I enjoy and cheer on these guerilla interventions, and appreciate this article touching on some reasons why cities remove them… but i think there’s a fuller case to be told about why they get removed.
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:pchnq7klmm3ejqduuqaqrsd6/post/3mxr4hvwkqs24
Primarily, it’s that public space is owned and operated by the government on behalf of the public. Individuals deciding what changes should be made — even if they’re objectively correct — breaks that.
Everyone else might ask, “well why not my thing?”
Public space is [pollyannish ideal] supposed to be equitable.
Some people are bold enough to make changes to public space, and some are not. Who assumes that power matters.
The article touches on liability. It’s real. Doesn’t mean it’s good or right, but it’s real.
The Tremont intersection kerfuffle was a bit of a warning in that regard.
Back to equity, and idealistic thinking…
A jurisdiction is hopefully working hard at doing its things.
If a guerrila intervention demands attention (either removal or upgrade to permanent) it is jumping the queue (assuming there is one).
None of this makes me happy. It sucks that most places (whether because of weak leaders, lack of resources, or most likely both) can’t adequately resource the basics of runnng a safe system.
And I hate being a killjoy contrarian. Keep doing whatever.