Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3sdjpr wrote

I was hoping that clearing the camp without providing homes was the legal violation, but I can’t disagree with removing the trees being a legal violation anyway.

Edit: I guess the downvoters don’t think homeless people should be allowed to continue living.

Yay clearing homeless camps I guess.

Edit: The replies full of “durr let them live in your house then”. Shitty right wing brains can’t understand the difference between “society and government should manage this problem differently” and “You personally should manage this problem all on your own”.

−3

TheSausageKing t1_j3sr44u wrote

Why should a store be on the hook to provide housing for people who squat on its land?

They can continue living, just not on someone else's land.

15

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3srkr0 wrote

It was unused ground between the parking lot and the river. How does that impact the store?

What land would you propose? What land is not “someone else’s”?

−8

TheSausageKing t1_j3stp30 wrote

So you’re ok if they camp in your house?

6

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3surgq wrote

My house is not comparable to an unused space between a parking lot and a river. Think more clearly.

I’ll ask again: what land would you propose?

2

TheSausageKing t1_j3sw606 wrote

Your house is even better than a parking lot: it has a roof, bathroom, and is heated.

Why are you objecting?

8

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3syrfp wrote

I’m fully aware you understand that my security is at risk if random people live in my house but Walmart’s security is not at risk if they live next to the parking lot. There’s also an issue of physical space. My residence is 800 sq. feet.

I’m also a person, not a massively wealthy corporation with many thousands of acres of land - and they were not using this land.

3rd time I’ll ask: what land do you propose? Until you propose some land I will maintain my understanding that you don’t think they should be able to live.

0

TheSausageKing t1_j3taxl9 wrote

> My residence is 800 sq. feet.

A two person tent is only 35 sq ft. That's 4% of your place. You have plenty of room. You just don't think they should be able to live.

6

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tb4f6 wrote

In my residence, no. Yes. I think they should be able to live on unused property or public property.

But you are unwilling to name any place where they can live.

Fourth time I’ll ask you. If not “on someone else’s property” then where?

1

Cheap_Coffee t1_j3tfpo5 wrote

He did propose some land. Your house. What's the objection? C'mon, put your money where your mouth is.

6

jp_jellyroll t1_j3thq9t wrote

Let them sleep in your backyard, NIMBY.

6

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3thzrr wrote

I don’t have one.

I would be fine with my landlord letting them sleep in the yard.

Would you?

If not, where?

And how many accounts do you have?

0

jp_jellyroll t1_j3tixzt wrote

This is not an alt account, I am a regular contributor, I just thought it would be a funny joke because "NIMBY" is easily the most mentioned term in this sub and, well, you should let them sleep in your backyard.

Carry on!

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tjavk wrote

I don’t have a backyard and that two of the 4 accounts bothering me with this dumb right-wing brain response are “king” and two are “jelly” has not been missed.

0

jp_jellyroll t1_j3ttxxl wrote

Do you get your tinfoil hats custom-fitted?

Lol, it's just a coincidence, brah. I'm a musician and my username is how to write a G-clef in music -- a J, a P, and a jellyroll.

By the way, did you buy a house with a backyard yet? You gotta let 'em sleep back there.

1

OldKingsHigh t1_j3t0e88 wrote

>I’m fully aware you understand that my security is at risk if random people live in my house but Walmart’s security is not at risk if they live next to the parking lot.

Why would you have security and liability issues from allowing this, but Walmart would not? Walmart is absolutely at risk if people are living on their property, and they continue to allow them to do so.

What happens if someone gets into a fight? Overdoses? Trips and falls into the river? Propane stove catches a tent on fire? Someone trips over a tent?

We absolutely have an issue with homelessness, but that’s a problem for society not a problem for a particular commercial business.

>3rd time I’ll ask: what land do you propose?

No one is answering this, because it’s not a relevant question for Walmart to answer. It’s a question for society and their governments to answer.

3

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3t0xd3 wrote

Because they were not actually in the house with the Walmart workers while the Walmart workers slept. WTF?

And it’s a relevant question for the “not on land owned by someone else” reply.

What land then?

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3t1oex wrote

>I’m fully aware you understand that my security is at risk if random people live in my house but Walmart’s security is not at risk if they live next to the parking lot.

Why would you have security and liability issues from allowing a group to live on your property, but Walmart would not? Walmart is absolutely at risk if people are living on their property, and they continue to allow them to do so.

What happens if someone gets into a fight? Overdoses? Trips and falls into the river? Propane stove catches a tent on fire? Someone trips over a tent?

We absolutely have an issue with homelessness, but that’s a problem for society not a problem for a particular commercial business.

>3rd time I’ll ask: what land do you propose?

No one is answering this, because it’s not a relevant question for Walmart to answer. It’s a question for society and their governments to answer.

3

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3t2atq wrote

Because they were not actually in the house with the Walmart workers while the Walmart workers slept. WTF?

And it’s a relevant question for the “not on land owned by someone else” reply.

ALL LAND IS OWNED BT SOMEONE ELSE.

What land then?

−1

OldKingsHigh t1_j3t45bg wrote

>Because they were not actually in the house with the Walmart workers while the Walmart workers slept. WTF?

What part of my comment is contingent of them living inside the building? There is liability from allowing groups of people to set up structures on your property, both indoors and outdoors.

You would have liability if this was in your backyard.

>What land?

I love the idea of using tax dollars to buy office buildings that are unused because of the flip to remote work to be used for temporary assistive housing to help people transition into being homed. Not on Walmart’s landlords dime though beyond their share of tax dollars.

(Deleted and re-sybmitted since I replied to the wrong comment)

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3t5ltk wrote

I’m fully aware you understand that my security is at risk if random people live in my house but Walmart’s security is not at risk if they live next to the parking lot.

Why would you have security and liability issues from allowing this, but Walmart would not?

If you can’t see the difference between me and my daughter sharing our 800 sq feet of domicile with strangers and people sleeping on unused land between a parking lot and a river, I can’t help you.

It’s illegal in Worcester to sleep on public land.

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3t7cyg wrote

I didn’t suggest they live inside your home.

I simply said that the property owner has liability, and that it’s weird you’re worried about your security/liability, but expect them to be someone else’s security/liability.

This is literally NIMBY; not in my backyard.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3t9h19 wrote

You seem to be admitting you are this person who literally suggested they live in my house.

https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/108h6qb/worcester_walmart_violated_ma_law_after_homeless/j3stp30/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

And yes, I have a screenshot. Don’t edit it now.

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3tdaqk wrote

What did I say that made you reach that conclusion?

I have no idea who that person is, nor why you would think I’m admitting to be that person.

Go re-read my comment and let me know.

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tdehi wrote

Because you referred to the person who made the assertion as ‘I’.

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3te6r1 wrote

Crazy thought, ever considered that I was referring to myself as I?

As in, reminding you that I wasn’t the one who suggested they live in your house.

>I didn’t suggest they live inside your home.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tfvms wrote

You replied to me about my reply to your other account. The whole context was them living in my house.

That was what you challenged me on with your question about my security vs Walmarts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/massachusetts/comments/108h6qb/worcester_walmart_violated_ma_law_after_homeless/j3stp30/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3tm125 wrote

No I didn’t.

I quoted part of your comment and asked you a follow up question related to that quoted piece. In my response I directly stated “on your property” not anything to do with in your house. See my original response to you,

> I’m fully aware you understand that my security is at risk if random people live in my house but Walmart’s security is not at risk if they live next to the parking lot.

>Why would you have security and liability issues from allowing a group to live on your property, but Walmart would not? Walmart is absolutely at risk if people are living on their property, and they continue to allow them to do so.

I have never suggested they live in your house, nor have I suggested that is equivalent. I simply asked why you cared about your liability while ignoring the liability on the Walmart property.

I still have no idea why you think the person you keep linking is me, is your tin foil hat too tight? Or is it just easier to blame that instead of addressing what I said?

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tmlp0 wrote

My response, which you quoted, was in the context of them living in my house. That was clear from the exchange.

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3toqs6 wrote

Yes, and? Are we not allowed to deviate from what you and the other commenters were discussing? The conversation can’t flow from that topic?

You were clearly not caring about anyone else’s security or liability other than your own, so I addressed that with a better example.

My response, which I quoted, was in the context of them living on your property. That was clear from the response.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tpokq wrote

The questions you asked me were within the established context. I never said that homeless people should not sleep in my yard.

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3tqsng wrote

And that context can never change? u/LetMeSleepNoEleven declares the context parameters for all future comments? No one can post to a public forum under you if they don’t follow your rules? Of course not.

I know you never said they shouldn’t sleep in your yard, which is why I specifically mentioned “on your property” to make that abundantly clear, which you also had an issue with.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tspro wrote

It could change but it had not.

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3tv4hf wrote

Too busy trying to convince me I’m actually two people to read my comment and see the change?

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tvdsf wrote

It did not change. I said what I said, which you quoted, and it had nothing to do with people being in my yard. If you missed that context, it’s on you.

If you wanted to change the topic, you should not have quoted me from the existing topic.

0

OldKingsHigh t1_j3ty6y1 wrote

It did change. I said what I said, and it had nothing to do with people being in my your house. I then clarified that no less than three times. If you missed that context, it’s on you.

0

[deleted] t1_j3t2xws wrote

[deleted]

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3t3ekp wrote

> I’m fully aware you understand that my security is at risk if random people live in my house but Walmart’s security is not at risk if they live next to the parking lot.

> Why would you have security and liability issues from allowing this, but Walmart would not?

If you can’t see the difference between me and my daughter sharing our 800 sq feet of domicile with strangers and people sleeping on unused land between a parking lot and a river, I can’t help you.

It’s illegal in Worcester to sleep on public land.

0

RevengencerAlf t1_j3t0h0e wrote

Like literally every other private property dispute the answer is "not this land." I have undeveloped land behind my house. It's still my property. I like having a nice buffer of woods for wildlife that keeps my yard quiet. I too would seek to evict someone living in that space, not the least of which being the fact that once I know they are living there, my choices are either 1) evict them, 2) acknowledge they are living there and quietly allow them to, starting the clock on squatter's rights, or 3) acknowledge they are living there and explicitly allow them to, potentially taking legal responsibility for both their safety and any safety issues they pose to my customers.

3

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3t1de6 wrote

The person above said “not on someone else’s land”.

ALL LAND IS SOMEONE ELSE’S. So if they are not dead, where do they go?

0

Cheap_Coffee t1_j3tflq8 wrote

I keep hearing a faint echo of NIMBY....

4

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tgewo wrote

My house is not my backyard.

I keep hearing hideous people who think homeless people don’t have a right to a space to live.

1

Cheap_Coffee t1_j3tnxz0 wrote

Yourself among them.

3

Chappy_Sinclair_ t1_j3tya06 wrote

How about your couch?

3

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3u3ppl wrote

Here comes right-wing brain #6 - “you don’t really want society to do something about this problem if you won’t solve it all by yourself”.

I can’t by the way, but I’d be glad for them to sleep in my yard.

1

RevengencerAlf t1_j3szz3u wrote

While I'm not necessarily on the store's side here, if it was their property they have every right to dictate how it gets used, and they, like anyone else, has the property right to buy adjoining land and use it to improve the quality of use of their current land. When your neighbor moves out you can 100% buy the neighbor's house if you want just to control who lives next to you. You can even, as long as you follow the proper environmental and demolition laws, raze the house and replant trees, and yes you can kick anyone off that land your heart so desires.

Homeless issues aside (personally I'd rather they not do this) , it's reasonable for a business to keep wildland it owns clear to prevent loitering just the same as they could kick them out of the actual parking lot. they probably think it prevents crime and creates a perceived nicer/safer environment for customers. Maybe they're right, maybe they aren't, but it is, objectively, their choice to determine that and do so.

6

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3t0qpm wrote

What land do you propose? The person above says no land that is owned. So what land?

−4

RevengencerAlf t1_j3t2qau wrote

I've never been in a town or city without public land.

Regardless, the real issue is that there should be publicly funded programs in place to make sure everyone has some sort of housing but that's not any individual landowners problem. Everyone who has paid for their property has the quite understandable right to say "not here."

6

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3t2zz8 wrote

Public land is owned and Worcester bans encampments on public land and MassDOT owned some of the land they were cleared off of in this instance.

2

RevengencerAlf t1_j3t381d wrote

Sounds like those are the parties you actually have a problem with in this instance. Vs private entities exerting their directly entitled property rights (which Wal-Mart didn't even do in this case because the camp was cleared by the city with no apparent involvement from them because they didn't want a homeless camp near a different project).

3

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3t3rfj wrote

I have a problem with the voters of Worcester, with MassDOT, with Walmart, with the Worcester government, with the MA state government, with the US federal government, and with several commenters here, including you.

They blocked.

> Oh no a random nobody on reddit who can't accomplish anything more than impotently bitch on social media has a problem with me whatever shall I do.

> I don't know if you have any responsible adults to tell you this but downvoting people on the internet doesn't make you right nor does it make you any less unmoored from reality.

I’m enough moored to reality that I can think outside the frame I was trained to look through, unlike you.

And I guess you were upset enough to block.

0

RevengencerAlf t1_j3t4ckc wrote

Oh no a random nobody on reddit who can't accomplish anything more than impotently bitch on social media has a problem with me whatever shall I do.

I don't know if you have any responsible adults to tell you this but downvoting people on the internet doesn't make you right nor does it make you any less unmoored from reality any more than theorizing on true crime subs will make you a criminologist.

​

But you know, hopefully since you care so much you use your spare time and any discretionary income you have to feed and house others.

3

Cheap_Coffee t1_j3tfhrf wrote

>I have a problem with the voters of Worcester

Don't you hate it when other people disagree with you?

2

Cheap_Coffee t1_j3tf7m9 wrote

You could volunteer yours.

5

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tg1yj wrote

That is someone else’s. What property would you propose that is not someone else’s?

You people are really awful.

3

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_j3tp5x3 wrote

>What land would you propose? What land is not “someone else’s”?

If those people were willing to become sober, there are plenty of places that would take them in.

They decided not to be sober, so they need to find a place that can accommodate them.

Is it OK for homeless people to pollute that river?

1

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tpu7v wrote

“Willing to become sober”.

  1. Prove this.
  2. That’s not just a matter of a simple decision.
  3. So what if they were not?
−1

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_j3tqtg7 wrote

>“Willing to become sober”. > >1. Prove this.

Ok, can you list the requirements for the homeless shelters around that area?

>2. That’s not just a matter of a simple decision.

It is though.

>3. So what if they were not?

As we have witnessed, they are not allowed in the homeless shelters (for safety reasons).

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tt33x wrote

  1. That homeless shelters have that rule, among several, is not evidence that these individuals were not in the shelters because of that rule.

  2. Medically, no. It is not.

  3. Bad rule but as we have seen, irrelevant unless you can prove that’s the issue.

But also, where then should they go?

1

-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_j3tyg4b wrote

So you are willing to make excuses for every action of these individuals.

Do you believe there should be no effort to live?

4

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3u3ugl wrote

You don’t know the actions of those individuals and their actions are not relevant.

1

thatguyonreddit40 t1_j3sqe6o wrote

If we clear the camps the people just go away! Right?

7

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3svw5v wrote

Evidently the theory of some. One person telling me they can’t “be on someone else’s land”. What land in the US is NOT “someone else’s”? My guess is there is literally not a single spot of land in this country that is not owned.

3

Twombls t1_j3swvho wrote

Public land.

Town, state, city, and federal land is where most homless encampments tend to pop up.

3

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3szy90 wrote

If you propose allowing them to stay on public land, I support that. But many locales don’t allow that. In this case they were also cleared off of MassDOT land and Worcester does not permit encamping on public lands.

Edit: This space seems about as out-of-the-way as any in Worcester. Seems Worcester is playing “chase them out of our town. Someone else can deal with it”

1

RevengencerAlf t1_j3t1men wrote

>But many locales don’t allow that

Sounds like you should be looking to change that before making private parties take up that burden and risk.

Property rights don't change just because it's a larger company everyone (including me) hates.

Also, like it or not, if even once, a person from this camp causes an incident with a customer in the parking lot, or even just with someone else at the camp, Wal Mart is at legal risk. Fuck even if the company somehow changes its entire corporate tune and decided out of the charity of their hearts to embrace the plight of the homeless, it doesn't stop someone who gets into an issue, even of their own stupidity, from making a case in court that Wal Mart knew and allowed a "hazard" to customers to develop on their property.

Edit: lol I "understand the point" just fine. I'm just actually equipped to function in the real world and don't just live in a fantasy I've crafted in my head like you.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3t20wd wrote

I definitely think they should be permitted to be on public land.

You keep lecturing me but not understanding the point. So stop please.

−2

Plants_Golf_Cooking t1_j3vzts1 wrote

Since when did public land have all the infrastructure needed to keep those public spaces clean from their waste and garbage? The park in down the street has a single port-a-potty. If a homeless camp grew in the park you think the bums won’t just relieve themselves in said park? There is also something to be said about being a public eye-sore.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3x2vjv wrote

That a public eye-sore is more of a matter to you than peoples’ lives is all I need to know. Thanks for playing.

1

SLEEyawnPY t1_j3uh76j wrote

Tenessee is ahead of the curve, the first state to make camping on local public land a felony, in addition to state land.

Being homeless is de-facto illegal in Tennessee at this point. Expect other states & cities to follow suit.

>The felony charge is punishable by up to six years in prison and the loss of voting rights.

Anyone want to make any bets on how many years Sam Bankman-Fried will end up doing? Zero is an allowable guess.

1

Plants_Golf_Cooking t1_j3vzfbf wrote

No they are giving you downvotes because of your asinine first comment hoping that clearing the camp w/o providing homes was the legal violation and then your weak-ass cover up of “you guys are missing the point”. You were totally fine with there being legal ramifications if someone else cleared the homeless from their property, but when prompted with the possibility of you being the one with squatters on your property it becomes a totally different issue. The downvotes are because you are a disingenuous moron, not because you are a bleeding-heart fool.

0

LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3x2qms wrote

Yes. There should be legal ramifications for the camp to be cleared without an alternative home for them already prepared.

1