Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg
I just don't understand his argument. He admitted the city told him that he could use the land until they want it back. Now they want it back. Why does he feel entitled to be paid for land he doesn't own?
|
That's not what he said. He said the deal was the city told him he could use the land until they expropriated his property to expand the park. Now the city sold the land, but didn't expropriate him so his argument is he still has rights to use that land.
It sounds like he's more than willing to be bought out for the right price.