Home Depot looking to leave Emeryville/Oakland due to proliferation of homeless encampments

[Finper]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Well looks who’s back to gnash teeth, wring hands, stamp feet and shout angrily about posts that simply present factual realities. ... all from a poster who does nothing in his/her life to mitigate the horrors s/he imagines are poisoning California in particular.

Now why don’t you run along and find any comment I made that “apologizes”.

The post I responded to specifies that Oakland represents uniquely poor management resulting in the same kinds problems found all over the nation and world. Which is obviously silly. Just as is your post.

He/ she never said you apologized "apologist" is a term describing you, San Franciscans, and Ca politicians who made theft under 900.00 practically legal and now big box stores have to close stores in high homeless high crime areas. Oh but that's ok because there's lots of homeless in Australia too

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Finper

He/ she never said you apologized "apologist" is a term describing you, San Franciscans, and Ca politicians who made theft under 900.00 practically legal and now big box stores have to close stores in high homeless high crime areas. Oh but that's ok because there's lots of homeless in Australia too

Finper - USDefault has similarly attacked me specifically many times in the past using the exact same argument / accusation. S/he is referring to me specifically as an “apologist”, saying that I am “minimizing” and excusing criminal and lazy behaviors, etc etc etc. I have never said any of the cited behaviors are ok “because there’s lots of homeless in Australia” or anywhere else. I have pointed out that specifying California as somehow uniquely flawed is incorrect. And I am right about that. And you and Default and Smow are simply disingenuously wrong. These are universal problems. Identifying them correctly as such doesn’t in any way amount to excusing them.

By the way: I, tulemutt, also didn’t make “theft under 900.00 practically legal”. I should be so powerful. Lol.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Regarding my earlier post that I think this is HD's attempt to cover their rear. I meant regarding potential lawsuits. If someone was to suffer damages to their person or property caused by the homeless around the store, the first entity the lawyer would sue is the commercial property - go for the entity with the deepest pockets. This would be the commercial property's insurance, especially a commercial enterprise as rich as Home Depot.

Legally, if HD knew that there was a situation on their property that could result in damages to a customer and they took no steps to abate it, then they could be found liable for negligence.

I would assume that the sidewalks to the street (including the "boulevard" area from sidewalk to street) is probably the responsibility of the business owner, even if that property is technically the property of the city. This is how it is in San Jose.

Now, per San Jose law, if something happens on the sidewalk - and the city knew about it - then, if there are damages due to the state of the sidewalk/boulevard area, the city can be held 50% to blame. Hence, then the city would have to pay 50% of any damages that were part of a settlement or court judgment.

So, HD is probably covering their rear by making sure they have not only notified the city of the problem that could cause damages to someone on the sidewalk/boulevard areas around their building, but they can also show that they have taken action to abate it, to make the settlement/court order wind up more in their favor, if someone sues.

Why do I know these laws? Because I recently fell on broken sidewalk in front of a commercial building in San Jose, and researched them. And yes, I'm suing :-)

[Bevv]

Solution... if Home Depot moves out they can sell the stores to a homeless foundation or the city. The city/foundation can convert the stores to dormitories for the homeless.

They would have plenty of available labor to make the conversions.. the homeless population.

[veritased]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Your backstroke needs work, Borat.

(Btw: I didn’t elaborate in my response either.)
(Also note, I provided data ... not opinion.)

You need to get off the boat now and then, and take your sealegs to Phoenix. It is a far, far cry from San Poopcisco. Or San Diego for that matter. Every now and then, Tulemutt, take your nose out of Wikipedia and your immediate surroundings and check out the other locales of which you speak.

[veritased]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

By the way: I, tulemutt, also didn’t make “theft under 900.00 practically legal”. I should be so powerful. Lol.

Did you vote for that proposition?