It doesn’t matter that they had another lot or what their intentions were on how to develop it.
I figured that was your point. Sort of a “tax the rich” attitude.
I figured that was your point. Sort of a “tax the rich” attitude.
No, you've totally misread my reply. Which was a reply to your question.
Remember what your question was? It was "how do I know" that the Kirlins still have enough land to build on.
I showed you how I know. If you looked at the aerial photo I provided via link (post 75), you'll see it's undeniable that the Kirlins could STILL BUILD ON THEIR PROPERTY, easily. Or sell it. It is undeniably still a desirable property, even with a 33% chunk taken out of the smaller of the two lots.
Which puts the lie to the Kirlins' and the MSM's claims that their property is now rendered "useless" "worthless" "unbuildable" etc etc etc.
Now I don't know about you, but when I catch people lying about a legal case, I start to question their claims about everything else.
It's like the Jena Six case. If you only listened to the screamers and the MSM, you'd have a totally distorted view of what's really going on there. You might think the judge in that case was an evil racist -- when he was only judiciously applying the law.
That's why I suggest people look at the evidence. See the photos as linked from post 75 above.
And read the judge's decision rather than the MSM's hysterical and biased account of the case.
It's getting late here & I have to get up early tomorrow. So goodnight. (To anyone who posts, if I don't reply, that's why.)