and if one of those useless eaters gets hurt on his property??? the state gonna pay for it? does he get a break on his taxes???
This is what happened to a buddy of mine in the DR. He went with his father to chase squatters off land they owned regularly. If they built a shack or something, under the socialist leadership, they could lay claim to the land and his father would lose it. They eventually had to hire guards to patrol the land with shotguns to keep it.
These commies need to be...removed.
When the government won’t enforce the laws against trespass, and instead sides with the trespassers, it’s a taking.
Unconstitutional.
Why have a government if it won’t protect you against invasion, crime, or appropriation of property?
Call me skeptical. I’d like to see some confirmation before I get too excited over this.
Maybe I’m misreading this but the linked story suggests that the courts are saying that local governments can’t prohibit private property owners from allowing the homeless to camp on the land. That’s a bit different from the headline. And again, assuming I’m not missing something here, that’s not Communism.
Of course exceptions will be made if the homeless start camping out in Scarsdale,New Canaan or Palo Alto.
You first, Nancy.
I’m all for this law.
BUT
I have one important tweak to make to it. The very first properties that must be opened up for the homeless to camp on are the properties of politicians. We’ll start with the governor and move on to members of the state senate and house. When all of those properties have been filled with the homeless we’ll move on to government cabinet officials. from there we’ll move on to US Senators and Representatives from that state. Only once all of the properties of politicians have been filled with the homeless can we even think about allowing them to camp on anybody else’s property.
INVADERS should be give maps to SANCTUARIANS and their families houses. After all, they do deserve a nice place to stay.
See the movie “Pacific Heights”
Michael Keaton is a nightmare.
Makes you think being a landlord is a crazy poposition.
BTW...great post/comment/movie.
A little dash of gasoline would take care of this problem.
Misleading headline with regard to Ohio. The court there held that the government could not prevent a church from allowing homeless to camp on its property.
Provided, of course, it’s not on their land or anywhere near their neighborhoods.
Right now Hawaii is considering a law that would force you to rent out your vacant residential property or be faced with a $50,000 a month fine:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2020/bills/SB2216_.HTM
I’m in favor of this law, if the homeowner is a government employee or retired government employee. Plus, the homeless must have kitchen and shower privileges - while the government employee does their laundry.
and if one of those useless eaters gets hurt on his property??? the state gonna pay for it? does he get a break on his taxes???
Commies like Bernie have no sympathy for Deplorables in their way.
Next phase----
Speaker announcements from passing trucks:
The homeless campers have now moved into your former home. Please pick up after yourself as you have been moved out onto the lawn to live in pup tents. Part of reparations. You will be issued two rolls of toilet paper and a bucket, plus a small volume of inspiring messages from President Sanders and Comrade AOC. The food disbursement lines open at 6 am for the 1,1000 tenants in your subdivision.
Hmmm... Okay, I own a little postage stamp-size piece of property on which our little postage stamp-size house sits in the suburbs. Does this mean if some smelly tweaker pitches a tent on my front lawn, I can’t remove him? Maybe I should’ve read the article more carefully, but I didn’t see any distinction between small and large property owners, not that I think it’s right for large property owners (I definitely do not) and wrong for small fry like me.