• HerbalGamer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    57
    ·
    1 year ago

    “It’s been boarded up about 15 years, and we keep it boarded, covered, grass cut, and the yard is clean. The taxes are paid and everything is up on it,” she said.

    Not really her home then, is it?

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      She paid the taxes on it, just because she’s not using it doesn’t mean it’s not hers.

      • Mouselemming
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It hasn’t been anybody’s home for far too long in a country full of homeless people.

            • foggy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I didnt use either word.

              And no, it’s demolished.

              It was a house.

              I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, but it’s obviously stupid.

              • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Original post says it wasn’t a home, implying it was only a house, not a home. You asked what it was [if not a home]. A different person again said it wasn’t a home since nobody lived there, also implying it was just a house, not a home. Then you said it has been [her home].

                I clarified that there’s a difference between a house and a home, since that is the point the people you replied to twice were trying to make but you didn’t catch. My point, whether it is stupid or not and whether you agree with it or not, wasn’t really all that difficult to comprehend. So if you don’t know what point I’m trying to make, maybe you’re an idiot? I don’t know.

                The big thing we’re trying to say is that there’s a huge difference between coming back from vacation to find your home demolished, with all of your treasured and/or valuable belongings in it and also nowhere to sleep/cook/relax, versus finding an empty husk that was unused for 15 years is now gone. Yes, she owned the former house and is owed significant compensation from the demo company. Maybe there is even significant emotional trauma after her childhood home is destroyed. But that’s still different from what the headline implies.

                • foggy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  14
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Home, house, both paid for possessions?

                  No difference.

                  Your argument is immaterial, and a waste of time. I’m not interested in what you have to say. Should you decide to continue this ridiculous diatribe, I’ll simply block you.

                  Cheers!

        • foggy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          They paid for it and paid to keep it maintained.

          Why is it not theirs?

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The point Nudding is trying to make is that they didn’t live there, it was being passibly maintained, and was their childhood home, but they didn’t live there.

            Still… that’s a pretty callous fuck up, and just to walk away? Yeah. No. People go to jail for less

            • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re arguing semantics on the title. Why? Her property was destroyed. That’s the important part.

              • die444die@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                While it’s still very upsetting to her I’m sure, this has not made her homeless. That’s the difference.

                • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  She’s also not the victim of a lion attack. Neither the title nor the body of the article state she was made homeless.

                  • die444die@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    10
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It says she returned from vacation to find home demolished, but then in the article specifies this is a “family home” that has been boarded up. That is very different than coming home to find your own home demolished. It still sucks but this is a clickbait headline and is right to be called out for it.

                  • Mouselemming
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Considering she no longer has to pay to maintain something that has been useless to her for years, she’s better off in some ways. If she had let someone rent it and live there, this couldn’t have occurred. At some point in the past she decided it was cheaper and easier to board it up, that decision probably took into account the expense of demolishing it. Now that’s been done for her at no cost, she has options. But those facts will be part of the legal case.

              • Nudding@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The title is misleading, Imo. I don’t care if some woman’s abandoned building got accidentally demolished… Like at all.