Much like the iron lung solved polio.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I took your post to mean that if his business didn’t bear the burden, then someone else’s would have to. If this is not what you meant, then I apologize.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
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.
[/QUOTE]
OK, but even if he can get the court to issue one, and get the city to enforce it, what does that do? It just moves them out from in front of his shop, and they’ll be in front of someone else’s shop instead.
Like I said, there’s no reason Kemp himself should have to bear the burden of these people, but that’s not Kemp-specific; it’s equally true of every other store owner.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
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.)
[/QUOTE]
Brief hijack…there was a Chi Chi’s in Orlando. I found their food quite good. I wonder why they went bust.
Back to the discussion at hand…the homeless man’s rights end when they begin to infringe on the storeowner’s rights. John Doe, et al, are affecting the ability of the business owner to operate.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I took your post to mean that if his business didn’t bear the burden, then someone else’s would have to. If this is not what you meant, then I apologize.
[/QUOTE]
We might be using different meanings of “have to” here. What I’m saying is if these people are hit with a restraining order, they will have to end up in front of some other store, which is no more bound to them than Kemp’s is. If all Kemp is complaining about is that these people are blocking the view or making customers turn up their noses, I can’t think of a response other than “tough shit”- it sucks, but it’s a part of life here. If they’re an actual threat to somebody, that’s different.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, let the free market work its magic.
[QUOTE=Ethilrist]
Sigh. How soon we forget; Steve Dallas’s first rule of successful litigation: “Never sue poor people; they don’t have any money.”
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps if this homeless guy were using a camera…
[QUOTE=Marley23]
We might be using different meanings of “have to” here. What I’m saying is if these people are hit with a restraining order, they will have to end up in front of some other store, which is no more bound to them than Kemp’s is. If all Kemp is complaining about is that these people are blocking the view or making customers turn up their noses, I can’t think of a response other than “tough shit”- it sucks, but it’s a part of life here. If they’re an actual threat to somebody, that’s different.
[/QUOTE]
OK, that’s what I thought you were saying. And what I am saying is, why do they have to end up in front of some other store? Is there no other place to go in the entire city, other than in front of someone’s business?
[QUOTE=Marley23]
There’s no particular reason his business should. Why should some other business?
[/QUOTE]
No reason some other business should, either. But Kemp’s concern is rightly for his own business.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
And what I am saying is, why do they have to end up in front of some other store? Is there no other place to go in the entire city, other than in front of someone’s business?
[/QUOTE]
That’s just where they will probably end up, especially since it’s what they’re already doing. The options for homeless people are kind of limited that way.
Apparently, the options of business owners aren’t much better.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Apparently, the options of business owners aren’t much better.
[/QUOTE]
He can keep them out of his store. What options do you have when your neighbors are doing something you don’t like, but doing it on public property? Until we allow the government to forcibly put homeless people in shelters (which won’t happen), this will be part of urban life. And of course, just because they put someone in a shelter doesn’t mean they’d stay there forever anyway.
And they keep a lot of people out of his store. Just because they have problems doesn’t entitle them to fuck his life up too. Not to mention his family, his employees, their families, and his customers. Or at least it shouldn’t. If it’s public property, make the public tend to it like property owners tend to property. Maybe give a lot of people brooms or something. That’s what they do with public property in North Korea.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
And they keep a lot of people out of his store.
[/quote]
From whence have you deduced that it’s “a lot?” We don’t know that they’ve kept a single person out of the store.
I agree that we should model ourselves after North Korea, that would solve a lot of problems and add a great deal of sanity to our government. But I don’t see how it helps Kemp or anybody involved in this story.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
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.
[/QUOTE]
IANAL but I would think that is where the “damages” that he is suing for come in. He is stipulating I am losing, or may lose, X dollars because of someone else’s actions. Henceforth, I am trying to get a restraining order. The damages he never expects to get, but seeks to prove he is losing money from their actions thereby justifying, if nothing else, a cease and desist order that will be enforceable by local authorities.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t believe he has a cause of action against the city.
[/QUOTE]
He might, if there were relevant laws against vagrancy, littering, public urination, open liquor containers, disturbing the peace, verbal harassment etc. that the city was choosing not to enforce in this particular case. Getting a TRO was probably his best first step and he can go after the city if it isn’t enforced.
Personally, I find it comical that a Vancouver paper wrote such a slanted article, since my aunt who lives in Vancouver has told me that the homeless are becoming a problem there, too.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah. It’s really rough when they urinate in your doorway.
[QUOTE=Biffy the Elephant Shrew]
Yeah. It’s really rough when they urinate in your doorway.
[/QUOTE]
It could be worse. The store could be invadaded by people who use italics to be snarky; they smell even worse.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
And they keep a lot of people out of his store.
[/QUOTE]
If this occurs solely because they are occupying public property (not breaking any laws), then tuff titties. The store owner has no more right to do business than the homeless has to stand in front of his store. If business sucks because of the location, then the owner should move. Free market, and all that.
A N.Y. Daily News reporter was sent to the scene to get a reading on the amount of heat coming out of the grate that the guy slept on.
On a 25 degree day, his thermometer registered over 100 degrees.
Hell. if I was homeless, that’s where I’d be hanging out.