Silver Supporter
- Messages
- 3,262
- Reactions
- 7,015
I think that only covers state or city owned properties. If she had made a move that took private properties away from their owners, or even required that building owners had to foot the bill for letting people live in them for free, there would have been a pretty significant uproar. I have heard that there is a push for that federally as well.I thought Kotex made a decision from on high about converting vacant commercial to housing for the less than sheltered?