It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by stars15k
If they are digging and living on public land, had a similar event happen, perhaps to the baby that apparently was living there, the local authorities would be sued for $$$, and the people who sued probably would win, whether they made the tunnel or not. It's a public nuisance, and should have (and probably had) been addressed and removed to prevent accidents from happening.
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
IF this where the only case where the homeless were dispossessed and force to move on, I might buy that argument. However, TPTB have shown that any existence outside the "norm" will not be long tolerated.
Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by jacobe001
I used this in my Exfinity Google: lawsuits involving homeless vs city
I got 12,200,000 hits.
Many cities, for many reasons.
Take your pick.
What would happen to those buildings
Should the people who have had jobs, saved money, paid their bills, and own things like homes continue to do so? Perhaps everyone should just have the basics of life given to them? Really? What country do you live in again?
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
The Kansas City, Missouri (NOT Kansas) police probably remember a few years ago, when part of the West Bottoms burnt because some homeless people started a fire in a vacant building to keep warm. Things of historical value were lost forever. The area looked like a war zone when the fire was over. BTW, the tunnels were up on the bluffs of the Northeast neighborhood, not in the East Bottoms. Cops do these things because they know that crime moves with the homeless. There's a lot of other bad things going on in the Northeast, but the homeless don't have the money for a bribe, if you know what I mean. KC always was a corrupt town, and maybe people like J. C. Nichols were just polishing a turd.
Edit: Back in the Dirty Thirties, people were also living in tunnels dug into the loess soil of the river bluffs. A vertical wall of the stuff is very stable, as the photo shows.edit on 10-4-2013 by Lazarus Short because: lah-de-dah
Originally posted by EarthCitizen23
reply to post by defcon5
The Question I ask, as someone who is trying to transition from Middle Class to Survival Class,, is Why is it Self Sufficient Living is Targeted as bad, and
Let us Not Forget all the Permits Required by our wonderful Nanny State Government,,, making sure I don't stub my toe..
Good Grief,, Just Leave me ALONE to do as best As I can,, I really am NOT ASKING FOR HELP... Just my Freedom to do as I wish IN AMERICA ,,, and yes,, ON MY OWN LAND
At Least Until they take it from me.
Originally posted by Siberbat
How about instead of empowering these folks to live in a tunnel or in the woods, we empower them to live within society?
A few months ago, I watched a documentary called Dark Days, by British film maker Marc Singer, about a homeless community which was living in an abandoned underground railway system in New York City. They were evicted from the tunnels, but offered subsidised housing and job assistance via vouchers for HUD assistance as part of relocating the group. Many agreed to be relocated, and were better off in the end. They had a home and a purpose back into their lives.
So, STOP feeling bad for these people and help them get a home, job, and much needed medical care. There are probibly organisations which help the homeless in your area, support them. The last thing the homeless need is your pitty.
To say that people are better off in the woods and not in their own homes is insane. Children don't belong in the woods...or tunnels. Not in this country. So instead of feeling sorry for them, people, help them! Put your money where your mouth is folks.
Homeless Task Force