(Wellll, that depends on how you define progressive. Reasonably large Canadian urban centre, yes, but in Alberta.)
But on a practical, day-to-day level, public libraries are always short on resources. And I don't think that said resources would be best used trying to duplicate the work the shelters and other organizations do. (Like installing showers.)
For sure though, providing free internet, access to newspapers, online resources, alternative media, adaptive technology, free workshops on job hunting and resumes, and staff members aware of community resources outside the library--everything from local women's shelters to scholarship programs. Most everything I've mentioned is well within the mandate of public library.
And the Sandy Berman article is very idealistic. It's an incredible balancing act to meet all the needs of most library's wide range of user populations, especially on a limited budget. (Teens, seniors, ESL, people with mobility issues, visually impaired, deaf or hearing disabilities, text illiteracy, computer illiteracy, and yes, the homeless population, to name a few.)
But I don't think libraries should be doing is specifically target "undesirables" with their policies, which is what Houston seems to be trying to do. Especially because it cuts off people with next to no resources. And I think it is a question of courtesy--ask someone to leave when they're actually being disruptive instead of making generalizations and setting up barriers to access.
no subject
But on a practical, day-to-day level, public libraries are always short on resources. And I don't think that said resources would be best used trying to duplicate the work the shelters and other organizations do. (Like installing showers.)
For sure though, providing free internet, access to newspapers, online resources, alternative media, adaptive technology, free workshops on job hunting and resumes, and staff members aware of community resources outside the library--everything from local women's shelters to scholarship programs. Most everything I've mentioned is well within the mandate of public library.
And the Sandy Berman article is very idealistic. It's an incredible balancing act to meet all the needs of most library's wide range of user populations, especially on a limited budget. (Teens, seniors, ESL, people with mobility issues, visually impaired, deaf or hearing disabilities, text illiteracy, computer illiteracy, and yes, the homeless population, to name a few.)
But I don't think libraries should be doing is specifically target "undesirables" with their policies, which is what Houston seems to be trying to do. Especially because it cuts off people with next to no resources. And I think it is a question of courtesy--ask someone to leave when they're actually being disruptive instead of making generalizations and setting up barriers to access.