ATLANTA, US: A US homeowner is mulling the next step after a company mistakenly demolished a home she owned in southwest Atlanta. Susan Hodgson told the local WAGA-TV station on Friday (Oct 20) that when she returned from vacation she found a pile of rubble in place of what used to be her longtime fam
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.
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.
You’re arguing semantics on the title. Why? Her property was destroyed. That’s the important part.
While it’s still very upsetting to her I’m sure, this has not made her homeless. That’s the difference.
She’s also not the victim of a lion attack. Neither the title nor the body of the article state she was made homeless.
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.
Then email the editor. I didn’t have trouble reading what wasn’t being written.
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.
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.
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.
I just block people like this. It makes Lemmy better 😊.