Far from a leap, it’s the exact same “better than thou” “not in my backyard” mentality.Pretty far leap comparing any of this to a HOA...
Last edited:
Far from a leap, it’s the exact same “better than thou” “not in my backyard” mentality.Pretty far leap comparing any of this to a HOA...
I don't see that in a HOA. Everyone had to "buy" into the HOA...Far from a leap, it’s the exact same “better than thou” “not in my backyard” mentality.
Won't be able to see it from my place. I chose to remove myself from an area with too many things I didn't like rather than trying to force my desires onto others or forcing people to keep moving along.I don't see that in a HOA. Everyone had to "buy" into the HOA...
I'll throw up some posts on the Facebook "Arcadia Chatter" pages, let's get a tent city going! It'll be like Seattle, but in Indiana!
But you're a'ok with folks being able to do that? As long as you can't see it, right?Won't be able to see it from my place. I chose to remove myself from an area with too many things I didn't like rather than trying to force my desires onto others or forcing people to keep moving along.
Wow, from people sleeping/living in a tent in a public place to this...Maybe we should go back to reserving voting rights for property owners only? I mean, if someone doesn't have the right to exist without owning property why should they have a say in who governs those that do, am I right?
Going from bitching about people sleeping/living in a tent in a public place like they're stray animals to treating them like stray animals isn't much of a jump.Wow, from people sleeping/living in a tent in a public place to this...
Nah, I'd probably drive by at least once a day to scream at them to go get jobs to help themselves and stop filthying up everyone's view. Seems to be the preferred approach and I'm not one to dare to be different.But you're a'ok with folks being able to do that? As long as you can't see it, right?
Who said that? Many said they shouldn't be allowed to live on public property, not that they don't want to look at them.What do you mean? We're talking about the people that no one wants to have to look at on their way to work aren't we? The people who refuse to help themselves and all. Why would you give the people you think so little of the privilege of participation your government?
I'm revealing the truth for what it is. How does it hurt me if people choose to live in a tent or their car under an overpass? As I sit here in my living room, not bitching about these people, how are they harming me so that I should be bitching about their existence?Who said that? Many said they shouldn't be allowed to live on public property, not that they don't want to look at them.
Keep twisting people's words, I'm sure tent cities in Indy will be crime free and amazing places to walk through...
I hope they are because they're going to become very, very common.Keep twisting people's words, I'm sure tent cities in Indy will be crime free and amazing places to walk through...
Do they have a right to camp/live in a public park? On a public sidewalk? Public property is equally owned by the public, no one has the right to take more than their share of it. There is no such thing as open property, all property has owners be they public or private and it all has rules of use.
What stops me and a dozen friends from going to the Hoosier National Forest, setting up an encampment, cutting trees for cabins and shelters, building roads, and generally living there? What am I taking? Scenery free from humanity? A pleasant drive to work?
I have a nice house, a nice yard and a nice retirement because I HAD a nice JOB for 45 years. It wasn't a job that everyone would have been willing to do but I did it with hopes for the future I'm living now. I didn't demand any of those things, I swapped 45 years of my life for what I have.Far from a leap, it’s the exact same “better than thou” “not in my backyard” mentality.
In most of this country you either pay for your place of existence or you are taking a place from someone.Says who? Where is it written?
Anyone can sleep under the stars but where they sleep under the stars must somehow be paid for.According to whose standards? Some are just fine sleeping under the stars. Why would you deny them that right?
There are few free range places in the US that one can just exist without paying some price for the privilege of using that space. As usual you will not answer simple questions. The answer to this will be interesting.I’m saying if the law doesn’t allow someone to exist without exchanging labor for that right then the law is wrong.
More like revealing yourself.I'm revealing the truth for what it is.
That property under the overpass belongs to the people, the peoples representatives made rules for its use, living under the overpass is not what the owners of the property allow. This is about property rights of both public and private property.How does it hurt me if people choose to live in a tent or their car under an overpass? As I sit here in my living room, not bitching about these people, how are they harming me so that I should be bitching about their existence?
I have seen nary a thing that indicates to me anyone here is not concerned for the wellbeing of others. Several admirable stories have been shared. But caring about wellbeing doesn’t mean property rights are not valid. Did it never occur to you that this is why homeless shelters exist? So people have a legal place to go, but even there rules exist, many say no drugs, alcohol, or they must attend the church service in exchange for staying.Surely you're not going to suggest that many of the comments here have been made out of genuine concern for the wellbeing of others. Some don't want people existing in their public places but it's not for selfish, shallow reasons, no no, they truly care about their fellow man. Got it.
So if someone is incapable or unwilling to purchase or rent property then they have no right to exist outside of an institution in this country. Got it. Produce for the system or face what, execution? Exile? Incarceration? Those are the only acceptable outcomes in your world.More like revealing yourself.
That property under the overpass belongs to the people, the peoples representatives made rules for its use, living under the overpass is not what the owners of the property allow. This is about property rights of both public and private property.
I have seen nary a thing that indicates to me anyone here is not concerned for the wellbeing of others. Several admirable stories have been shared. But caring about wellbeing doesn’t mean property rights are not valid. Did it never occur to you that this is why homeless shelters exist? So people have a legal place to go, but even there rules exist, many say no drugs, alcohol, or they must attend the church service in exchange for staying.
When your position is the same as California leftist judges you may need to rethink it…
Again, says who? Work or you cannot exist.Anyone can sleep under the stars but where they sleep under the stars must somehow be paid for.
Take a look in the mirror. That dude, that guy represents who would bitch about people sleeping on a piece of ground you've never seen before 100 miles away from you. That's who would demand that "their" public property be cleared of the lessers.What stops me and a dozen friends from going to the Hoosier National Forest, setting up an encampment, cutting trees for cabins and shelters, building roads, and generally living there? What am I taking? Scenery free from humanity? A pleasant drive to work?