[gentlestrength]

Not ostensibly for development, primarily for recreational open space--just because they could. The family was awarded $17 million by a jury for the tenacres, but they say they don't want the money, bless their hearts.

The husband has been their his whole life, the mother for the last 19 years, and their four kids have been raised there.

[gentlestrength]

I do know which there goes there! Shame on my not previewing! Isn't there an 'edit' feature? Some sites have one which you can use within the first 30 minutes of a post.

[mnehring]

They should take the $17 million, then find some enviro wacko to find some rare bug on the land, preventing any development, then apply as a caretaker of the land, offering to take the job for free and stay on the existing residence.

[discostu]

$17 million for ten acres?! Buy a Steve Miller CD and head out. People shouldn't be so wedded to memories that they miss the big pay day.

[Calpernia]

>>>The family was awarded $17 million by a jury for the ten acres, but they say they don't want the money, bless their hearts.

It is 75 acres. And they aren't getting the new assessed $17 million value. The court retroed it to the 1999 assessed 'condemned' value of 4.3 million which they can't even access now. It is frozen. Plus, the fines will be deducted from that amount for not leaving when the judge wanted them out.

[Political Junkie Too]

primarily for recreational open space

This is a furtherance of the argument years ago that single-family homes were an unfair use of the land, since multi-family apartments could make better use of the space. This seems to be along the lines of "it's not fair for one family to have the value of the open space -- we need to take it so everyone can share it."

-PJ