/UYsq79P5WXfhCJ8m8
The area where I do see people regularly congregate at night are on the north side of the street directly west of Dinosaur Sandwiches. I know this because I live by the panhandle, and this my preferred walk back on nights I'm out to late in the mission. The encampments in this location can range from small to making-the-sidewalk-impassible, but generally speaking, I could see how the noise could be an issue for the people on Pond St.
---
Issue 3: Crime. This quote from the story piqued my interest:
>Legislative aide Jackie Thornhill told The Verge in an email that “obviously the presence or lack of all night wifi isn’t going to make a huge difference on its own,” but she believes it’s one of many reasons the library is so attractive to criminal activity. Thornhill also sent a spreadsheet of 911 calls that she says shows crime has been down for the last nine months.
I have personally witnessed multiple actual drug deals go down inside this library. I brought it up with the staff there, and they basically shrugged with a "it sucks, but what are you going to do?" It's the only library that I've witnessed actually crimes happening while I worked. Which is saying something, as I am a bit of a SF library fan, as I work for myself doing computery things. Even the civic center library, with all it's eccentricity seems to not be dealing with the issues that the eureka valley library is. (Aside: the best library in town is the UCSF Parnassus library, however it has been closed to the public since the start of covid)
---
In all, this article seems to be a classic case of well meaning, but probably mostly uninformed blog-as-journalism writers putting together a story weighted to find outrage where it may or may not actually exist.
Do I think turning the WiFi off is a good thing? Probably not. Do I understand why local residents are calling for it? Sure. If I actually knew if late night noise, (with a generous) etc, have become a problem, I'd probably support them.
Do I think turning the WiFi off is some sort of huge problem for folks living on the street? No. There is easy access to public WiFi within a block of there. So much so that I've turned off auto-join #SFWiFi from my phone because it can have a weak signal an interrupt my browsing-on-foot all over the city.
Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it
#109"No porn for you" Probably some dumbass in the department that came up with this agenda. Okay, what is that going to solve? Maybe, just maybe come up with a plan to help these folks instead of kicking them down even further. I love it when politicians flex with "We are the greatest country on earth" STFU. You are not. Take care of your people.
What else do you recommend a library do (within their limited budget), while also solving the issue that these encampments are making the library unsafe and dirty?
Re: San Francisco library turning off WiFi at night to keep homeless from using it
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair... "Go somewhere that rich people aren't" isn't much of a solution.
If the average home in San Francisco sells for $1.2 million, and the average home in Willard, New Mexico sells for $120,000 is it really so dreadful to help ten times as many homeless people?
... in a town of 250 people, where nearly a third of the population lives below the poverty line.
The ONLY people that benefits is the residents of SF or wherever, that successfully managed to "make it someone else's problem".