[T.Smith]

"The developers who are getting this property will make $10's of millions, maybe hundred's of millions on the development. They should have been required to negotiate with the property owners through the free market."

That makes me wonder, couldn't she have sold the property with the requirement that she become a partner in the venture? Something along the lines of $400,000 cash for the property and 5% of gross on the development? If the property and eventual development stood to make so much money she could have arranged a deal that made her rich as well. Making a counter offer might also have helped her in court if the developer still attempted to seize the property.

[The Lumster]

That makes me wonder, couldn't she have sold the property with the requirement that she become a partner in the venture?

Sure - that would have been an excellent negotiating strategy. The only problem is the developers wouldn't negotiate. When the homeowners turned down their initial lowball offers the developers went to the city's economic development commission and convinced them to use emminent domain.

The homeowners could not win. They were forced to take the lowball offer from the city which was nowhere near true market value.

[Wormwood]

That makes me wonder, couldn't she have sold the property with the requirement that she become a partner in the venture?

Why should the developer negotiate when it has the State willing to seize property on their behalf?

[antiRepublicrat]

That makes me wonder, couldn't she have sold the property with the requirement that she become a partner in the venture? Something along the lines of $400,000 cash for the property and 5% of gross on the development?

Why should the developers bother giving her a cut when they can just force her off her land for a one-time payment of relative chump change? However, you would have a good idea there in a country where eminent domain isn't abused.