[taxcontrol]

LOL - Oh I would just LOVE to see the court say to the city... ok, you can keep your rule.

BUT

You have to compensate the builders for the difference between what the low cost housing was sold for, and the current market price (the delta) PLUS a 2% fee to go to offset the cost of the additional paper work.

Oh, and you can not refuse to pay the builder nor can you raise taxes on any home sales without voter approval.

[freedomdefender]

You have to compensate the builders for the difference between what the low cost housing was sold for, and the current market price (the delta) PLUS a 2% fee to go to offset the cost of the additional paper work.

Actually, that would be the proper ruling, it seems to me. Why should the city be allowed to steal from certain business people just because their business is homebuilding? (A real dirty, anti-social business, that)

[freedomdefender]

We need more lawyers and judges who have your kind of common sense.

[CottonBall]

You have to compensate the builders for the difference between what the low cost housing was sold for, and the current market price (the delta) PLUS a 2% fee to go to offset the cost of the additional paper work.

That would be fair. How can any court force a business to intentionally lose money? They'll eventually leave CA and go elsewhere (along with all the milions of others).

[Go_Raiders]

"Oh, and you can not refuse to pay the builder nor can you raise taxes on any home sales without voter approval."

The City should also pay all legal fees for the plaintiffs and all Court costs.