Chi-chi owner sues Manhattan homeless for $1M
Excuse me?! I will readily admit that there are some limits to my compassion for the homeless, but SUING them for “taking up residence” outside your store? That’s real good public relations there! :eek:
For all practical purposes, aren’t those indigent basically immune from the consequences of a lawsuit anyway? Are they going to pay the $1M in beer bottles?
The guy’s an idiot.
Public relations-wise, it may not be good; but putting that aside for the moment, as you say below it isn’t practical and I would guess it would cost more to sue them then one could ever hope to gain in the end.
Well, a million dollars is a million dollars… unless it is Canadian dollars.
I read about this in the paper yesterday, and it might be the most spoiled and peevish thing I’ve ever heard. Think of the bearded man’s crimes - not only does he have the temerity to be homeless in the vicinity of Kemp’s store, he’s unclean and uses the sidewalk as if it’s public property!
Sigh. How soon we forget; Steve Dallas’s first rule of successful litigation: “Never sue poor people; they don’t have any money.”
Hmm. From what I read in the Times, the guy and a group of other homeless people have camped out in front of his store, eating, urinating, drinking, yelling and keeping customers out of his place of business.
Chi-chi or not, doesn’t he have a right to earn a living and keep his customers from being threatened and his place of business from going bankrupt? Other than ordering a hit, what option does he have but a lawsuit?
What would you do under the same circumstances?
They’re costing the store owner business by chasing away customers. I doubt the store owner is expecting to collect a million dollars, but at least he’s bringing attention to the problem.
Ah, but let us not forget that “rich people are always wrong and poor people are always right.” So we will have to save any sympathy for the store owner till after he’s bankrupted.
While suing the indigent is a pretty stupid way to get a problem fixed, I understand the shop owner’s frustration. You pay a lot of money to rent a store and set up shop only to have a random person or persons camp out and chase away your customers.
The Times article mentions a request for a restraining order, and that the dollar figure was inserted for “legal reasons”. Maybe it’s not quite as dimwitted a lawsuit as it seems on the surface.
As a store owner I am sympathetic, but the idea of the suing the homeless folks is a bit odd. Better to sue the city IMHO. I can’t tell you how frustrating it is to come down to the store and find that someone has urinated in the doorway overnight. For us it is often in the back doorway and we find out when the smell starts to spread thoughout the store. Then I am out there with a bucket of bleach and hot water to clean it up. We also have to deal with graffiti, assholes who smear ice cream cones on our windows, crazies who wander into the store, etc.
We took a storefront that had been vacant for 18 mos and created a beautiful store that employess 4 FT workers in addition to several people part-time. We pay a city business tax in addition to the state and federal taxes. I love being downtown and don’t mind paying the taxes, but I don’t understand why after paying the taxes they need to put all the social services next to the businesses. Why not put them out in the 'burbs and let those folks deal with them for a while. I hate it that some clown can stick out his thumb and end up in Portland and we have to deal with the consequences.
I found that article a bit biased, what with the headline, (why chi-chi? Why not "antique store owner?) calling the customers “well-heeled” and mentioning the price of the bench in the front window, while portraying the homeless as poor folk just struggling to stay warm.
I thought I read somewhere that a large majority of homeless folk are mentally ill, and that it will take more than a hot meal and a job at McDonalds to turn their life around.
That’s what Kemp says. The article ends with a quote from somebody at a neighboring business who says the guy hasn’t bothered his customers.
These people aren’t having a property dispute with Kemp; they’re homeless and possibly mentally ill. Something about Kemp’s compassionate plea of “can’t they please go in front of someone else’s store?” doesn’t melt my heart.
I don’t believe he has a cause of action against the city.
If only there were some sort of formalized fact-finding process in our society to sort out these disputing claims…
And why not? Kemp’s not a homeless shelter or a mental-health care professional. He is not responsible for curing their financial or psychological ills. Why should his business bear the burden caused by these homeless and possibly mentally ill people?
Shouldn’t there be recourse to prosecute for trespas… wait, nevermind. It just dawned on me that there’s likely no owner to trespass against. Property in front of the store, I reckon, belongs to us all. It is the people’s property. The people’s republic. Public property. Something like that.
There’s no particular reason his business should. Why should some other business?
So the only place in the entire world for this guy to hang out is in front of businesses?
Until I got to your post, I’d assumed that the store in question was a Chi-Chi’s restaurant! (Hadn’t realized the chain had gone bust.)
Wonder if the owner’s tried things like playing Barry Manilow music at them.
Maybe this should be settled in the People’s Court.
So Kemp doesn’t have a cause of action against the city, and suing the homeless people themselves is a waste of time, but there’s no reason Kemp himself should have to bear the burden of these people.
I agree with you on all of that, but what’s your solution?
RTFirefly, Kemp may have hit upon the solution, get a restraining order against these people. At that point, the city has a responsibility to enforce the restraining order.
Of course, I don’t know what sort of evidence is required to convince a judge to issue a restraining order, so that may be a non-answer as well.
I’m confused. Did you read my post with your eyes shut? I didn’t say the guy couldn’t hang out anywhere else. Perhaps he’ll just get sued by store after store until he ends up in front of one that can’t afford to sue a homeless man. That’ll solve everyone’s problems.