The “Water Cooler” is a feature on Claycord.com where we ask you a question or provide a topic, and you talk about it.
The “Water Cooler” will be up Monday-Friday at noon.
QUESTION: Should private land owners be required to allow homeless encampments if their land is empty or not in use?
Talk about it.
Hell no!
It’s still THEIR property.
Just like it says in the Communist Manifesto. Don’t they teach that in school anymore? Guess not.
They start fires, litter and have no regard for nothing but drugs. They shoukd be forced to clean up.
This is a joke right?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! If we ever get to a place where land owners are required to allow bums to camp on their vacant land, God help all of us. Homeless that refuse to stay in a shelter, refuse to seek treatment, should not be able to just sleep, defecate, or use drugs wherever they please. Concord is a joke. I see they finally removed the encampment at bart station. Only took months and probably about 2000 complaints to city of Concord
Lol, anybody who thinks they SHOULD be required to is a complete idiot (so I expect a few regular posters here to feel that way).
Of course not. That is ridiculous!
Requiring a person to host a festering nest of drug addicts on their private property would be a 4A violation.
What group of crazed socialists would even propose such a thing?
4th Amendment – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[95]
Of course it’s wrong! But you got to realize there’s a great growing number of people… all members of the political party that starts with the letter “D”. .. who are in favor of such things. They’re in favor of the criminal. They’re in favor of the drugged up Street urchins, they’re in favor of everyone except for the hard-working middle American, who still hold fairly conservative values.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is the government going to compensate the landowners for this use or is this eminent domain? Landowners should decide…
“Eminent domain, land acquisition, compulsory purchase/acquisition, resumption, resumption/compulsory acquisition, or expropriation is the power of a state, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use.” Wikipedia
Sancho Panza,
The United States Supreme Court changed eminent domain from being used for a “public use” to a “public purpose” which greatly expanded the types of projects that property can be seized for using eminent domain.
Are ya nuts!
In most counties a landowner isn’t even allowed to camp on their own property. So a homeless person could potentially have more property rights on a property they don’t own than the rightful landowner?
NO! I would say that if an owner wanted to donate use of their land for that use it would be okay but I think their insurance agent might have something to say about it.
That said, I realize that some people find themselves in tough straights and need some help. Better to spend a little of our tax dollars there than using it to blow up things in foreign countries so that already wealthy defense contractors can become richer.
Not just no, HELL NO!!
The homless should be allowed to set up a tent city in Zinfandel Lane Vineyard, and PumpJack Wines.
For those of you that don’t know, Zinfandel Lane Vineyard is owned by Nancy Pelosi, and PumpJack Wines is owned by Gavin Newsom.
Good one. 👍
.
Really?
.
I’m gonna leave a dump on their driveways.
.
Isn’t it Plump Jack?
Hanne, you are correct, but the words are not separate. It’s PlumpJack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4
No!
I would call this a “take” which should not be legal under the U.S. Constitution. Does Kleptofornica still recognize that document or it’s authority?
They don’t. They would move forward knowing it’s not something they can do and then they’ll slow walk the legal process to buy themselves years worth of free time while its worked out in the Courts.
This can’t be a serious question…
That would be time to sell the property.
That would be too late to sell. Private property ownership is under attack, unless you are wealthy and Liberal like Little Lord Gavin and his aunt.
No, god no.
I can’t believe such a stupid question like this is asked, I’m sure tho it’ll be on the next ballot as well as requiring people to let homeless stay in their homes as well.
The stupidity of most CA voters will probably pass it.
A definitive HELL NO! What’s next, if you aren’t driving your car for a while you have to donate it to an Uber driver…
No way. Who ends up being responsible for the clean up of the property. Who is liable if there is a accident in camp and some one is killed. It’s there land and should never be used for that unless they want to take those risks
Whatever you do, don’t tell Gavin Newsom about this concept.
That such a question is even considered demonstrates how far we have fallen. We are unquestionably under socialism. Yours is ours.
+1
Hell No !
No way…. is this a Newsom idea?
Sure, why not. Just utilize emminent domain.
No!.
I don’t think private property owners will have much to say about it much longer.
Rights and privileges for lest responsible citizens are paramount these days.
No, that’s why they call it “Private Property.”
Some swollen, bloody hemorrhoid of a butt for brains came into my yard and cut back thirty years worth of variegated ivy that we had carefully trained to grow around three small, decorative posts supporting the roof of our house. Thirty years! I’d like to know what gives this schmuck the right to trespass on Private Property and rearrange the landscaping. It takes some freaking nerve. I’d like to see this moron crucified at dawn for their freaking arrogance. It’s PRIVATE PROPERTY. THIRTY YEARS!
“not in use”? You mean like the “open space” that the county tries to preserve from development? Obviously “not in use” is a legitimate “use”.
Hell no!
Is this a “presuasion” question? A question so ridiculous that by contrast the follow-up question seems reasonable, like – “Do you believe vacant public land should be used to house homeless?”
No! Are they going to be trained to pick up after themselves and leave it looking better than when they got there? Will they know how to maintain the campfire and not start wild fires? Yeah, I don’t think so either.
There are times when I am grateful to live in a privately owned mobile home park. This would be one of them. No way would that fly. Not with the owner and definitely not with the residents. Pretty sure there are a few locked and loaded neighbors here.
Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!
It sounds like this could be a potential fire risk.
If the county and city want to compensate or give tax breaks to an owner and the owner agree then ok. However it should not be required, when someone have saved and bought property it is because they want the freedom that comes with being an owner.
So, communism?
No. Hell no.
Why not go all the way and demand that people with a spare bedroom in their home immediately locate a homeless person or persons and move them in!
HELL NO!, what would be the incentive to own property. How about we force some of these corporations & their massive amounts of property be opened up for the homeless?
Why should a corporation’s private property rights be violated?
This whole topic is either trolling, or a terribly late April 1 joke. Communism has no place in any country that supposedly believes in freedom.
That would be a hell no. The government created and perpetuates the problem; they can darn well fix it.
NO!!! NO!!! NO!!!
The more private land owners are required to do something, the less they are private or land owners.
Yellowstone series says it all. Baloney and a damn big NO!
Go live on the greenies-socalists-woke elitest properties first.
They will not allow you to so since they think they are in control set the example.
Yes, as long as we start with politicians personal homes first and then move on to their sprawling properties; all other citizens are exempt
+1
When they start doing that with the lawn space on the office complex on Willow Pass at Waterworld Parkway across from Gen Korean BBQ (the lawn space was originally supposed to be a second tower, but they ended up deciding not to build it and just put grass there), which is not being used, maybe we can talk about it. LOL