5 ms·

I lived next to a mom and pop store, not grocery, selling crystals and such. The owner of the store allowed a homeless camp on the store's lot. City could not c

I lived next to a mom and pop store, not grocery, selling crystals and such. The owner of the store allowed a homeless camp on the store's lot. City could not clean it out because it's on a private property. The closest tent was less than 50' from my bedroom. The homeless fought, burned stuff, blasted music and hopped over 8' fence into my backyard to help themselves with anything they found there. Store owner was not bothered perhaps because during the day the homeless wondered off, perhaps he just liked them. The police did not do anything, would not even come over noise complaints. Would you like to live like this?

Nevermark 9mo ago
The fact that the problem happened at a store, didn't make the store itself the problem. Any more than the problem of loud neighbors, is a problem of having neighbors.
- pandaman 9mo ago
  It's a problem of people owning non-residential property next to residential. I am against that, not just stores but the comment I responded to asked about stores specifically.
  - oblio 9mo ago
    If a house near you were abandoned, could you do something about it?
    - pandaman 9mo ago
      Perhaps, but how is it relevant? I responded to a question of what are possible downsides of a mom and pop store next to your house.
      - oblio 9mo ago
        Everything has a downside. The American approach is to take the absolute worst possible outcome and plaster it over any average scenario.
        pandaman 9mo ago
        >Everything has a downside. Well, you should probably respond to the person who could not figure any downsides of a mom and pop store in a residential neighborhood because I am well aware of the downsides.
  - brailsafe 9mo ago
    Seems like this is just an extension of any other dispute, and failure to resolve conflict between neighbors, perhaps due to lack of community cohesion between the store owner and yourself or others. This is the nature of living, and if there are problems, we should have ways to resolve it without crazy blanket rules like no commercial next to residential. The failure is in the reasons become homeless and in responding to people who actively disrupt the peace and intrude, not the existence of a store. It's not just that it's not a fundamental characteristic of stores, but it's also not a fundamental characteristic of homeless people, it's just a characteristic of these homeless people and this store. Depending on the type of store, I'd grant you that other issues could have arisen, such as rodents, smells, etc.. but also any other neighbor could be hosting parties, smoking near your window, leaving debris around. In some cases, you either need to accept it, adapt, or find somewhere else to live. I had a neighbor in the burbs growing up that didn't like the way we behaved on our property, or how it looked, and stuck her nose in and intruded frequently, often threatening to call the police for all sorts of absurd reasons.
  - jaredklewis 9mo ago
    What if a neighbor allowed homeless to camp in front of their house? Seems like the issue is the store owner (i.e. the neighbor), not the fact that it is a store. When I lived in Houston I used to jog past a house where the front yard was absolutely covered in garbage. Super nice neighborhood and all the houses in the neighborhood looked great, but just this one guy clearly had issues. It smelled horrendous. Anyway, seems unrelated to it being a store.
    - pandaman 9mo ago
      >What if a neighbor allowed homeless to camp in front of their house? People keep writing this, obviously, without thinking even for a minute. A neighbor who allowed homeless camp in front of their house would: 1) have to live behind a homeless camp himself 2) be tanking his own house value 3) be open to sanctions from the code as there are way more restrictions on residential property use than there are on commercial. >When I lived in Houston Your experience in Houston, where there is no zoning, is not very irrelevant in discussion of zoning, don't you think? Unless you are actually making an example why zoning is important, of course.
      - jaredklewis 9mo ago
        It’s the same man. 1) the business owner has to operate a business behind the camp 2) the business owner tanks the value of their own property 3) what code? The building code? If we can apply a “code” to a home, then we can apply it to a business. So if there really is such a disparity where you live, the issue is that disparity in application of building codes, not zoning laws. Re: Houston, what does zoning have to do with anything? My story could have happened i”anywhere. Zoning doesn’t control whether you are allowed to cover your property with trash. My point is that even in an area with nothing but houses, you can have horrendous neighbors.
        pandaman 9mo ago
        >It’s the same man. Not at all. There are tons of businesses next to homeless camps in every American city, and the value of a business is not in the building but in the location and zoning, the code is the city code attached to zoning, the thing you don't have in Huston. The zoning for a residential and commercial is different thus you cannot apply residential zoning to commercial and vice versa.
  - idontwantthis 9mo ago
    I live next door to some drunks who party all night. If that house were a store it would be locked up and empty after 10pm. This is a problem of people owning residential property next to residential.
  - lovich 9mo ago
    I mean yea, youre a nimby then. I am against your views because it increases the price of living for everyone, for your own specific benefit.
    - pandaman 9mo ago
      My own specific benefit as sleeping at night, wow, I sure feel bad now, thank you kind redditor for opening my eyes!
      - lovich 9mo ago
        Yes, and you are the reason everytime I went to buy a house in the neighborhood I was renting in, the value doubled. If you want to be selfish feel free to be openly selfish, but don't be surprised when people like me respond in kind. I am down for property taxes 10xing to fund building homes because of people like you. >My own specific benefit as sleeping at night... invest in ear plugs
        pandaman 9mo ago
        I don't see anything wrong with being selfish but your comment still made me giggle: you want me to bend over to provide your specific benefit or you will call me bad words.
        lovich 9mo ago
        > I don't see anything wrong with being selfish… I already said you were a nimby, no need to reiterate my position
        pandaman 9mo ago
        I see, the whole point of you being selfish flew over your head.
      - hypeatei 9mo ago
        Very specific problem to me = zoning laws and higher prices for everyone. You could be a victim of crystal stores allowing homeless camps on their lot, act now!
margalabargala 9mo ago
Could you clarify why it is important to your point that the neglectful property owners next door, owned a store rather than a house or vacant lot?
- pandaman 9mo ago
  It was not neglected, it was an functioning store. I doubt someone would do the same with their house, an empty lot is also a concern.
  - margalabargala 9mo ago
    Why do you doubt it? Sounds like the owner didn't care. If it was a house, what would be different?
    - strken 9mo ago
      Spending 7am to 7pm next to a homeless encampment isn't the same as sleeping next to it, or letting your wife and kids sleep next to it. Although in this instance I think NIMBYism is less useful than having functioning local government, police, and homeless services.
    - pandaman 9mo ago
      Because the owner didn't live in his store he could afford not to care.
  - NOGoddess 9mo ago
    Ah, but my old landlord did exactly this, with the back yard of his home and the lot behind it, which once upon a time held his first home. Until the city tore it down for neglect, at which point it became a vacant lot - that he still owned. Largely with the assistance of his unofficial husband, who’d moved into the backyard, partly due to them no longer getting along so well, and partly due to the house becoming overrun with their hoarder tendencies. Said unofficial husband was dealing drugs out of the backyard, and, as time passed, the backyard, followed by the vacant lot behind - for some unknown reason referred to as “the sand lot” became home to numerous homeless junkies. It became a rodent infested, trash filled, needle strewn nightmare, abhorred by the neighborhood. The landlord, bless his heart, was, once upon a time, a sweet, naive, hippy, and very talented artisan. Until “someone” introduced him to meth, and it all went downhill from there. He remained a kind soul - and unable to say no to anyone, even when he could no longer stand the situation himself, and knew he was close to losing his remaining house. Well, actually, he’d started trying to by the end, with our help; we were happy to play the role of “the bad guys” so he didn’t have to. But it was too late, someone gave him a hotshot (meth and heroin) and that was the end of all that. (Who were/are we? My partner and I rented the other half of his house in March 2020. It was rundown, but cheap, and we were still getting back on our feet after my partner spent several months in the hospital with bacterial pneumonia and we ended up quasi-homeless. We knew the landlord and his unofficial husband from many many years earlier, long before all the nonsense began, and were in a hurry to find a new place so we did not do our due diligence. Didn’t take long to figure out the hell we’d landed in, but thanks to that little pandemic that started around the same time, it became impossible to move.) So, yes, people have done that with their house.
Teever 9mo ago
It's unfortunate that you have had that terrible experience and that the legal system in your location failed you. I'm not sure however that there's anything to indicate that mom and pop stores are especially susceptible to these kinds of outcomes. It sounds more like you got a case of shitty neighbour which is possible whether or not the neighbour is a commercial lot or a small home. If your negative experience had been with a neighbour living in a private home instead of a neighbour who owned a small business would that change your view around the matter of zoning for small businesses in residential neighbourhoods?
kipukun 9mo ago
You realize homes are also private property right? You can have a shitty neighbor like the one described that is also enabled by the fact that they're in their own home. That doesn't justify what they're doing, but your argument against stores as "private property" doesn't hold water.
- pandaman 9mo ago
  I could, but most people, even the ones who advocate for "homeless rights" don't want to live in a homeless camp. They are fine with letting others though.
vjvjvjvjghv 9mo ago
I don’t think it’s a common pattern for mom and pop stores to have a homeless camp on their lot.
- pandaman 9mo ago
  Neither do I, yet it's a much higher probability with a commercial property vs residential.
  - ajam1507 9mo ago
    The probability is exactly 0% if the city doesn't allow it. This has nothing to do with zoning. If it was a house next door allowing a homeless encampment would you conclude that having houses next to other houses should be disallowed?
    - pandaman 9mo ago
      But the city allows it. And it has everything to do with zoning. If it was a house next door allowing a homeless encampment the owner would be paying fines, at least, not to mention he would be living in a homeless camp, which is not something most homeowners are eager to do.
      - ajam1507 9mo ago
        > If it was a house next door allowing a homeless encampment the owner would be paying fines I don't see why this is to be expected, but a business shouldn't expect to pay a fine >not to mention he would be living in a homeless camp, which is not something most homeowners are eager to do. Again, most business owners are not eager to do this either. You've told an anecdote that doesn't support your argument because it's not common (an understatement) for businesses to be a homeless camp, so to use that as an argument for why someone wouldn't want to live next to a business is ridiculous.
        pandaman 9mo ago
danny_codes 9mo ago
This seems like a wildly specifically bad outcome.. I’m a bit confused why your city allows this? You can call the cops on owners for noise violations, unsafe conditions, etc, etc. Having lived in a dense walkable place with plentiful stores mingled with residential housing, I can say I’ve never seen that particular problem before.
- pandaman 9mo ago
  You are not from the US, are you? The government of big cities here is taken over by people who believe the society we have is to be dismantled.
  - danny_codes 9mo ago
    I live in a big city and have not had this experience whatsoever. The most damaging policies I’ve encountered are a direct byproduct of NIMBYism
burkaman 9mo ago
I would not like to live like this. I don't believe that relaxed zoning laws would make a situation like this more likely.
alsetmusic 9mo ago
That sounds awful. Did you take them to civil court or explore doing so?
- pandaman 9mo ago
  I did explore it, but there is not much to do without police reports. I had only reports for theft but those were not investigated, could not get noise reports as the cops would not come or come during daytime when the homeless went off the camp.
  - bombcar 9mo ago
    The trick is to report them as being illegal landlords ;) Only half-joking.
    - pandaman 9mo ago
      I had been reporting the property to code every week - it's indeed against the law to allow people to live in a commercial property. The code officer they've sent was unable to find people living on the property each time, she said that the people hanging around the property are just guests of the of the owner and don't live there.
ryandrake 9mo ago
Did you talk to the store owner about the problem?
seanmcdirmid 9mo ago
The city should have gone after the property owner, they are responsible for any encampments on their property, and nuisance is definitely included in that, even here in liberal Seattle, and let’s not get into liability (your fire insurance has to cover them, so your insurance company gets involved and jacks your rates up really high). So in Seattle if they setup on private property, the property owner is in big trouble, so they mostly setup on public land.
danaris 9mo ago
What you don't seem to see is that the problem is not the fact that the shop owner let the homeless people stay there. The problem is the fact that those people were homeless to begin with. So many people like you seem to just accept the idea that there will always be homeless people—you just don't want to have to see them. Ideally, they should just go die, and decrease the surplus population, right? At least that way they won't be bothering you. If a few of them are breaking noise ordinances or stealing stuff and the police won't do anything, then complain to the city about that, not about the fact that the shop owner has the compassion to allow them a place to exist. And if you actually want there to be fewer homeless people overall......then maybe, just maybe, you might have to accept fewer zoning regulations that raise the price of housing.
- pandaman 9mo ago
  Why would you think that I don't see that the homeless are a problem? They are a huge problem and I don't really care what happens to them just as they don't care what happens to me but yes, they should not be allowed to camp on the streets in my city.
  - danaris 9mo ago
    Where do you think they should go, then? Are you willing to see the city pay to house them? Because otherwise, you're basically saying "I don't think the fact that they're homeless is a problem; I think the fact that I have to see them be homeless is a problem."
    - pandaman 9mo ago
      Wherever it's legal for them to do what they do. In my city it's illegal to camp on the streets. And yes, I don't think the fact that they are homeless is a problem, the fact that they harass citizens with the permission of the government is.
      - danaris 9mo ago
        So you're really just full on board with the Ebenezer Scrooge "if they would rather die, then let them get on with it!" school of thought, then, huh? It's been a while since I had to break out the I Don't Know How To Tell You You Should Care About Other People; most people at least pretend that they're not absolute moral voids.

Nevermark 9mo ago

The fact that the problem happened at a store, didn't make the store itself the problem. Any more than the problem of loud neighbors, is a problem of having neighbors.

pandaman 9mo ago
It's a problem of people owning non-residential property next to residential. I am against that, not just stores but the comment I responded to asked about stores specifically.
- oblio 9mo ago
  If a house near you were abandoned, could you do something about it?
  - pandaman 9mo ago
    Perhaps, but how is it relevant? I responded to a question of what are possible downsides of a mom and pop store next to your house.
    - oblio 9mo ago
      Everything has a downside. The American approach is to take the absolute worst possible outcome and plaster it over any average scenario.
      - pandaman 9mo ago
        >Everything has a downside. Well, you should probably respond to the person who could not figure any downsides of a mom and pop store in a residential neighborhood because I am well aware of the downsides.
- brailsafe 9mo ago
  Seems like this is just an extension of any other dispute, and failure to resolve conflict between neighbors, perhaps due to lack of community cohesion between the store owner and yourself or others. This is the nature of living, and if there are problems, we should have ways to resolve it without crazy blanket rules like no commercial next to residential. The failure is in the reasons become homeless and in responding to people who actively disrupt the peace and intrude, not the existence of a store. It's not just that it's not a fundamental characteristic of stores, but it's also not a fundamental characteristic of homeless people, it's just a characteristic of these homeless people and this store. Depending on the type of store, I'd grant you that other issues could have arisen, such as rodents, smells, etc.. but also any other neighbor could be hosting parties, smoking near your window, leaving debris around. In some cases, you either need to accept it, adapt, or find somewhere else to live. I had a neighbor in the burbs growing up that didn't like the way we behaved on our property, or how it looked, and stuck her nose in and intruded frequently, often threatening to call the police for all sorts of absurd reasons.
- jaredklewis 9mo ago
  What if a neighbor allowed homeless to camp in front of their house? Seems like the issue is the store owner (i.e. the neighbor), not the fact that it is a store. When I lived in Houston I used to jog past a house where the front yard was absolutely covered in garbage. Super nice neighborhood and all the houses in the neighborhood looked great, but just this one guy clearly had issues. It smelled horrendous. Anyway, seems unrelated to it being a store.
  - pandaman 9mo ago
    >What if a neighbor allowed homeless to camp in front of their house? People keep writing this, obviously, without thinking even for a minute. A neighbor who allowed homeless camp in front of their house would: 1) have to live behind a homeless camp himself 2) be tanking his own house value 3) be open to sanctions from the code as there are way more restrictions on residential property use than there are on commercial. >When I lived in Houston Your experience in Houston, where there is no zoning, is not very irrelevant in discussion of zoning, don't you think? Unless you are actually making an example why zoning is important, of course.
    - jaredklewis 9mo ago
      It’s the same man. 1) the business owner has to operate a business behind the camp 2) the business owner tanks the value of their own property 3) what code? The building code? If we can apply a “code” to a home, then we can apply it to a business. So if there really is such a disparity where you live, the issue is that disparity in application of building codes, not zoning laws. Re: Houston, what does zoning have to do with anything? My story could have happened i”anywhere. Zoning doesn’t control whether you are allowed to cover your property with trash. My point is that even in an area with nothing but houses, you can have horrendous neighbors.
      - pandaman 9mo ago
        >It’s the same man. Not at all. There are tons of businesses next to homeless camps in every American city, and the value of a business is not in the building but in the location and zoning, the code is the city code attached to zoning, the thing you don't have in Huston. The zoning for a residential and commercial is different thus you cannot apply residential zoning to commercial and vice versa.
- idontwantthis 9mo ago
  I live next door to some drunks who party all night. If that house were a store it would be locked up and empty after 10pm. This is a problem of people owning residential property next to residential.
- lovich 9mo ago
  I mean yea, youre a nimby then. I am against your views because it increases the price of living for everyone, for your own specific benefit.
  - pandaman 9mo ago
    My own specific benefit as sleeping at night, wow, I sure feel bad now, thank you kind redditor for opening my eyes!
    - lovich 9mo ago
      Yes, and you are the reason everytime I went to buy a house in the neighborhood I was renting in, the value doubled. If you want to be selfish feel free to be openly selfish, but don't be surprised when people like me respond in kind. I am down for property taxes 10xing to fund building homes because of people like you. >My own specific benefit as sleeping at night... invest in ear plugs
      - pandaman 9mo ago
        I don't see anything wrong with being selfish but your comment still made me giggle: you want me to bend over to provide your specific benefit or you will call me bad words.
        lovich 9mo ago
        > I don't see anything wrong with being selfish… I already said you were a nimby, no need to reiterate my position
        pandaman 9mo ago
        I see, the whole point of you being selfish flew over your head.
    - hypeatei 9mo ago
      Very specific problem to me = zoning laws and higher prices for everyone. You could be a victim of crystal stores allowing homeless camps on their lot, act now!

margalabargala 9mo ago

Could you clarify why it is important to your point that the neglectful property owners next door, owned a store rather than a house or vacant lot?

pandaman 9mo ago
It was not neglected, it was an functioning store. I doubt someone would do the same with their house, an empty lot is also a concern.
- margalabargala 9mo ago
  Why do you doubt it? Sounds like the owner didn't care. If it was a house, what would be different?
  - strken 9mo ago
    Spending 7am to 7pm next to a homeless encampment isn't the same as sleeping next to it, or letting your wife and kids sleep next to it. Although in this instance I think NIMBYism is less useful than having functioning local government, police, and homeless services.
  - pandaman 9mo ago
    Because the owner didn't live in his store he could afford not to care.
- NOGoddess 9mo ago
  Ah, but my old landlord did exactly this, with the back yard of his home and the lot behind it, which once upon a time held his first home. Until the city tore it down for neglect, at which point it became a vacant lot - that he still owned. Largely with the assistance of his unofficial husband, who’d moved into the backyard, partly due to them no longer getting along so well, and partly due to the house becoming overrun with their hoarder tendencies. Said unofficial husband was dealing drugs out of the backyard, and, as time passed, the backyard, followed by the vacant lot behind - for some unknown reason referred to as “the sand lot” became home to numerous homeless junkies. It became a rodent infested, trash filled, needle strewn nightmare, abhorred by the neighborhood. The landlord, bless his heart, was, once upon a time, a sweet, naive, hippy, and very talented artisan. Until “someone” introduced him to meth, and it all went downhill from there. He remained a kind soul - and unable to say no to anyone, even when he could no longer stand the situation himself, and knew he was close to losing his remaining house. Well, actually, he’d started trying to by the end, with our help; we were happy to play the role of “the bad guys” so he didn’t have to. But it was too late, someone gave him a hotshot (meth and heroin) and that was the end of all that. (Who were/are we? My partner and I rented the other half of his house in March 2020. It was rundown, but cheap, and we were still getting back on our feet after my partner spent several months in the hospital with bacterial pneumonia and we ended up quasi-homeless. We knew the landlord and his unofficial husband from many many years earlier, long before all the nonsense began, and were in a hurry to find a new place so we did not do our due diligence. Didn’t take long to figure out the hell we’d landed in, but thanks to that little pandemic that started around the same time, it became impossible to move.) So, yes, people have done that with their house.

Teever 9mo ago

It's unfortunate that you have had that terrible experience and that the legal system in your location failed you. I'm not sure however that there's anything to indicate that mom and pop stores are especially susceptible to these kinds of outcomes. It sounds more like you got a case of shitty neighbour which is possible whether or not the neighbour is a commercial lot or a small home. If your negative experience had been with a neighbour living in a private home instead of a neighbour who owned a small business would that change your view around the matter of zoning for small businesses in residential neighbourhoods?

kipukun 9mo ago

You realize homes are also private property right? You can have a shitty neighbor like the one described that is also enabled by the fact that they're in their own home. That doesn't justify what they're doing, but your argument against stores as "private property" doesn't hold water.

pandaman 9mo ago
I could, but most people, even the ones who advocate for "homeless rights" don't want to live in a homeless camp. They are fine with letting others though.

vjvjvjvjghv 9mo ago

I don’t think it’s a common pattern for mom and pop stores to have a homeless camp on their lot.

pandaman 9mo ago
Neither do I, yet it's a much higher probability with a commercial property vs residential.
- ajam1507 9mo ago
  The probability is exactly 0% if the city doesn't allow it. This has nothing to do with zoning. If it was a house next door allowing a homeless encampment would you conclude that having houses next to other houses should be disallowed?
  - pandaman 9mo ago
    But the city allows it. And it has everything to do with zoning. If it was a house next door allowing a homeless encampment the owner would be paying fines, at least, not to mention he would be living in a homeless camp, which is not something most homeowners are eager to do.
    - ajam1507 9mo ago
      > If it was a house next door allowing a homeless encampment the owner would be paying fines I don't see why this is to be expected, but a business shouldn't expect to pay a fine >not to mention he would be living in a homeless camp, which is not something most homeowners are eager to do. Again, most business owners are not eager to do this either. You've told an anecdote that doesn't support your argument because it's not common (an understatement) for businesses to be a homeless camp, so to use that as an argument for why someone wouldn't want to live next to a business is ridiculous.
      - pandaman 9mo ago

danny_codes 9mo ago

This seems like a wildly specifically bad outcome.. I’m a bit confused why your city allows this? You can call the cops on owners for noise violations, unsafe conditions, etc, etc. Having lived in a dense walkable place with plentiful stores mingled with residential housing, I can say I’ve never seen that particular problem before.

pandaman 9mo ago
You are not from the US, are you? The government of big cities here is taken over by people who believe the society we have is to be dismantled.
- danny_codes 9mo ago
  I live in a big city and have not had this experience whatsoever. The most damaging policies I’ve encountered are a direct byproduct of NIMBYism

burkaman 9mo ago

I would not like to live like this. I don't believe that relaxed zoning laws would make a situation like this more likely.

alsetmusic 9mo ago

That sounds awful. Did you take them to civil court or explore doing so?

pandaman 9mo ago
I did explore it, but there is not much to do without police reports. I had only reports for theft but those were not investigated, could not get noise reports as the cops would not come or come during daytime when the homeless went off the camp.
- bombcar 9mo ago
  The trick is to report them as being illegal landlords ;) Only half-joking.
  - pandaman 9mo ago
    I had been reporting the property to code every week - it's indeed against the law to allow people to live in a commercial property. The code officer they've sent was unable to find people living on the property each time, she said that the people hanging around the property are just guests of the of the owner and don't live there.

ryandrake 9mo ago

Did you talk to the store owner about the problem?

seanmcdirmid 9mo ago

The city should have gone after the property owner, they are responsible for any encampments on their property, and nuisance is definitely included in that, even here in liberal Seattle, and let’s not get into liability (your fire insurance has to cover them, so your insurance company gets involved and jacks your rates up really high). So in Seattle if they setup on private property, the property owner is in big trouble, so they mostly setup on public land.

danaris 9mo ago

What you don't seem to see is that the problem is not the fact that the shop owner let the homeless people stay there. The problem is the fact that those people were homeless to begin with. So many people like you seem to just accept the idea that there will always be homeless people—you just don't want to have to see them. Ideally, they should just go die, and decrease the surplus population, right? At least that way they won't be bothering you. If a few of them are breaking noise ordinances or stealing stuff and the police won't do anything, then complain to the city about that, not about the fact that the shop owner has the compassion to allow them a place to exist. And if you actually want there to be fewer homeless people overall......then maybe, just maybe, you might have to accept fewer zoning regulations that raise the price of housing.

pandaman 9mo ago
Why would you think that I don't see that the homeless are a problem? They are a huge problem and I don't really care what happens to them just as they don't care what happens to me but yes, they should not be allowed to camp on the streets in my city.
- danaris 9mo ago
  Where do you think they should go, then? Are you willing to see the city pay to house them? Because otherwise, you're basically saying "I don't think the fact that they're homeless is a problem; I think the fact that I have to see them be homeless is a problem."
  - pandaman 9mo ago
    Wherever it's legal for them to do what they do. In my city it's illegal to camp on the streets. And yes, I don't think the fact that they are homeless is a problem, the fact that they harass citizens with the permission of the government is.
    - danaris 9mo ago
      So you're really just full on board with the Ebenezer Scrooge "if they would rather die, then let them get on with it!" school of thought, then, huh? It's been a while since I had to break out the I Don't Know How To Tell You You Should Care About Other People; most people at least pretend that they're not absolute moral voids.