The essence of modern governance

"“We have far too much bureaucracy,” she said. “We don’t have enough self-initiative in our city, so I’m impressed.”

Totally agree
 
A lawsuit just waiting to happen, and - built incorrectly. I know, I've built three sets in the last three weeks.

I'm not anti-regulation per se. But the fact that the city gov. is actually admitting it should be built for about $5k to $10k shows the OBVIOUS problem.
 
I don't think that people should be able to just go and 'build things' on public property. With that said though is that by doing so, he did provide a real life example of how government is not fiscally responsible, nor responsive in a timely manner. I do think that there will be a staircase built, with handrails on both sides and secured into the ground permanently.
 
A lawsuit just waiting to happen, and - built incorrectly. I know, I've built three sets in the last three weeks.

I'm not anti-regulation per se. But the fact that the city gov. is actually admitting it should be built for about $5k to $10k shows the OBVIOUS problem.
That problem isn't fixed by him installing what they must now remove.
 
A lawsuit just waiting to happen, and - built incorrectly. I know, I've built three sets in the last three weeks.

I'm not anti-regulation per se. But the fact that the city gov. is actually admitting it should be built for about $5k to $10k shows the OBVIOUS problem.
That problem isn't fixed by him installing what they must now remove.

Actually, they're talking about modifying/reinforcing it, not removing it. And the problem frankly was fixed. The bureaucracies were exposed. Gov having to pay seven to thirteen times or more than what they do it for at their "standards."
 
A lawsuit just waiting to happen, and - built incorrectly. I know, I've built three sets in the last three weeks.

I'm not anti-regulation per se. But the fact that the city gov. is actually admitting it should be built for about $5k to $10k shows the OBVIOUS problem.
That problem isn't fixed by him installing what they must now remove.

Actually, they're talking about modifying/reinforcing it, not removing it. And the problem frankly was fixed. The bureaucracies were exposed. Gov having to pay seven to thirteen times or more than what they do it for at their "standards."
Their standards are public safety, which we will end up paying the lawsuit for if they just let any moron drop by and start building stairs. And the stairs were built incorrectly by someone with no right to build them in the first place. Like it or not, there is a process. Deal with it, snowflakes.
 
A lawsuit just waiting to happen, and - built incorrectly. I know, I've built three sets in the last three weeks.

I'm not anti-regulation per se. But the fact that the city gov. is actually admitting it should be built for about $5k to $10k shows the OBVIOUS problem.
That problem isn't fixed by him installing what they must now remove.

Actually, they're talking about modifying/reinforcing it, not removing it. And the problem frankly was fixed. The bureaucracies were exposed. Gov having to pay seven to thirteen times or more than what they do it for at their "standards."
Their standards are public safety, which we will end up paying the lawsuit for if they just let any moron drop by and start building stairs. And the stairs were built incorrectly by someone with no right to build them in the first place. Like it or not, there is a process. Deal with it, snowflakes.

That's no excuse for paying 10x more than necessary. And because of the bloated costs, shit like this gets put on the back burner. The city official even admitted that.
 
A lawsuit just waiting to happen, and - built incorrectly. I know, I've built three sets in the last three weeks.

I'm not anti-regulation per se. But the fact that the city gov. is actually admitting it should be built for about $5k to $10k shows the OBVIOUS problem.
That problem isn't fixed by him installing what they must now remove.

Actually, they're talking about modifying/reinforcing it, not removing it. And the problem frankly was fixed. The bureaucracies were exposed. Gov having to pay seven to thirteen times or more than what they do it for at their "standards."
Their standards are public safety, which we will end up paying the lawsuit for if they just let any moron drop by and start building stairs. And the stairs were built incorrectly by someone with no right to build them in the first place. Like it or not, there is a process. Deal with it, snowflakes.

That's no excuse for paying 10x more than necessary. And because of the bloated costs, shit like this gets put on the back burner. The city official even admitted that.
It doesn't matter. There is a process. If you refuse to follow it you should expect to get nailed. We can't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry building bridges just because they think the government is too slow and too expensive. If he wanted to clean up the trash and water the flowers, more power to him. Incorrectly building stairs? I hope you have a good attorney.
 
I'm not anti-regulation per se. But the fact that the city gov. is actually admitting it should be built for about $5k to $10k shows the OBVIOUS problem.
That problem isn't fixed by him installing what they must now remove.

Actually, they're talking about modifying/reinforcing it, not removing it. And the problem frankly was fixed. The bureaucracies were exposed. Gov having to pay seven to thirteen times or more than what they do it for at their "standards."
Their standards are public safety, which we will end up paying the lawsuit for if they just let any moron drop by and start building stairs. And the stairs were built incorrectly by someone with no right to build them in the first place. Like it or not, there is a process. Deal with it, snowflakes.

That's no excuse for paying 10x more than necessary. And because of the bloated costs, shit like this gets put on the back burner. The city official even admitted that.
It doesn't matter. There is a process. If you refuse to follow it you should expect to get nailed. We can't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry building bridges just because they think the government is too slow and too expensive. If he wanted to clean up the trash and water the flowers, more power to him. Incorrectly building stairs? I hope you have a good attorney.

I'm relatively fine with that point; however, when govt. is a cesspool of corruption, that point sort of goes out the window for me.

Also, did you see that the lady broke her hip while the city council sat on their fat asses? They could be sued, anyways.
 
That problem isn't fixed by him installing what they must now remove.

Actually, they're talking about modifying/reinforcing it, not removing it. And the problem frankly was fixed. The bureaucracies were exposed. Gov having to pay seven to thirteen times or more than what they do it for at their "standards."
Their standards are public safety, which we will end up paying the lawsuit for if they just let any moron drop by and start building stairs. And the stairs were built incorrectly by someone with no right to build them in the first place. Like it or not, there is a process. Deal with it, snowflakes.

That's no excuse for paying 10x more than necessary. And because of the bloated costs, shit like this gets put on the back burner. The city official even admitted that.
It doesn't matter. There is a process. If you refuse to follow it you should expect to get nailed. We can't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry building bridges just because they think the government is too slow and too expensive. If he wanted to clean up the trash and water the flowers, more power to him. Incorrectly building stairs? I hope you have a good attorney.

I'm relatively fine with that point; however, when govt. is a cesspool of corruption, that point sort of goes out the window for me.

Also, did you see that the lady broke her hip while the city council sat on their fat asses? They could be sued, anyways.
Effective or ineffective, the point is the same - follow (or change) the process. Do not take the stairs (or law) into your own hands.
 
Actually, they're talking about modifying/reinforcing it, not removing it. And the problem frankly was fixed. The bureaucracies were exposed. Gov having to pay seven to thirteen times or more than what they do it for at their "standards."
Their standards are public safety, which we will end up paying the lawsuit for if they just let any moron drop by and start building stairs. And the stairs were built incorrectly by someone with no right to build them in the first place. Like it or not, there is a process. Deal with it, snowflakes.

That's no excuse for paying 10x more than necessary. And because of the bloated costs, shit like this gets put on the back burner. The city official even admitted that.
It doesn't matter. There is a process. If you refuse to follow it you should expect to get nailed. We can't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry building bridges just because they think the government is too slow and too expensive. If he wanted to clean up the trash and water the flowers, more power to him. Incorrectly building stairs? I hope you have a good attorney.

I'm relatively fine with that point; however, when govt. is a cesspool of corruption, that point sort of goes out the window for me.

Also, did you see that the lady broke her hip while the city council sat on their fat asses? They could be sued, anyways.
Effective or ineffective, the point is the same - follow (or change) the process. Do not take the stairs (or law) into your own hands.

:lmao: You're mad he didn't get big brother's permission to do something nice for people. You're pathetic.

But even if we were to agree on that point, this guy still exposed modern governance for the turd that it is.
 
Their standards are public safety, which we will end up paying the lawsuit for if they just let any moron drop by and start building stairs. And the stairs were built incorrectly by someone with no right to build them in the first place. Like it or not, there is a process. Deal with it, snowflakes.

That's no excuse for paying 10x more than necessary. And because of the bloated costs, shit like this gets put on the back burner. The city official even admitted that.
It doesn't matter. There is a process. If you refuse to follow it you should expect to get nailed. We can't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry building bridges just because they think the government is too slow and too expensive. If he wanted to clean up the trash and water the flowers, more power to him. Incorrectly building stairs? I hope you have a good attorney.

I'm relatively fine with that point; however, when govt. is a cesspool of corruption, that point sort of goes out the window for me.

Also, did you see that the lady broke her hip while the city council sat on their fat asses? They could be sued, anyways.
Effective or ineffective, the point is the same - follow (or change) the process. Do not take the stairs (or law) into your own hands.

:lmao: You're mad he didn't get big brother's permission to do something nice for people. You're pathetic.

But even if we were to agree on that point, this guy still exposed modern governance for the turd that it is.
He chose - poorly. One can feed the birds, if allowed, but one cannot shoot them because they deface the park benches. It doesn't matter what his motives were, he was wrong to do what he did.
 
That's no excuse for paying 10x more than necessary. And because of the bloated costs, shit like this gets put on the back burner. The city official even admitted that.
It doesn't matter. There is a process. If you refuse to follow it you should expect to get nailed. We can't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry building bridges just because they think the government is too slow and too expensive. If he wanted to clean up the trash and water the flowers, more power to him. Incorrectly building stairs? I hope you have a good attorney.

I'm relatively fine with that point; however, when govt. is a cesspool of corruption, that point sort of goes out the window for me.

Also, did you see that the lady broke her hip while the city council sat on their fat asses? They could be sued, anyways.
Effective or ineffective, the point is the same - follow (or change) the process. Do not take the stairs (or law) into your own hands.

:lmao: You're mad he didn't get big brother's permission to do something nice for people. You're pathetic.

But even if we were to agree on that point, this guy still exposed modern governance for the turd that it is.
He chose - poorly. One can feed the birds, if allowed, but one cannot shoot them because they deface the park benches. It doesn't matter what his motives were, he was wrong to do what he did.

I hardly think that building useful structures is comparable to shooting birds. Again, the wrong or right on this is quite debatable; but my main point is that the govt. is exposed as a corrupt, inefficient entity that is unworthy of the people it purports to serve.
 
It doesn't matter. There is a process. If you refuse to follow it you should expect to get nailed. We can't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry building bridges just because they think the government is too slow and too expensive. If he wanted to clean up the trash and water the flowers, more power to him. Incorrectly building stairs? I hope you have a good attorney.

I'm relatively fine with that point; however, when govt. is a cesspool of corruption, that point sort of goes out the window for me.

Also, did you see that the lady broke her hip while the city council sat on their fat asses? They could be sued, anyways.
Effective or ineffective, the point is the same - follow (or change) the process. Do not take the stairs (or law) into your own hands.

:lmao: You're mad he didn't get big brother's permission to do something nice for people. You're pathetic.

But even if we were to agree on that point, this guy still exposed modern governance for the turd that it is.
He chose - poorly. One can feed the birds, if allowed, but one cannot shoot them because they deface the park benches. It doesn't matter what his motives were, he was wrong to do what he did.

I hardly think that building useful structures is comparable to shooting birds. Again, the wrong or right on this is quite debatable; but my main point is that the govt. is exposed as a corrupt, inefficient entity that is unworthy of the people it purports to serve.
Maybe he should have just closed down the park, with armed men, as it was - unsafe?

And there is no debate. He was wrong.
 
I'm relatively fine with that point; however, when govt. is a cesspool of corruption, that point sort of goes out the window for me.

Also, did you see that the lady broke her hip while the city council sat on their fat asses? They could be sued, anyways.
Effective or ineffective, the point is the same - follow (or change) the process. Do not take the stairs (or law) into your own hands.

:lmao: You're mad he didn't get big brother's permission to do something nice for people. You're pathetic.

But even if we were to agree on that point, this guy still exposed modern governance for the turd that it is.
He chose - poorly. One can feed the birds, if allowed, but one cannot shoot them because they deface the park benches. It doesn't matter what his motives were, he was wrong to do what he did.

I hardly think that building useful structures is comparable to shooting birds. Again, the wrong or right on this is quite debatable; but my main point is that the govt. is exposed as a corrupt, inefficient entity that is unworthy of the people it purports to serve.
Maybe he should have just closed down the park, with armed men, as it was - unsafe?

And there is no debate. He was wrong.

Yea, he was wrong like blacks were wrong to not stand on the bus. :lmao:
 
Effective or ineffective, the point is the same - follow (or change) the process. Do not take the stairs (or law) into your own hands.

:lmao: You're mad he didn't get big brother's permission to do something nice for people. You're pathetic.

But even if we were to agree on that point, this guy still exposed modern governance for the turd that it is.
He chose - poorly. One can feed the birds, if allowed, but one cannot shoot them because they deface the park benches. It doesn't matter what his motives were, he was wrong to do what he did.

I hardly think that building useful structures is comparable to shooting birds. Again, the wrong or right on this is quite debatable; but my main point is that the govt. is exposed as a corrupt, inefficient entity that is unworthy of the people it purports to serve.
Maybe he should have just closed down the park, with armed men, as it was - unsafe?

And there is no debate. He was wrong.

Yea, he was wrong like blacks were wrong to not stand on the bus. :lmao:
Sit in the back, and he was wrong like - any other vigilante.
 
:lmao: You're mad he didn't get big brother's permission to do something nice for people. You're pathetic.

But even if we were to agree on that point, this guy still exposed modern governance for the turd that it is.
He chose - poorly. One can feed the birds, if allowed, but one cannot shoot them because they deface the park benches. It doesn't matter what his motives were, he was wrong to do what he did.

I hardly think that building useful structures is comparable to shooting birds. Again, the wrong or right on this is quite debatable; but my main point is that the govt. is exposed as a corrupt, inefficient entity that is unworthy of the people it purports to serve.
Maybe he should have just closed down the park, with armed men, as it was - unsafe?

And there is no debate. He was wrong.

Yea, he was wrong like blacks were wrong to not stand on the bus. :lmao:
Sit in the back, and he was wrong like - any other vigilante.

If he's wrong, I wouldn't want to be right. City ain't going after him cos they know this.
 
He chose - poorly. One can feed the birds, if allowed, but one cannot shoot them because they deface the park benches. It doesn't matter what his motives were, he was wrong to do what he did.

I hardly think that building useful structures is comparable to shooting birds. Again, the wrong or right on this is quite debatable; but my main point is that the govt. is exposed as a corrupt, inefficient entity that is unworthy of the people it purports to serve.
Maybe he should have just closed down the park, with armed men, as it was - unsafe?

And there is no debate. He was wrong.

Yea, he was wrong like blacks were wrong to not stand on the bus. :lmao:
Sit in the back, and he was wrong like - any other vigilante.

If he's wrong, I wouldn't want to be right. City ain't going after him cos they know this.
He was wrong, period. And don't fight city hall unless you are willing to pay up.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top