fcd6015c   
   XPost: misc.legal, ca.driving, ba.transportation   
   From: marte005@frontier.com   
      
   Liam,   
      
   > I must admit, to you anyway, that my real reason is that   
   > these signs *are* illegally placed.   
      
      You have demonstrated that the stop signs do not follow a set of   
   guidelines. You have not shown that the signs are illegal. Let's not waste   
   time on this.   
      
      
   > Moreso, there have been plenty of changes on those streets   
   > since the 1990s, e.g., Hamilton has had a concrete barrier   
   > emplaced, a traffic light was installed at Llewellyn and   
   > Hamilton, the roads were widenened, turn lanes were added,   
   > etc..   
   >   
   > So, I might have to approach it as that they're no longer   
   > "needed". Do you think that would be a good approach?   
      
      I like this approach. I'd look into how you can demonstrate that they are   
   "no longer needed". So you'll need a traffic study. Find out how to get the   
   city to do this. Find out what is done with this data and how the decision   
   process works. This sort of information is something that the staff of a   
   local elected official will usually help you to get. There are lawyers who   
   specialize in dealing with local government but this will be expensive.   
      Understand that if the data supports the signs, yu won't get them   
   removed, barring serious graft and corruption.   
      
   Good luck,   
   Dave M.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)