[Prudence]

What the hell do they put in the water in that city? So, we're going to charge you rent, and at the current market rate, but we're going to take your land in exchange for the price it was 5 years ago. (And you just know that if land values had dropped significantly in 5 years, they'd be fighting to pay the contemporary value.)

And the sad thing is the city would probably win. That's how the city's laws were written. Unless the homeowners' attorney does have documentation that the city did agree to forgo rents.

Still, at some point you'd think they'd have some humanity! Just because you win your case doesn't mean you have to rub salt in the wounds. I could understand pursuing either rent or the 2000 property values. I might not like it, but to do otherwise could allow homeowners to derail projects by dragging out legislation until property values increase to a point where the porject is no longer feasible. But both? Egads! Take the high road already!

Of course, this could all have been prevented if the SC hadn't made such a bonehead ruling.