Hacker News Reader

Comment by AdrianB1 | Hacker News Reader

If it is a park, does it mean anyone living in the city has standing because their entire city lost the park?

Hopefully just being a resident of a city doesn’t give you standing to sue over any decision that has a tenuous adverse effect on you. I mean if that holds why shouldn’t visitors who might one day hope to visit the given park have standing to sue?

> just being a resident of a city doesn’t give you standing to sue over any decision that has a tenuous adverse effect on you

Why not? If you are impacted, why not? When do you have a standing then?

Visitors out of town have less standing than the people paying taxes to the town, that is fair, but the city IS the people, each and every person, not an abstract third party that herds them like cattle.

The impact should need to be material and related to some legal right you have, it seems to me. In general you cannot sue to enforce a contract or agreement you are not a party to, even if the outcome of adhering to that contract affects you.

That is the point: as a citizen in a city, you are part of that city and any contract the city is part of. Otherwise, what/who is a city?

In the US, normally, citizens of a city do not have the right to act on behalf of the city. They cannot sue on behalf of the city, they cannot unilaterally attempt to enforce the city’s laws, etc. There are some rare exceptions where cities and states pass laws that create private rights of action when regulations are violated but these are the exception.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com