Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RevengencerAlf t1_j3szz3u wrote

Reply to comment by LetMeSleepNoEleven in Worcester Walmart violated MA law after homeless camp clearing by HRJafael

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