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

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.

>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.

The service brake check they do: Verifying there is not excessive pedal travel when stepping on the brakes, and making sure the vehicles stops and does not pull to either side at a speed of 4-8mph. Speeds rarely traveled at, speeds also easily controllable should there be a brake issue. Sure these may show if there is a fluid leakage. Not the actual condition of the braking system.

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.

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”

It is listed in the book as a "visual inspection for rust that causes a hazard " I can assure you, even the tiniest of inspectors can barely fit underneath any vehicle that isn't an suv to get underneath and check. I've never once seen an inspector fully get a vehicle in the air and check its frame and undercarriage, because it is not required/specified.

Technically true headline but it gives a misleading impression.

The fact that it cleared homeless camp is not at all connected to the law being broken. They broke the law because the land had environmental protections attached to it.

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.

Public land.

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

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

Why are you objecting?

They're supposed to check the frame too

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.

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?

I think they do. On the Inspection Report there are "service brakes" and "parking brake"

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

[deleted]

I think he was born extremely wealthy. He's like a living Bluth family member

Sounds like you haven't. Would a shithole state have cheese curds?

Came here to say the same.

A lot of these 'shithole' states are so gerrymandered, it's hard to even say they are a democracy anymore. You can't blame people for not voting when decades of republicans have deliberately closed polling stations in 'democratic' areas, making wait times hours long, required ID at the polls that can be expensive or difficult to obtain, etc. It's not so black and white.

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”?

Lol

Newton,Belmont ,Brookline good neighborhood and schools…outside 128 Weston, Wellesley great schools neighborhoods

>I thought it was widely understood that it was the city that cleared the camp,

Yes, I mentioned that it wasn't Walmart because I thought the subject on this topic was poorly written to make it sound like Walmart illegally cleared a homeless camp.