> the city pays them for lost revenue every time they shut a street down for repairs. Right. And that money comes from taxes, right? It’s plausible under the s

> the city pays them for lost revenue every time they shut a street down for repairs. Right. And that money comes from taxes, right? It’s plausible under the scenario you’re describing that fake QR codes could end up costing the city as well; contractor may argue the city is responsible for enforcing & cleaning QR graffiti. (I have no idea whether that’s the case in reality, just imagining ways it’s possible that you are paying for scammers even though you don’t think so.) The regulatory capture sucks, especially if a meter contractor is preventing bikes lanes. The city needs to resist such stipulations, but I realize this kind of shit happens all the time. I wonder why the contractor would have such leverage; I would think the city’s in the stronger position. I agree with you, I wish the money were going directly to the city rather than for-profit businesses, especially when those businesses are draining city revenue on a larger scale than some QR hackers.