Did you read the article? She was working with the mayor's office, and even contacted the DOT to obtain licenses. They just refused and ordered them removed anyway, since the law literally doesn't allow for issuing of licenses for this type of product.
oliwarner|7 years ago
Retroactively, after she'd installed at (at least) 28 locations.
I get that some people work like that (better to ask for forgiveness, etc) but that just doesn't fly in bureaucracies. File your applications, then do what you've permission to do.
I do think they could have been a little more generous with scope to try and find a path through (granted we're only hearing half of one side of this) but I could see how this would need a better thought out process, given that this sits somewhere between a life support pod and a toilet.
City planning is tough. You have to have answers to tough questions, ahead of time. Questions like "what happens if the power goes out?" and "how do we clean around it?" and "what are the hazards of fluids leaking out of it?". Charging ahead without getting all parties on side is not a good way to get permission.
parent5446|7 years ago
And as I said before, she thought she had permission. The government was literally funding and endorsing the project. It's just that not the right part of the government was involved, which is the classic example of excessive red tape.