To me, that’s even less of a reason. They could still see in, she could still see them, I side with the city still. What was the point of moving it except wasting taxpayer money?
How exactly was any tax payer money wasted? the whole exchange cost nothing at all.
And siding with some municipality Karen from the 50s is one hell of a specific hill to die on. lets face it, you are objectively wrong. despite the non existence evidence and records of this event, you are still wrong.
Chances are the municipality did not want to spend the funds (practically costs nothing) to move a sign a few metres, but it mattered a lot to the residents. and when they had to rebuild it, then it would have been free to move. instead they were stubborn and lazy and all it took is a bit of direct action.
To me, that’s even less of a reason. They could still see in, she could still see them, I side with the city still. What was the point of moving it except wasting taxpayer money?
You picked one hell of a weird hill to die on.
How exactly was any tax payer money wasted? the whole exchange cost nothing at all.
And siding with some municipality Karen from the 50s is one hell of a specific hill to die on. lets face it, you are objectively wrong. despite the non existence evidence and records of this event, you are still wrong.
Chances are the municipality did not want to spend the funds (practically costs nothing) to move a sign a few metres, but it mattered a lot to the residents. and when they had to rebuild it, then it would have been free to move. instead they were stubborn and lazy and all it took is a bit of direct action.