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.

It’s a term or endearment

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

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$@$$$$$$$$$$ that’s why…and here is another if your license plate is not reflective you won’t pass inspection nd you need a duplicate plate

That's a fun nimby coincidence.

> It does not appear Walmart had any direct involvement with the homeless camp removal the prior year.

I thought it was widely understood that it was the city that cleared the camp, coincidentally just before the opening ceremonies for the Blackstone Heritage Museum across the street.

You do not want to do that as a landowner. You will be fined and probably more significantly you can be made to restore wetlands. It can be a massive headache and very expensive.

I thought the same thing, but it sounds like Cow Town.

I was a wetlands delineator for a while. A lot of people, homeowners especially, get frustrated with wetlands protection laws. However many MA homeowners especially should be thankful for wetlands due to their ability to reduce and control storm water runoff and floods.

Without them we would look a lot more like Texas when it rains, and a lot of our towns already have ridiculous water tables and fucked up basements.

Companies are obviously the biggest perpetrators of wetland destruction though. It’s funny how they end up on the same graphs as invasive species.

Who in their right fucking mind thought you could just clear out a bunch of trees on (or near) wetlands?!?! You could barely get away with shit like that in the 80s!.

I don’t know I think calling any state in the US “far right” relative to another is extreme.

>The area in question are buffer zones near a section of river protected under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, so even if you own the land, you can not simply do things like remove trees and vegetation.

Private landowners do this and just pay the fines.

The fines need to be way way steeper.

Oh my. 😳😬

[deleted]

I mean, I don't say it randomly. I say it when those states start to be assholes.

there's no shame in calling an asshole an asshole.

Seems like Walmart was one of the complainants that led to the removal. And I’d guess the motive for clearing the trees was to stop people from camping there again.

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”.

I don't think you would get towed but wouldn't run the risk.

Ok but have you seen Woonsocket?

Cliffs: The problem was the clearing of trees in a protected buffer zone next to the river (not the clearing of trespassers.)

To save people a click, the removal of the trees was not directly related to the removal of the homeless camp. It just happens that a homeless camp there was removed and then later Walmart cleared out a bunch of trees and also the railroad owning some of the surrounding land did the same. The area in question are buffer zones near a section of river protected under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, so even if you own the land, you can not simply do things like remove trees and vegetation. So now Walmart (and the railroad agreed to do it as well) has to restore about 200 trees that were removed.

It does not appear Walmart had any direct involvement with the homeless camp removal the prior year.

Do these people not watch crime dramas on TV or something?

My guess is that she was the one leaving him after the fraud case. He likely did not want that/couldn't deal.

Horrible thing all around, and hopefully the kids will be well cared for moving forward by grandparents/extended family.

What about the Oxford English Dictionary?

Or will you just shop around until you find one that suits your political preferences?

An interesting point was made that he is supposed to be paying restitution on the paintings. The theory was that either he killed her for the insurance money to make the payment or they had an argument because he likely spent the money he was supposed to be using for the restitution after selling the Cohasset house that burned.