The city shouldn't do things that the people who live in it disprove of. If you can find me a majority of local people who agree with this then I'll buy this an

The city shouldn't do things that the people who live in it disprove of. If you can find me a majority of local people who agree with this then I'll buy this answer. This is a bit different then most other situations though. This is genuinely effective activism that will improve the quality of some people's lives. I don't see what's wrong with this especially if no one is harmed and no one's private property rights have been encroched. From what I understand this was done on public property that was "unattended" until the law was changed to exclude this practice. From this statement: Since the city changed its [unattended property] ordinance, barring me from putting them on public land, I can only go with private land I also see no valid reason to allow the government to damage property that is confiscated without paying them back. That's insane in it's own right.