• Zagorath@aussie.zoneOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Interesting thought. So you think that they don’t expect the decision to be overturned here, but for a judgment to explain why this case requires better consultation but other somewhat less disruptive buildings might not?

    • cloaker@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think they’re hoping for an overturn of the idea entirely, giving them free reign to make their own policies. Meaning when they break it there’s no accountability.

      If they can’t convince the court that they should be allowed to govern freely I think that what you’ve suggested would be their compromise.