Um is this Darwin Award worthy?

[ABSTRUSE]

NYC shopkeeper sues to shoo homeless

NEW YORK - An antiques dealer sued four homeless people, seeking to keep them away from his store on a posh shopping street because, he says, they alienate customers and block window displays.

Store owner Karl Kemp also seeks $1 million from the four, named in the lawsuit as John Doe, Bob Doe, John Smith and Jane Doe.

The suit, filed this week, says they can often be found sleeping on the sidewalk, drinking alcoholic beverages and "performing various bodily functions such as urinating and spitting" outside Karl Kemp & Associates on Manhattan's Madison Avenue. Kemp seeks to keep them 100 feet from the store.

Kemp said he decided to sue after complaints to police brought no changes. He also said he was concerned about the health of one of the three men.

"You and I pay taxes in New York City, and some of that is to maintain decent shelters. And he should take advantage of that," Kemp said.

Advocates for the homeless called the lawsuit hardhearted.

"Until we see to it that every single homeless individual has a place to stay, this is our reality," said Shelly Nortz, a deputy executive director of the Coalition for the Homeless.

"The complaint that they somehow occasionally occupy a space that is also home to Gucci and Chanel doesn't mean that they're breaking any law," she said.





or is it just me??

 

[Boxlicker101]

It would certainly be boycott worthy if I lived in New York or had any interest in buying antiques, neither of which is the case. However, nobody is dying through doing something dumb, thereby removing his or genes from the gene pool.

 

[3113]

Not Darwin award worthy--for that the person has to have done something stupid enough to get themselves killsed and, therefore, they won't be reproducing and passing on their stupid genes.

Maybe we should think of a different sort of award for people who do things like this?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Not Darwin award worthy--for that the person has to have done something stupid enough to get themselves killsed and, therefore, they won't be reproducing and passing on their stupid genes.

Maybe we should think of a different sort of award for people who do things like this?

Maybe the Boycott award. You tell people about it and they boycott the store or other place of business because the owner is such an asshole.

 

[S-Des]

Maybe the Boycott award. You tell people about it and they boycott the store or other place of business because the owner is such an asshole.

Yes, because someone losing money in a business that probably isn't making them rich in the first place because drunk people are urinating on the sidewalk should bring them coffee and donuts to show they care???

The lawsuit is obviously only intended to force the police to enforce the law. If I pissed on a sidewalk in front of a store downtown, the police would throw me over the hood of the cruiser and I'd spend the night in a very nasty place attempting to maintain my virtue. If the homeless shelters are too busy for these people to find a place, then the suit will hopefully embarrass officials who are letting this happen. Whether the people are mentally ill, lazy, or just down on their luck, it doesn't mean they should be acting like this in public (not just being drunk, but sleeping on the street is not remotely safe).

There was a famous case 10 or 15 years ago where a homeless man had his back broken by a father who was protecting his young daughter. Homeless advocates said the man was a monster, but the homeless man had a history of mental illness and violence and was acting very aggressively. As far as I know, the father wasn't jailed, but it was a very big deal. It's not just about poor people being pushed around or ignored. These people should be taken care of. Letting them stay there and act in the way described in the article is neither compassionate, nor helpful. It leads to serious problems to the store owners, pedestrians, and to the homeless individuals themselves. While the suit seems heartless, it would only be so if the owner intended to collect. It is evident that the suit is to provoke the police and government officials, not punish the 4 individuals. If all that is done is that the people are moved to a new place, the embarrassment should rest on the officials who are letting such a problem continue without seeking a remedy that helps the people find a better, safer way to live.

 

[impressive]

NYC shopkeeper sues to shoo homeless

NEW YORK - An antiques dealer sued four homeless people, seeking to keep them away from his store on a posh shopping street because, he says, they alienate customers and block window displays.

Store owner Karl Kemp also seeks $1 million from the four, named in the lawsuit as John Doe, Bob Doe, John Smith and Jane Doe.

The suit, filed this week, says they can often be found sleeping on the sidewalk, drinking alcoholic beverages and "performing various bodily functions such as urinating and spitting" outside Karl Kemp & Associates on Manhattan's Madison Avenue. Kemp seeks to keep them 100 feet from the store.

Kemp said he decided to sue after complaints to police brought no changes. He also said he was concerned about the health of one of the three men.

"You and I pay taxes in New York City, and some of that is to maintain decent shelters. And he should take advantage of that," Kemp said.

Advocates for the homeless called the lawsuit hardhearted.

"Until we see to it that every single homeless individual has a place to stay, this is our reality," said Shelly Nortz, a deputy executive director of the Coalition for the Homeless.

"The complaint that they somehow occasionally occupy a space that is also home to Gucci and Chanel doesn't mean that they're breaking any law," she said.





or is it just me??

I wonder if they're related.

 

[rgraham666]

A couple of years ago, a provincial politician was running for leadership of the provincial Conservative party. That's its official designation so no flames please.

A plank on his platform was solving the homeless crisis here by making it illegal.

He almost won.

A single asshole suing doesn't signify.

 

[Guest]

A couple of years ago, a provincial politician was running for leadership of the provincial Conservative party. That's its official designation so no flames please.

A plank on his platform was solving the homeless crisis here by making it illegal.

He almost won.

A single asshole suing doesn't signify.

ok, dont shoot me...
but i could almost...almost see the merit in that. however
not unless there were massive provisions. you can't just say its illeagal to be homeless and then have no shelters or no programs in place. beside the fact that if i want to live on the street, isn't that an option of freedom offered by the foundation of ideation of our country?
im just blathering because your post made me really think and now my thoughts are construing miserably so... off i go.

 

[impressive]

A single asshole suing doesn't signify.

Actually, the "single asshole" may just be calling attention to the problem in the hopes of spurring a more proactive approach.

This man can't possibly believe that he'll receive a big chunk of change from people who live on the street -- even if he wins his lawsuit. So, he's applying egg to the face of local politicos in the hopes that they'll be embarrassed enough to address the problem.

Now, his motives may be (and probably are) primarily selfish, but if they result in those four individuals -- and others similarly situated -- having more opportunities to find a place to live ...

 

[rgraham666]

One of my local papers had a series of articles on poverty in Canada. Most of them spoke of things governments could do.

I wrote a letter in saying nothing's going to happen.

Why? Religious reasons.

Here in North America our central religion is the economic system we've misnamed 'capitalism'. Like most religions, we believe in it even though we don't understand it all that well. We have the catechisms down pat, but rarely understand the meaning behind them. We believe that if we are faithful we will be rewarded for it.

The powerful especially believe this as they are the ones most rewarded for their faith.

So the poor are the sinners of our society. Obviously they aren't faithful enough for if they were faithful they wouldn't be poor.

Thus little will be done to help the poor. To help them would be rewarding them for sinning.

 

[cantdog]

One of my local papers had a series of articles on poverty in Canada. Most of them spoke of things governments could do.

I wrote a letter in saying nothing's going to happen.

Why? Religious reasons.

Here in North America our central religion is the economic system we've misnamed 'capitalism'. Like most religions, we believe in it even though we don't understand it all that well. We have the catechisms down pat, but rarely understand the meaning behind them. We believe that if we are faithful we will be rewarded for it.

The powerful especially believe this as they are the ones most rewarded for their faith.

So the poor are the sinners of our society. Obviously they aren't faithful enough for if they were faithful they wouldn't be poor.

Thus little will be done to help the poor. To help them would be rewarding them for sinning.

Insightful, Rob. Did anyone reply in the letter column?


Not sure it's germane, exactly, to the plight of the poor jeweler. I wonder from whom the lawyers expect the million bucks?

 

[rgraham666]

Insightful, Rob. Did anyone reply in the letter column?


Not sure it's germane, exactly, to the plight of the poor jeweler. I wonder from whom the lawyers expect the million bucks?

Nope. Letter never got printed.

They did print a 'let the lazy bastards get a job' letter though.

Which kinda proves my point.

 

[R. Richard]

I lived in NYC. There are shelters for the homeless. Unfortunately, the shelters have rules for those who want shelter. The rules are pretty simple, no booze, no drugs, no aggressive behavior toward the others in the shelter, etc. Many of the street dwellers won't obey the rules and they live on the streets of their own choosing.

Now, put yourself in the place of the ship owner. He wants to make a living. He has this nasty, smelly bum living in front of his shop. The bum makes it difficult tfor the shop owner to make a living. The scumbags won't move the bum along. Thus the shop owner sues the bum for a million. The bum has no money. The scumbags have money. If the court finds the scumbags even a little at fault, they will have to pay the million.

While I was in NYC, there was a talk radio show who had a debate on "Should St. Patricks cathedral allow the homeless to use the steets in front of the church as a bedroom." The debate raged back and forth until ol' R. Richard called in. He pointed out that the debate should be about "Should St. Patricks cathedral allow the homeless to use the steets in front of the church as a bathroom." End of debate.

JMNTHO.

 

[neonlyte]

If I pissed on a sidewalk in front of a store downtown, the police would throw me over the hood of the cruiser and I'd spend the night in a very nasty place attempting to maintain my virtue.

Who's going to believe that!

I'm with Vella. Begging / street sleeping used to be illegal here. Provisions were made by a Dictatorship to keep people off the street, they were housed and found work if they couldn't fend for themselves.

It's harsh. I can imagine the living or working conditions were comfortable, but the number of beggars on the streets here today defies belief, and most are not nationals. You can usually tell the nationals, they play an accordian, or a flute or perform tricks. Last week I was threatened by a young guy, of unknown origin, for refusing to give him money. It is not as if there is a lack of work, though it is difficult finding a 'good job' there is plenty of work for those who decide begging is an easier option. I occassionally find myself chauffering my wife to meetings (she's the brainy one) and have watched beggars perform over a period of an hour or so. In a good spot, they make a lot of money, always sliding it seruptitiously out of sight to the next passer-by.

There is a big difference between begging for profit and the genuine dispossesed individual, the problem is telling them one from the other. They groups need care and a system of welfare to either provide for them or ease them back into life. We just don't care enough to make that provision and while I give happily to people like the guy with no legs, and the blind accordianist, and occassionally pay for the shopping of a slightly derranged guy who looks out for my car when I'm not here, I recognise each of them is at least trying to do something with the limits of their physical or mental capabilities. Being threatened into handing over money pisses me off.

As for the guy taking out the legal action - Wanker. Give the legal cost to a shelter.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, because someone losing money in a business that probably isn't making them rich in the first place because drunk people are urinating on the sidewalk should bring them coffee and donuts to show they care???

The lawsuit is obviously only intended to force the police to enforce the law. If I pissed on a sidewalk in front of a store downtown, the police would throw me over the hood of the cruiser and I'd spend the night in a very nasty place attempting to maintain my virtue. If the homeless shelters are too busy for these people to find a place, then the suit will hopefully embarrass officials who are letting this happen. Whether the people are mentally ill, lazy, or just down on their luck, it doesn't mean they should be acting like this in public (not just being drunk, but sleeping on the street is not remotely safe).

There was a famous case 10 or 15 years ago where a homeless man had his back broken by a father who was protecting his young daughter. Homeless advocates said the man was a monster, but the homeless man had a history of mental illness and violence and was acting very aggressively. As far as I know, the father wasn't jailed, but it was a very big deal. It's not just about poor people being pushed around or ignored. These people should be taken care of. Letting them stay there and act in the way described in the article is neither compassionate, nor helpful. It leads to serious problems to the store owners, pedestrians, and to the homeless individuals themselves. While the suit seems heartless, it would only be so if the owner intended to collect. It is evident that the suit is to provoke the police and government officials, not punish the 4 individuals. If all that is done is that the people are moved to a new place, the embarrassment should rest on the officials who are letting such a problem continue without seeking a remedy that helps the people find a better, safer way to live.

Thank you, S-des, I tend to agree with you about the store keeper's motives. Not that I know the guy or anything like that, but I've never met a totally heartless antiques dealer. They are a different breed from, say, used-car salesmen, they tend to care about things.

And the gentleman did say that he was worried about the health of one of these people.

 

[R. Richard]

Who's going to believe that!

I'm with Vella. Begging / street sleeping used to be illegal here. Provisions were made by a Dictatorship to keep people off the street, they were housed and found work if they couldn't fend for themselves.

It's harsh. I can imagine the living or working conditions were comfortable, but the number of beggars on the streets here today defies belief, and most are not nationals. You can usually tell the nationals, they play an accordian, or a flute or perform tricks. Last week I was threatened by a young guy, of unknown origin, for refusing to give him money. It is not as if there is a lack of work, though it is difficult finding a 'good job' there is plenty of work for those who decide begging is an easier option. I occassionally find myself chauffering my wife to meetings (she's the brainy one) and have watched beggars perform over a period of an hour or so. In a good spot, they make a lot of money, always sliding it seruptitiously out of sight to the next passer-by.

There is a big difference between begging for profit and the genuine dispossesed individual, the problem is telling them one from the other. They groups need care and a system of welfare to either provide for them or ease them back into life. We just don't care enough to make that provision and while I give happily to people like the guy with no legs, and the blind accordianist, and occassionally pay for the shopping of a slightly derranged guy who looks out for my car when I'm not here, I recognise each of them is at least trying to do something with the limits of their physical or mental capabilities. Being threatened into handing over money pisses me off.

As for the guy taking out the legal action - Wanker. Give the legal cost to a shelter.

In NYC there was a guy 'with no legs' who pitifully pushed himself through subway cars on his little wheeled platform begging with his little tin cup. He apparently did well. One night I had to make a trip to a far distant station. The guy wheeled off the subway car and went to a dark corner of the station. He then walked back with the wheeeled platform under his arm and climbed down the stairs and walked off into the night. From conversations with the street trash I usually had to do business with, he made more money than most fully employed people.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Now these people have genuine Darwin Award Potential

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2007030035,00.html

 

[Liar]

Actually, the "single asshole" may just be calling attention to the problem in the hopes of spurring a more proactive approach.

This was done a few years ago in Helsinki, Finland.

A very common sentence there for everything from loitering to speeding and minor theft, is a fine. More specifically, a means-related unit fine, you pay a percentage of your income or wealth. The idea it that a fine of for instance 60 "units" should sting equally if you're rich or poor.

So one year, the city council passed a local law making homelessness illegal. Now, this didn't do much for the homeless, it was more of a populist empty gesture to "clean up" the city, that amounted to nothing.

What happened was that store owners, malls, and all kinds of property owners who had opposed the law started calling the police, demanding that the homeless people on their property was arrested.

The homeless were arrested, the same ones over and over, tired and convicted in court for homelessness, and sentenced to means-related unit fines.

But since they had nothing, they didn't pay a shiny penny.

Instead they put such a strain on the police and court system that year that the city had to pay tenths of millions for the extra paperwork, and eventually had to change the law again.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In NYC there was a guy 'with no legs' who pitifully pushed himself through subway cars on his little wheeled platform begging with his little tin cup. He apparently did well. One night I had to make a trip to a far distant station. The guy wheeled off the subway car and went to a dark corner of the station. He then walked back with the wheeeled platform under his arm and climbed down the stairs and walked off into the night. From conversations with the street trash I usually had to do business with, he made more money than most fully employed people.

Sounds like the job for me!

I've heard the same, actually. but it isn't always so. And a better shelter system might weed some of the pros out of the racket, so to speak...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Business owners are people, too. I'm glad this guy found a non-violent means of both drawing attention to the problem and, hopefully, attending it. Worst case scenario? Everyone gets attention. Best case scenario? They are moved to a shelter and he can go about his business.

I don't think he either will or intends to make a dime off of this.

I think in the dramatic push to blame people with authority or money for damn near everything, we may go overboard and accusing such people when they're just defending their rights.

 

[R. Richard]

Sounds like the job for me!

I've heard the same, actually. but it isn't always so. And a better shelter system might weed some of the pros out of the racket, so to speak...

The problem is that people like I described make it tougher for those who actually need help.

One of the problems with the current shelter system is that they have rules. The rules are mostly common sense things that are not all that arduous. However, some of the homeless refuse to follow any kind of rules and they will not live in shelters.

 

[S-Des]

Last week I was threatened by a young guy, of unknown origin, for refusing to give him money. It is not as if there is a lack of work, though it is difficult finding a 'good job' there is plenty of work for those who decide begging is an easier option. I occassionally find myself chauffering my wife to meetings (she's the brainy one) and have watched beggars perform over a period of an hour or so. In a good spot, they make a lot of money, always sliding it seruptitiously out of sight to the next passer-by.

There is a big difference between begging for profit and the genuine dispossesed individual, the problem is telling them one from the other. They groups need care and a system of welfare to either provide for them or ease them back into life. We just don't care enough to make that provision and while I give happily to people like the guy with no legs, and the blind accordianist, and occassionally pay for the shopping of a slightly derranged guy who looks out for my car when I'm not here, I recognise each of them is at least trying to do something with the limits of their physical or mental capabilities. Being threatened into handing over money pisses me off.

I was on my way home from a gig (I do a fair amount of work in Chicago), when the traffic in my lane stopped. Because it was a busy street (just before the highway starts), I couldn't get out of the lane. Finally the cars in front of me made it out and I realized there was a car blocking the road with it's hazards on. A woman came up to my car, in apparent distress. She told me she was waiting for a tow truck, but had to go home a different way to get to her kids, so could she have a couple of bucks. I was suspicious, but gave her a couple anyway (it might have even been $5). The next week, I heard it being discussed on the radio as one of the most popular scams in Chicago. People either park their car (and it was a pretty nice car) in the street and pretend it's broken down until the police arrive, or they walk around and if they see a car broken down will pretend it's theirs. It's a great way to extort money from people because they feel threatened when you come up to their car, and their plight seems more probably than the normal guy begging in the street. I was annoyed that I fell for it, and was sorry that I didn't give the money to a reputable charity instead. I've never given another dime to someone begging. I find a good charity that doesn't waste the money, and give to them only.

I'm a fan of street musicians. I always give to them if I have any money. Although it is begging, they are technically providing a service. Some of them are very good and add color to the city. Similarly, the local homeless advocates set up a publication called Streetwise. It's a free paper that is distributed to homeless or poor people who want to work. Then they hand them out and ask for donations. Again, it's begging, but it's an attempt at honest work. I'll take that over someone hassling you any day (they get very aggressive here as well). I knew a couple of the vendors who worked near clubs I was at by name and always gave them something. They were very cool guys and would watch my van as I was loading and would open the door and offer to help if they could.

As for my virtue...