Have visited rural West Virginia and can confirm it is a shithole

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.

$$

Good

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.

Front plates bring in revenue for the state (both in license plate fees and tolls) and save money on insurance costs, as others have pointed out on this thread. As a motorist and a cyclist, I am 100% in favor of front plates.

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.

>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)

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.

> 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.

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).

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.

[deleted]

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."

>Small private landowners like homeowners get absolutely fucked.

This happens in affluent towns all the time. Rich people can afford it

They still haven't replanted any trees.

As a Masshole whose wife lived in Columbus for 4 years, I'm sorry.

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?

To be clear, COMPANIES do this. Small private landowners like homeowners get absolutely fucked. The fines aren't means tested so what s a slap on the wrist to wal-mart or even a medium sized business could be soul-destroying for a homeowner, plus you will almost always be saddled with the cost of restoring it, as wal-mart was here. Having to replant one or two trees if that's all you did may be annoyingly expensive but absorbable, but depending on what you did restoration could wind up costing as much as your house to restore the same drainage conditions, erosion protections, etc.

Oh, yeah, that's not much, I'm surprised they don't include a visual inspection of the pads and rotors.

I definitely think they should be permitted to be on public land.

You keep lecturing me but not understanding the point. So stop please.

>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.

>But many locales don’t allow that

Sounds like you should be looking to change that before making private parties take up that burden and risk.

Property rights don't change just because it's a larger company everyone (including me) hates.

Also, like it or not, if even once, a person from this camp causes an incident with a customer in the parking lot, or even just with someone else at the camp, Wal Mart is at legal risk. Fuck even if the company somehow changes its entire corporate tune and decided out of the charity of their hearts to embrace the plight of the homeless, it doesn't stop someone who gets into an issue, even of their own stupidity, from making a case in court that Wal Mart knew and allowed a "hazard" to customers to develop on their property.

Edit: lol I "understand the point" just fine. I'm just actually equipped to function in the real world and don't just live in a fantasy I've crafted in my head like you.

The person above said “not on someone else’s land”.

ALL LAND IS SOMEONE ELSE’S. So if they are not dead, where do they go?

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?

It must depend on the place doing the inspection. I've had one jack up one side of the car to look underneath and another that put my boss' car on the lift to check the tightness of the front end, which they ended up failing him for.

Some places definitely do as little as possible but there are some that really try hard to fail you. They are on camera now so there is less they can get away with.