Fogey is far too kind. I'd say heartless motherfucking prick.

Have fun collecting douchebag (blood from a stone and all of that...)

If he thinks the city is responsible for dealing with the homeless, why isn't he suing the city?

And he wonders why they shit on his doorstep?

Why do we use *defecate* in such circumstances. While the act is certainly de- fecation from the perspective of the one dropping the load, it's more like simple *fecation* from the perspective of the dumpee. Surely one would be as annoyed had the defecation occurred elsewhere and the feces transported to the doorstep. So it's not really the defecation on one's doorsteps but the fecation of one's doorstep that is the crux of the problem.
I imagine that in some instances the act itself is crucial. The scat bottom probably seeks out specifically being defecated upon. Merely being fecated probably wouldn't cut it. That would be too much like art.

I would LOVE to shit on his doorstep.

he does sound like an ass, but "why doesn’t he just deal with them himself, by helping them out? "
Right. Because if he "got rid of" 4 homeless people by giving them money/help/free housing, it's totally true that no other homeless people would show up the very next day, looking for the very same handout. I'm sure it would be a one-time thing.

If your customers had to walk through poo left on your private property to get to your business, you wouldn't have a problem with that?

Misguided and wrong on suing homeless people? Absolutely. But being upset about crap on your doorstop is perfectly understandable.

You can't honestly think it's ok for someone to shit, spit or sleep in someone in front of someone's business/residence. Homeless or not, the shitters/spitters/sleepers are in the wrong here, not the plaintif.

And you think the proper way to react is to rent them a room? You're all crazy.

And it sounds as if he's made other efforts to get people to act civil or to take advantage of the city services. And I seriously doubt he expects to get any money from these folks. He's trying to make a point.

ari's idea = unintended consequence = moral hazard = rewarding people for spitting and shitting.

seriously, not every homeless person behaves like an insane animal. give some credit.

I'm sure being known as the "art dealer who tried to sue those homeless guys" will do wonders for his business. Why exactly does he think sue = problem solved... does he think these men are worried about their credit scores?

Suck it up art dealer! You're in a big city, hose your sidewalk down in the morning or pay someone else to. It's not like people are homeless purely out of spite for business owners.

I know that a person like that would never actually do anything to help a homeless person out, like rent them an apartment or something. But to sue them is completely ridiculous. He could probably pay them a 40 ounce of malt liquor a day to go sit on the other side of the street (or even better, in front of a competitor) for the rest of their lives and it still wouldn't cost as much as suing them, which seems like a sizeable investment in bad PR.

It is simplistic and naieve to suggest that the only reason they are homeless is because someone won't rent them an apartment. And it is silly to suggest that the art dealer can solve his own problem by becoming a landlord.

And it is irresponsible to suggest that he pay people who likely have a substance abuse problem in malt liquor.

A lawsuit is probably not the best solution, but it is also not the high crime you make it out to be.

You need to examine your perspective. It's way off on this one.