Gothamist: Don't the Homeless Have Enough Problems?

mp

Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:10:28 -0500

Come on folks - the dog's a boxer, nature's friendliest beast. Yesterday I was walking my boxer (did you guess?) to the shop in question to check it out. There I see the neighborhood's most bedraggled homeless guy (not the one pictured on the Post) making double time down 68th street away from Madison. His moving as fast as his newspaper-stuffed shoes will carry him. Trailing the poor guy -- 4 news cameras looking for B-roll. From invisible one day to stalked the next.

mike

Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:05:55 -0500

neutral

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:18:33 -0500

#19 lives in wonderland. As stated above, the owner could have given a few guys some cash to shoo off the bums if he wanted to. Instead, he made a news item out of the situation, so that the agencies might actually get of their asses and do something. I don't think he genuinely cares about the bums that are urinating in front of his store, but I do think that he's pissed that nobody will come to take them away.

Samantha T

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:47:04 -0500

Yes, it must be very difficult for patrons of fancy antiques stores to be confronted with reality occasionally. Jesus Christ. I see Kemp's point, I really do - I, too, wouldn't want derelicts out in front of my store. That said, life is a hell of a lot more uncomfortable for them than for the people they're trying to panhandle from.

Brian

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:56:30 -0500

If he was that concerned about the homeless don't you think he would work toward getting them jobs and homes? He just wants his lux address to match the ideal of lux he has in his mind-it's disgusting and completely ineffective and is effective as a restraining order. Like everyone else, you gotta wonder what the deal is with the dog in that picture...

dhex

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:31:37 -0500

yeah, this was a pretty smart move. "I'm picturing Karl Kemp at breakfast, staring into space and pondering exactly what he could do that day to reserve his place in history as unprecedented in terms of assholiness." wouldn't assholiness be just paying some guys to beat the everliving shit out of the homeless folk?

PleaseShutUp

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:00:53 -0500

I think Bob (#12) has it. This guy doesn't really believe he'll get his money. I think he's smart enough to realize that if the proper agencies aren't helping than he needs to do something big and absurd to have the problem addressed. I do in fact, believe, he is concerned for the homeless, but also does not want his business impacted. He sues 4 individuals and all of a sudden we pay attention. It is really brilliant in a way.

hs

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:55:17 -0500

I'm picturing Karl Kemp at breakfast, staring into space and pondering exactly what he could do that day to reserve his place in history as unprecedented in terms of assholiness.

Gwin

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:46:33 -0500

will.xls: dead-on about the dog! I gotta say, even though I think the suing is a silly idea, I kinda feel bad for the store owner. Considering how snotty his prospective customers probably are, he is surely losing business due to his pee-soaked "doormen." It's already hard enough to be an independent retailer in this city...

Tim N.

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:26:41 -0500

He's worried about the health of the homeless people. Something tells me he wouldn't be as worried if they were on the next block. You're a fucking saint, Mr. Kemp. God's own kindness you are.

tamar

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:21:30 -0500

"Don't the Homeless Have Enough Problems?" Yeah. But he still has a point. I prefer to stay away from places that smell like urine when possible. And what about the notion that a homeless person might ask his customers for money and make them feel more uncomfortable? I've been in the company of people who have chosen alternatives over going to a store that has a homeless person standing in front of it. In NYC, there are plenty of other stores to go to.

Bob

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:41:23 -0500

I don't think the store owner ever thought for a second he would see this money. He probably just wants publicity for either his personal plight or the bigger issue, or both. And he's getting it. Of course we should be compassionate towards people who are homeless, unemployed, and ill. But this doesn't mean they should be allowed to drink in public, urinate in public, and harass people (at least two of which are illegal -- is harassing people illegal?). I certainly wouldn't be allowed to do any of those things without getting in trouble from someone. NYC has a billion dollar surplus. I also just read that NYS residents pay the second highest taxes in the country. Maybe more of this money should be allocated towards finding a constructive, meaningful solution.

will.xls

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 08:36:18 -0500

If I were John Smith or the Doe brothers I would be more worried about that dog. owner - happy face dog - I eat homeless people

it's the economy

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 01:10:18 -0500

Because as we all know the economy is jumping and they may get a job soon. That job will pay the judgement. A 20 year judgement. And, they can seize their assets, both financial and personal assets. Except for SSA, SSI etc. But who cares, they're poor, just seize their assets and let them prove it's exempt. In case anyone was wondering, the above was sarcasm.

verbalchameleon

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:26:39 -0500

What's the point of suing people who are likely to have few, if any, assets?

carolitajohnson

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:15:30 -0500

The NYC Department of Homeless Services is USELESS! I've called them so many times about the various homeless people that sleep at the top of the stairwell in my building, and they just say they're not allowed to enter a building, advising me to call the police. The police have better things to do than arrest homeless people or drive them to homeless shelters every night, so they just kick them out. As soon as the police are gone, the homless people come back. Which means that the Department of Homeless Services has done nothing except waste the time of the NYPD. (Instead of liaising with them, which might be more productive.)

jmchez

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:38:01 -0500

Why do we keep calling them "homeless"? That term implies that once they get a home they'll be alright. That has not and will never be the case. The real term should be something along the lines of the "de-institutionalized insane". Very, very few of the "homeless" are really people who just lost their jobs and savings and couldn't get any government assistance.

Dave H.

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:08:12 -0500

If he wins, would he be willing to take payment in 20 million cans?

S.D.

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:01:20 -0500

Very Odd. Why doesn't he just get a restraining order??

evan

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:45:05 -0500

rich ugly precious antique selling boxer fingerin' bastard!

eyeroll

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:07:26 -0500

What's wrong with taking care of them the traditional way--setting them on fire?

bklynd

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:44:42 -0500

This story is so bizarre. How can you sue an anonymous person? Why $1 Million? What's with this BS about being concerned for their well-being? You'd think he could just hire some muscle to drive them off his property.

anonymass

Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:43:34 -0500

Absolutely hilarious. What's more, he's just worried about the health of the homeless people and upset that they are sleeping outside while tax payers are paying for city shelters You think that extra million dollars they're collectively about to be sued for (chuckle) might have an impact in their ability to find housing, Einstein?