The government's lawyer's statement is fair in that interested parties should be named so they can participate. However there are a few major problems:
1) Unfortunately, there isn't a right to a free attorney for a civil case. This should probably be changed IMO.
2) The cities are also suing for damages and attorney costs, which is just scummy when they know their opponents can't afford it.
3) It's not really clear in the article as to why courts would be involved. Is there a legitimate procedural issue, or does the city just not like the opposition?
The government's lawyer's statement is fair in that interested parties should be named so they can participate. However there are a few major problems:
1) Unfortunately, there isn't a right to a free attorney for a civil case. This should probably be changed IMO.
2) The cities are also suing for damages and attorney costs, which is just scummy when they know their opponents can't afford it.
3) It's not really clear in the article as to why courts would be involved. Is there a legitimate procedural issue, or does the city just not like the opposition?