Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
preservation effort. In other words, the provision merely limits an historic district commission’s jurisdiction over structures (and portions thereof) not in public view. Thus, we conclude that the terms “structure” and “exterior architectural feature” are not to be narrowly construed in the way the newspapers contend. In a similar vein, the newspapers see guidance in some of our other cases defining the term “structure,” citing Williams v. Inspector of Bldgs. of Belmont, 341 Mass. 188 (1960), and Millbury v. Galligon, 371 Mass. 737 (1977). The newspapers draw from these cases that the term “structure” should be read akin to “building,” and therefore should not encompass a newsrack. See Inspector of Bldgs. of Falmouth v. General Outdoor Advertising Co., 264 Mass. 85, 87-89 (1928) . These decisions are inapposite, for they
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the legislature did not intend the state to be bound by local zoning regulations when constructing a communications tower because the legislature neither named the state nor manifested an intention that it be bound by the provisions of the enabling act which granted zoning authority to the city
B. holding that billboard was not structure within meaning of the zoning enabling act g l c 40  25
C. holding that an improved public street is a structure within the meaning of illinois workers compensation law
D. holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983
E. recognizing that philadelphia as a home rule city derives its power generally to govern itself and to enact zoning regulations from the home rule act 53 ps  13101 but that to the extent that provisions of the zoning enabling act 53 ps  14752 are not inconsistent with philadelphias zoning regulations they remain in force
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.