No. It meant that they would then OWN the land on which the fence sat and they could then remove the fence if they wanted to....
It meant the $30,000 would be for the purchase of the strip around the lakeshore. Then they'd be free to do with the fence as they wished. Sheesh! 806 posts and you still haven't figured that one out?
'The speculator, 44-year-old Don Connolly of Valrico, now is offering to sell the land behind each of the homes for $30,000 per homeowner.'
From the article it appears that he is willing to sell them the land down to the water for the $30,000.
No, at the very least, it meant they would purchase the property between them and the lake. I'm tired of debunking this very obvious falsehood of yours. Here, for the third time, from the article:
The speculator, 44-year-old Don Connolly of Valrico, now is offering to sell the land behind each of the homes for $30,000 per homeowner.
From the article.
So be it then. If you want to use someone else's property, come to an agreement (whether free, financial, trade, whatever).
When my neighbor wanted to remove some trees from my property (for whatever reason), I let him - and he was good enough to take out some other trees for me in the process. When he raised the level of a low spot on his land and forced drainage onto my property, he was good enough to raise the corner of my property while he was at it to force the drainage back. In other words, when my neighbor wants to use/modify my property, we come to a mutual agreement - and he takes care of answering my request even before I have to ask.
The lake owner, however, was treated rudely by those who want to use his property...and responded by preventing their continued [ab]use.
Wrong. He explicitly offered to sell the lake to the homeowners for $30K apiece.