Submitted by HRJafael t3_108h6qb in massachusetts
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3t0xd3 wrote
Reply to comment by OldKingsHigh in Worcester Walmart violated MA law after homeless camp clearing by HRJafael
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?
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3t9h19 wrote
You seem to be admitting you are this person who literally suggested they live in my house.
And yes, I have a screenshot. Don’t edit it now.
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.
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tdehi wrote
Because you referred to the person who made the assertion as ‘I’.
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.
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.
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?
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.
[deleted] t1_j3to5v7 wrote
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3tspro wrote
It could change but it had not.
OldKingsHigh t1_j3tv4hf wrote
Too busy trying to convince me I’m actually two people to read my comment and see the change?
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.
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.
LetMeSleepNoEleven t1_j3u3jc4 wrote
Nope. You quoted me. Thus you continued the context of my reply.
[deleted] t1_j3t2xws wrote
[deleted]
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments