I don't think you understand the was offered the ~122,000 back in 2000. The only reason she got ~422,000 in 2005-6 was because the appraised value of the land had gone up. The time the property was tied up in the courts is the reason the land rose in value. IIRC the land development board went back to court after she lost at the SCOTUS to try to pay her the original $122,000, and just as an aside I bet the original $122,000 was low to begin with.
Not only that, but once the decision came down, the developer sued all the homeowners for RENT on their own homes back to 2000 when the case commenced.
!!!
The language that properly describes these people would get me banned.