• 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.

                • die444die@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How dare we discuss an article here, on a site dedicated to discussing articles?!

                  How bout you stop telling people what you think they’re allowed to comment on.

            • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
              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.

              • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                You have no idea what the real estate market is in that area and it’s not for you to decide if she’s better off without that property. Fuck off.

                I’d fucking tell the company to put all the old lumber back in place.

        • 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.