you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 79 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Can someone explain how this makes any sense? They were ordered legally to deactivate and remove, unilaterally decide to put them back up and reactivate, the authorities (whomever those are) resort to covering them instead of removing and destroying them because "removing them is illegal"?

What the actual fuck is this?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    My guess (emphasis "guess") is either some contractual bullshit or a result of state law superseding local law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    This is why when my city installed them (with a 3-2 vote from Council) they required them to all be installed in the Right-of-Way, which gives the city more authority to remove them if the contract is terminated (which it likely will be soon).

  • source
  • parent