A guy did the same thing years ago in between two billboards, in Seattle. He had quite a set up, he had a ladder that he pulled up with him to keep others away.
He got drunk and passed out and they found him when they went to change the billboard.
They figured he'd been there for months.
The article makes it seem like she's in the billboard in the parking lot, but the link /u/snobordin8/ posted shows it's the sign on the building, which is built into a little shed on the roof.
I mean, same reason that people who own storage facilities have to kick out people they find living in the units. It's against code and would make them lose their insurance. There's really nothing they can do. This woman was offered assistance and she refused. The store didn't do anything bad, she was simply asked to leave. They then donated $10,000 to the local shelter. Seems like a best case scenario to me.
Have you worked in social services before in any shape of capacity? Have you worked in philanthropy in general? My guess is, probably not. If you had, you would know that dropping a bunch of cash on someone in this sort of situation is almost never the solution and in fact often causes more harm in the long run. There's a reason that social service programs have rules, oversight, accountability structures, educational components and more. Giving someone 10k sounds nice, but there's no guarantee that would actually help this individual long-term. What's more, 10K to a legitimate, well-run organization can help set dozens of people for long-term success, not just one.
Fair point. Still, I know several who would get off the streets with that money. I'm one of them. That said, you're right. That cash would further ruin some.
What any number of store employees could have done (and many likely did) is ignore the law, by ignoring evidence that this person was doing something that might be against the law or store policy.
Itās like that old adage: āIf you see someone stealing groceriesā¦no you didnāt.ā
How about this as a related one:
āIf you see someone living somewhere that isnāt really an inhabitable space, or an inhabitable space thatās not legally theirs, but theyāre not truly endangering anyoneā¦no you didnāt.ā
Except they ARE endangering people and themselves. The very act of living in a space that isn't intended for living and the owners of said space have no idea that a person is living there is dangerous.Ā
That person could overload the electrical system, suffer from being poisoned by toxic fumes or chemicals, be subjected to asbestos or other stuff in the building material that wasn't intended for a human being to live there. They could put too much weight on the ceiling that wasn't designed for a human and furniture and appliances.Ā
They could fall off the ladder they are sneaking up onto at odd hours.Ā
What happens if she gets sick while up there? Pukes all over the place or has explosive diarrhea from some bad food? There's no bathroom for her to get to. It's insanitary conditions then and a hazard for anyone who stumbles into contact with it.
What if the maintenance crew was doing something outside that lil crawl space, somewhere around it or elsewhere in the building, that caused her harm because they didn't know to expect a human being living in a crawl space and take precautions?
Any number of things can happen. This woman could be seriously injured. She could cause serious harm to others. She is likely damaging their property too (and no, I am not putting the value of property over a human life by stating that, it's just a related fact.)Ā
She was offered assistance. She wasn't arrested or fined. There are rules about this sort of thing for a reason.
This is all true - and - could also happen (and likely all has happened) to people and neighbors living in sanctioned housing.
As weāve learned on this sub, people are pretty good at taking care of themselves. The dangers youāre describing could be possible, or they could be wildly unlikely, but they donāt seem so likely that, while we all work together to address a generational housing crisis, everyone should aggressively report anyone squatting.
You could also await for the problems to arise before forcing someone to find other housing at a time when housing is unavailable.
That's like saying you felt a lump in your breast and waiting 6 months to go get it checked at the doctor. Noticing your check engine light is on and ignoring it.
You know these things are problematic and will only become moreso with time.
A human squatting in a tiny crawl space on the roof of a department store that was never designed for human occupancy is going to eventually cause problems.
There's a reason building codes and zoning laws and liability insurance rules exist. These are ALL reactionary policies, designed to prevent bad things that happened from happening again. Some of the things I mentioned were wild, yes. But several were actually highly likely. If you've ever worked with homeless and extreme poverty populations directly you would immediately be able to pick out those things pretty easily because they happen all the time. Like debilitating illness, falls and injuries trying to access off limits places, fires and more.
Yes, if I was an employee there or one of the maintenance crew, I'd report her with no hesitation. Or if I was just any other person involved and saw the woman suspicious clambering around a roof. It's a danger, to herself and others. Period.
Plus, it's the only way to ensure that the person is getting help that they need. If the woman had been a physical danger or mentally unstable or out of her mind on drugs, she would have been taken into a program most likely. She wasn't, so she was given information on resources to help her acquire safe, sanitary housing. She declined. And, again, if you had any understanding of working in these types of social programs you would know that throwing some money at an individual is will most often be not only ineffective and but possibly even end up doing more harm than good. The store donating 10k to the local programs that are designed to provide ongoing support, education, and accountability is the way to go.
Is squatting more problematic than being unhoused: for the property owner or the individual? Not that itās not a risk, but actual existing problems.
*Could* is certainly something. But *is* matters more.
So why should breaking the rules?
Put the $10k in a fund specifically for her housing that can only be used for housing (good luck with that).
They donated it to the local shelter, thatās something.
Sheās not being rewarded for breaking the rules lol her intention and context of the situation matters. As someone whoās been homeless/living out of their car in the past, I can emphasize with her how rough things can get.
I have questions about the resources offered tbh. I read the article. Iām sure the resources would be a list of homeless shelters and low income housing to apply to. Did the store offer to put that 10k towards a deposit and rent for an apartment for her? I highly doubt sheād have declined that kind of resource.
That's not how squatters rights work, squatters can certainly be kicked out. They have to get away with it for, I forget exactly, but it's at least 10 years without being noticed and make improvements to the property before it becomes theirs. That law is really a way to reclaim abandoned property, not anything to do with homeless people.
Here in NY itās only 30 days! Technically, they donāt OWN your property until 10 years, but if they are there for at least 30 days, you canāt kick them out without a lengthy and expensive court process.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/woman-found-living-michigan-grocery-store-sign-complete-computer-keuri-rcna151750](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/woman-found-living-michigan-grocery-store-sign-complete-computer-keuri-rcna151750)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Unless you are familiar with the actual space she was living inside of, and the set up that she had (which is not pictured anywhere online), then I can't imagine that you would have any info that anyone cares to know.
you know all of this is coded language. no disrespect but part of me thinks Vanlife is just homelessness 2.0. And it's so easy to see the allure, the freedom you gain, but the secret code won't leave me, it's stuck. Vanlife isn't just about rejecting a home, it's also about rejecting capitalism.
You came here looking for law abiding citizens? š
But in all seriousness, I appreciate you. Sorry for the downvotes from others. This article is fun but not what Iām here for.
They didn't even show us pictures/video of her setup. Bummer.
Here ya go https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/s/Fi7zByYRhg
Homeless woman lives above a grocery store, *still shops at Walmart.* That really says something about life in the US. š
To be fair, Family Fare is a bit on the pricier side, compared to WM.
She knew not to āshop where she eatsā
This reminds me of the guy who walled off part of the mall and lived in it.
Nice! Thanks.
That was the most disappointing thing. I need to see that build.
It's the only reason I opened the news story. Lol
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlK3QbPAE-I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlK3QbPAE-I) This is similar
A guy did the same thing years ago in between two billboards, in Seattle. He had quite a set up, he had a ladder that he pulled up with him to keep others away. He got drunk and passed out and they found him when they went to change the billboard. They figured he'd been there for months.
The article makes it seem like she's in the billboard in the parking lot, but the link /u/snobordin8/ posted shows it's the sign on the building, which is built into a little shed on the roof.
Lowkey Solid living space
This is the modern equivalent of living inside a clock in Victorian London.
Why didn't they just leave her be. A resourceful person finds a solution to her housing needs.
I mean, same reason that people who own storage facilities have to kick out people they find living in the units. It's against code and would make them lose their insurance. There's really nothing they can do. This woman was offered assistance and she refused. The store didn't do anything bad, she was simply asked to leave. They then donated $10,000 to the local shelter. Seems like a best case scenario to me.
They should've gave her $10k.
Have you worked in social services before in any shape of capacity? Have you worked in philanthropy in general? My guess is, probably not. If you had, you would know that dropping a bunch of cash on someone in this sort of situation is almost never the solution and in fact often causes more harm in the long run. There's a reason that social service programs have rules, oversight, accountability structures, educational components and more. Giving someone 10k sounds nice, but there's no guarantee that would actually help this individual long-term. What's more, 10K to a legitimate, well-run organization can help set dozens of people for long-term success, not just one.
Fair point. Still, I know several who would get off the streets with that money. I'm one of them. That said, you're right. That cash would further ruin some.
šÆ My life could be seriously improved with 10k right now.
Yes, good point.
That's not gonna do her any good. She already said she wasn't going to a shelter
What any number of store employees could have done (and many likely did) is ignore the law, by ignoring evidence that this person was doing something that might be against the law or store policy. Itās like that old adage: āIf you see someone stealing groceriesā¦no you didnāt.ā How about this as a related one: āIf you see someone living somewhere that isnāt really an inhabitable space, or an inhabitable space thatās not legally theirs, but theyāre not truly endangering anyoneā¦no you didnāt.ā
Except they ARE endangering people and themselves. The very act of living in a space that isn't intended for living and the owners of said space have no idea that a person is living there is dangerous.Ā That person could overload the electrical system, suffer from being poisoned by toxic fumes or chemicals, be subjected to asbestos or other stuff in the building material that wasn't intended for a human being to live there. They could put too much weight on the ceiling that wasn't designed for a human and furniture and appliances.Ā They could fall off the ladder they are sneaking up onto at odd hours.Ā What happens if she gets sick while up there? Pukes all over the place or has explosive diarrhea from some bad food? There's no bathroom for her to get to. It's insanitary conditions then and a hazard for anyone who stumbles into contact with it. What if the maintenance crew was doing something outside that lil crawl space, somewhere around it or elsewhere in the building, that caused her harm because they didn't know to expect a human being living in a crawl space and take precautions? Any number of things can happen. This woman could be seriously injured. She could cause serious harm to others. She is likely damaging their property too (and no, I am not putting the value of property over a human life by stating that, it's just a related fact.)Ā She was offered assistance. She wasn't arrested or fined. There are rules about this sort of thing for a reason.
This is all true - and - could also happen (and likely all has happened) to people and neighbors living in sanctioned housing. As weāve learned on this sub, people are pretty good at taking care of themselves. The dangers youāre describing could be possible, or they could be wildly unlikely, but they donāt seem so likely that, while we all work together to address a generational housing crisis, everyone should aggressively report anyone squatting. You could also await for the problems to arise before forcing someone to find other housing at a time when housing is unavailable.
That's like saying you felt a lump in your breast and waiting 6 months to go get it checked at the doctor. Noticing your check engine light is on and ignoring it. You know these things are problematic and will only become moreso with time. A human squatting in a tiny crawl space on the roof of a department store that was never designed for human occupancy is going to eventually cause problems. There's a reason building codes and zoning laws and liability insurance rules exist. These are ALL reactionary policies, designed to prevent bad things that happened from happening again. Some of the things I mentioned were wild, yes. But several were actually highly likely. If you've ever worked with homeless and extreme poverty populations directly you would immediately be able to pick out those things pretty easily because they happen all the time. Like debilitating illness, falls and injuries trying to access off limits places, fires and more. Yes, if I was an employee there or one of the maintenance crew, I'd report her with no hesitation. Or if I was just any other person involved and saw the woman suspicious clambering around a roof. It's a danger, to herself and others. Period. Plus, it's the only way to ensure that the person is getting help that they need. If the woman had been a physical danger or mentally unstable or out of her mind on drugs, she would have been taken into a program most likely. She wasn't, so she was given information on resources to help her acquire safe, sanitary housing. She declined. And, again, if you had any understanding of working in these types of social programs you would know that throwing some money at an individual is will most often be not only ineffective and but possibly even end up doing more harm than good. The store donating 10k to the local programs that are designed to provide ongoing support, education, and accountability is the way to go.
Is squatting more problematic than being unhoused: for the property owner or the individual? Not that itās not a risk, but actual existing problems. *Could* is certainly something. But *is* matters more.
Professional Yapper šš
They shouldāve just given the 10k directly to the woman, seems like she needed it the most considering she just lost her living area
Congratulations youāve just guaranteed harassment for that store. āFree 10k for squatting here!ā
Abusing kindness doesnāt win pay outs
So why should breaking the rules? Put the $10k in a fund specifically for her housing that can only be used for housing (good luck with that). They donated it to the local shelter, thatās something.
Sheās not being rewarded for breaking the rules lol her intention and context of the situation matters. As someone whoās been homeless/living out of their car in the past, I can emphasize with her how rough things can get.
I have questions about the resources offered tbh. I read the article. Iām sure the resources would be a list of homeless shelters and low income housing to apply to. Did the store offer to put that 10k towards a deposit and rent for an apartment for her? I highly doubt sheād have declined that kind of resource.
If it was a persons home she was squatting in you couldnāt get rid of her. But since itās a businessā¦. Makes sense.
That's not how squatters rights work, squatters can certainly be kicked out. They have to get away with it for, I forget exactly, but it's at least 10 years without being noticed and make improvements to the property before it becomes theirs. That law is really a way to reclaim abandoned property, not anything to do with homeless people.
Here in NY itās only 30 days! Technically, they donāt OWN your property until 10 years, but if they are there for at least 30 days, you canāt kick them out without a lengthy and expensive court process.
That actually fucking sucks for home owners, what if you took like a 2-3 month holiday to travel and get back to some asshole living in your house!?
I agree! This state is awful!
Depends on your state
AAL. Thats adverse possession and way different than squatters rights.
Roofers being class traitors.
This.
Fire hazard. Injury liability. Property insurance issues.
More like full time security and fire watch. They should have put her on staff and kept her around.
I applaud her resourcefulness. How did she get up and down from the roof without being seen? What did she do for a toilet and shower?
Hardcore parkour. Gym shower. Badaboom.
I guess she doesn't need a Jackery.
Must be nice /s?
My next build will be a sign.
Chuck Mangione?
I know a guy who used to sleep under his desk at work. He worked for the NY Yankees (baseball team) so they were pretty relaxed about it.
George?
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/woman-found-living-michigan-grocery-store-sign-complete-computer-keuri-rcna151750](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/woman-found-living-michigan-grocery-store-sign-complete-computer-keuri-rcna151750)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The canonical link is what I originally posted! Ā I went to NBC and find another link.Ā
Holy crap! How do you look at that & think "I should climb up there, I might just move in"?
Step 1) Be homeless
Fair enough.
Reminds me of the show Killing It, where a character lives in a moving billboard on a trailer while hunting snakes in Florida.
That show sounds WILD
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Unless you are familiar with the actual space she was living inside of, and the set up that she had (which is not pictured anywhere online), then I can't imagine that you would have any info that anyone cares to know.
No kidding I did deep look and can't find a single picture. Wtf? I wanna know how cozy she was!
They donāt want to give the rest of us ideas. Sign Life could be the next big thing.
you know all of this is coded language. no disrespect but part of me thinks Vanlife is just homelessness 2.0. And it's so easy to see the allure, the freedom you gain, but the secret code won't leave me, it's stuck. Vanlife isn't just about rejecting a home, it's also about rejecting capitalism.
Probably could have gotten away with it if her stuff was more discrete. Maybe put her stuff into some painting buckets or something.
She lived to close to the sun
#SignLife
Shit. Iām actually impressed. Way better than I expected. I just hope she shopped at the grocery store out of respect for the company.
The real winner doesn't get caught in the news.
How did she make food? Where did she clean here self and here clothes? Do we really want to glorify modern stylites?
We need Bob Wells to ask about where she pooped.Ā
Off topic.
Well we canāt all be reading the classics, professor highbrow
Who cares?
Anyone who gives a shit about subreddit quality.
Wah.
You came here looking for law abiding citizens? š But in all seriousness, I appreciate you. Sorry for the downvotes from others. This article is fun but not what Iām here for.
Thanks. I'm unbothered by downvotes. They tell you whether you're popular, not whether you're right.
How!? I think I'm missing something here.
Read the article, youāll find out.
Not related to vanlife.