
Originally Posted by
cstone
I didn't get past this paragraph:
The regulations are "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences," the judge wrote. "The simple reading of the rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole….the loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the state purpose of the rule."
If this is the standard for determing which regulations are valid an which regulations are not valid, we need to begin filing some law suits.
EDIT: I finished the article and it seems as if the judge was stating that if these same restrictions had been passed by the legislature in Albany, they would have been valid. Having seen what Albany is willing to pass recently, that may happen at some point.