No deep pockets in these suits

Litigation seems an offensive and pointless way to solve the homeless problem. But a New York City antiques dealer has sued four street people to keep them away from his store and from “performing various bodily functions such as urinating and spitting” outside, even seeking $1 million from them. Store owner Karl Kemp also apparently wanted to protest the lack of police response to his complaints, suggesting he pays taxes to maintain decent shelters for such people. What say you, bloggers?
Posted by Rhonda Holman

6 Comments

  1. TRACY
    Posted January 22, 2007 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    Seeking 1 million from homeless folks?BRILLIANT !!

    I wonder if he tried treating them as humans before he called animal control on them.

  2. Mary Caruso
    Posted January 22, 2007 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    I can see his point, I wouldn’t want someone spitting and peeing on my property and neither would you. If homeless people want respect, then I’d suggest they show a little to others.

  3. red
    Posted January 22, 2007 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    What a sad commentary on today’s society that a merchant has to resort to filing a million dollar lawsuit against homeless people.

    But, if the homeless are urinating and spitting on his property, then maybe this is the only course of action left for this merchant to take? Where are the police in this matter. Couldn’t the homeless people be told to not trespass or be charged with vagrancy?

    It seems a little eccentric to go through the court system and tie up the court’s time with such a frivolous lawsuit when everyone knows that homeless people don’t have the million dollars. So is this to get publicity for a social problem that the merchant sees needs addressed?

  4. Vaughn Tolle
    Posted January 22, 2007 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    I wonder (and I don’t know) whether it is necessary to begin an independent legal action under the New York statutes to obtain an injunction/restraining order, and if this is why the damage actions were filed.

  5. Erik
    Posted January 22, 2007 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Two words.

    Fun ny

  6. Jed
    Posted January 23, 2007 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    From what I’ve seen of New York, I’d have to assume that what the shopkeeper objected to took place on public property- the sidewalk- not the merchant’s property.If a person has no access to private restroom facilities, and there are no public ones, he has to go somewhere. If you aren’t going to help out homeless people, the least you can do is not object when they do what they gotta do where they are. If you don’t like it, then provide somewhere reasonable for them to go.